Bill Kelso timeline of leather, with a little wear thrown in...

[tjoenn]

The funny thing is that most think that they want as close to an original as possible but in truth this would actually mean a jacket which isn't to the same construction level as the really top tier makers. We have a few original A-2s at the museum here and they are nowhere near the engineering level of something like a GW or an ELC. They all have wonky stitching in places and interestingly enough each one has pockets that are slightly out of alignment, nothing enormous but roughly one side's pocket is around half an inch higher than the one on the other side.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, just pointing out that if we're honest wartime originals manufactured under wartime factory conditions aren't engineered to the same level as something like a GW.

No kidding! Look at the asymmetrical collars on my original cable raincoat. Doesn't bother me a bit of course, but if it was a repro, I probably would've complained....

 

[Smithy]

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about!

That Cable of yours is great BTW.

 

[Pilot]

Maybe another thread should be opened for this debate, but...
Allow me to comment...
....Did not see such things in the original WW2 A-2’ I handled, nor in the several museums I visited.
I have one right next to my home in Seoul...with worn out Aero A-2, but all as it should be all in the right place...still.
Also, no much ( original issued ) distortion seen here...http://www.acmedepot.com/a2jacket/a2detail2.html
However, I am aware that leather changes shape within the years of use and hard wearing, hence distortion is certain in some case....Leather experts might comment here....references also made to some old leather shoes and boots...
I doubt strongly that the Insperctors of USAAC / USAAF would have tolerated too much of a distortion or misplacing of factory new issued “war-wear”.
Nice Cable A-2 BTW...congrats.

 

[Smithy]

....Did not see such things in the original WW2 A-2’ I handled, nor in the several museums I visited.

Sorry but you either have had a very skewed group that you have seen or you're saying this to justify what you want to believe. Original A-2s were not made to the same standard or quality control as a modern top tier repro.

If you take for example a GW it will be better made and engineered than an original jacket, there's just no denying or refuting that fact. Inspectors at the time didn't care if a pocket was a 1/4 inch out or if seam stitching was wonky or wavered, their main priority - as with all combat equipment and clothing - was whether the item could do the job it was intended to do and without breaking/falling apart within a reasonable working timeframe. A-2 jackets were no different. Aesthetic issues which didn't affect function were not a problem with a wartime jacket.

It's simply untrue to say that originals were manufactured to the same degree of finesse and quality as a modern top end repro. That's not just me saying it, it's backed up by the artefacts themselves. I can understand why someone who has spent thousands on a GW or similar want to truly believe that their jacket is EXACTLY the same as the wartime contract it is a reproduction of, but sorry to say, it's going to actually be a better made copy than the wartime original was.

 

[Pilot]

I am sure Andrew and a few others can show you/us A-2 originals, which are not distorn or with any other factory default.
On the other hand you are right, I never saw an original constructed (as bad with so many mismatchings )as my two “black sheep” A-2...both from so called to notchers...
Mabe worth a new thread...Show us your original A-2’ as issued...

 

[silvio76]

Sorry but you either have had a very skewed group that you have seen or you're saying this to justify what you want to believe. Original A-2s were not made to the same standard or quality control as a modern top tier repro.

If you take for example a GW it will be better made and engineered than an original jacket, there's just no denying or refuting that fact. Inspectors at the time didn't care if a pocket was a 1/4 inch out or if seam stitching was wonky or wavered, their main priority - as with all combat equipment and clothing - was whether the item could do the job it was intended to do and without breaking/falling apart within a reasonable working timeframe. A-2 jackets were no different. Aesthetic issues which didn't affect function were not a problem with a wartime jacket.

It's simply untrue to say that originals were manufactured to the same degree of finesse and quality as a modern top end repro. That's not just me saying it, it's backed up by the artefacts themselves. I can understand why someone who has spent thousands on a GW or similar want to truly believe that their jacket is EXACTLY the same as the wartime contract it is a reproduction of, but sorry to say, it's going to actually be a better made copy than the wartime original was.

Agree with you.

 

[Pilot]

Alternatively, we should ask the top notch suppliers to build in failures, so they are more original....

 

[Smithy]

I am sure Andrew and a few others can show you/us A-2 originals, which are not distorn or with any other factory default.

Once again we're talking about problems which do not significantly affect function. A slightly wonky collar or offset pocket won't affect the jacket's ability to function in the way it was intended.

Your steadfastness in thinking that originals were made to the same standards of finesse and quality as a GW when it isn't backed up by the historical articles themselves makes me think that you're actually trying to justify in your head that your repros are precisely the same as the originals they wish to copy. It's a nice idea but not based on reality. Your GW will be better made than the wartime jacket, that's just a fact, be happy with it.

If we cut the bullshit no high end repro is or can be an exact, precise copy of a wartime jacket. The leather is not the same - it's not tanned using the exact same methods and they're not made under wartime factory conditions and the associated need for jackets to be made quickly for airmen going to war. Everybody likes to think the jacket they spent thousands on is the exact facsimile of the original it claims to copy but they're not. At the best, they're very nicely made homages to them.

 

[Pilot]

You convinced me, my next jacket will come from Pakistan or Greece.
Thanks fror enlightening me. ;-)

 

[silvio76]

You convinced me, my next jacket will come from Pakistan or Greece.
Thanks fror enlightening me. ;-)

No need for that. I also think that quality of todays jackets are higher than original. I really doubt that original makers can dedicate enough time for any jacket like todays.

 

[Smithy]

You convinced me, my next jacket will come from Pakistan or Greece.
Thanks fror enlightening me. ;-)

It's got nothing to do with where they're made or who makes them. No A-2 repro is a 100% replica of an original nor will it be. The sooner people realise that then these stupid, "my repro is better than yours" or this misplaced repro snobbery discussions might disappear. They're bloody stupid and flawed from the start.

If you really want a jacket that looks and is exactly like an original, buy an original.

 

[jeremiah]

Smithy. I agree with you aside from the tanning issue. Leather IS certainly tanned in the same three ways as originals would have been. That being veg, chrome or combination (chrome and veg) tanned. I wish people would understand this. Ha. It’s not rocket science. What the animals ate and the condition they were kept does make a big difference on how that leather will look and feel though. Certainly. And one batch of hides tanned can come out slightly different from the next. It’s why no businessman working in leather should ever promise a product based on one batch in terms of quality similarities. It’s just beyond control in some aspects.

Certainly each tannery that had contracts might have had their own method for going about tanning, but certain methods would be similar across the board. But in the end leather is tanned then and now by the same main tanning agents and chrome salts are the same today as is vegetable bark.

I will concede that some tanniers today are using veg bark extracts which are yielding a different feeling leather though. This feel is not as desirable as leather tanned with the actual product rather than a by product.

How a leather is “finished” is certainly different from now and then. But BK must have got something right there with how the pain comes off showing undercoat which I personally love.

 

[tjoenn]

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about!

That Cable of yours is great BTW.

Thanks! Couldn't be happier with it... (well maybe if I got Jimmy Stewart's roughwear....)

 

[Smithy]

How a leather is “finished” is certainly different from now and then.

Thanks Jeremiah, I was hoping that you'd come in and explain the "then" versus "now" leather thing!

 

[tjoenn]

Smithy. I agree with you aside from the tanning issue. Leather IS certainly tanned in the same three ways as originals would have been. That being veg, chrome or combination (chrome and veg) tanned. I wish people would understand this. Ha. It’s not rocket science. What the animals ate and the condition they were kept does make a big difference on how that leather will look and feel though. Certainly. And one batch of hides tanned can come out slightly different from the next. It’s why no businessman working in leather should ever promise a product based on one batch in terms of quality similarities. It’s just beyond control in some aspects.

Certainly each tannery that had contracts might have had their own method for going about tanning, but certain methods would be similar across the board. But in the end leather is tanned then and now by the same main tanning agents and chrome salts are the same today as is vegetable bark.

I will concede that some tanniers today are using veg bark extracts which are yielding a different feeling leather though. This feel is not as desirable as leather tanned with the actual product rather than a by product.

How a leather is “finished” is certainly different from now and then. But BK must have got something right there with how the pain comes off showing undercoat which I personally love.

I have to say that I was a bit dissappointed when I found out that originals were (as far as I understand) chrome tanned, but my Eastman retro was veg tanned, but I got over it quickly... The repro has an amazing leather smell to it, can't explain what my original smell like. Does new, chrome tanned leather smell like veg tanned leather?

 

[jeremiah]

I have smelled chrome tanned leather with a pleasant smell and some with none or a chemical smell.
I don’t know if it’s the dye used or not. I too was disappointed. I know chrome tanned leather has its place and in some regards can be a much nicer and longer lasting leather which is also nearly maintenance free. But something about the natural bark tanning appeals to me more.

But in the end, it makes a lot of sense why they chose chrome tanning for some of the contracts.

 

[Pilot]

To summarize, there is a difference inbetween lookalike or resembling to it... and a fine and as perfect as possible repro...
I favor an as best as possible repro...and I am happy to pay and wait for this best possible repro.
Shoot me for that ( or try... )

 

[Pilot]

To summarize, there is a difference inbetween lookalike or resembling to it... and a fine and as perfect as possible repro...
I favor an as best as possible repro...and I am happy to pay and wait for this best possible repro.
Shoot me for that ( or try... )

 

[Smithy]

I favor an as best as possible repro...and I am happy to pay and wait for this best possible repro.

Fine, but as above your "best possible repro" will be different from an original in terms of construction quality and the exact nature of the leather. It will no doubt look beautiful, just don't confuse it for being an exact replica of an original.

 

[Pilot]

Fine, but as above your "best possible repro" will be different from an original in terms of construction quality and the exact nature of the leather. It will no doubt look beautiful, just don't confuse it for being an exact replica of an original.

Smithy... I agree... again... „best technically possible“ are my words... or „ best detailled replica „and I am happy to „ waste“ ( your opinion I presume) my cash for that. ... No way to take cash with you for your last trip
...so we agree... happy about that...
Just a dumb and stupid request... forgive me please.
You must have a lot of nice jackets , you are an expert, we all aknowledge this.
Please, we would be very honored to see them and the fit if its not too bothering...