-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Combat clone no4
- Thread starter stevetfire
- Start date
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
Roughwear said:
The ageing has been done well but some of us like do do this ourselves through natural wear. I wouldn't dream of buying a pre aged jacket but each to their own.
Marv
Well-Known Member
Roughwear said:
Andrew, from what I have seen from the photos, there wear spots seems to correspond to where you would expect to see aging but it just looks too harsh and dry.
I would have expected wear areas to look a little more subtle with a softer appearance as the natural oils in the leather showing through over time period aging is supposed to represent.
Maybe it would be good to see a combat clone A2 after say six months of natural wear and see how the overall aging looks then.
ausreenactor
Well-Known Member
I would only go for the enhanced look if a maker could put it on and enter and exit a P-51 or P-47 cockpit no less than 100 times over a six month period. Ensuring that the outer sleeves rubbed on original fitment items only. That is the only way to replicate war time wear! Perhaps put on the correct parachute as well.
Anything done in the workshop is just someone with access to a jacket, outside of aircrew issue, who is trying to add some 'cred'... Akin to slipping a wing on the dress uniform for the Dance.
Anything done in the workshop is just someone with access to a jacket, outside of aircrew issue, who is trying to add some 'cred'... Akin to slipping a wing on the dress uniform for the Dance.
foster
Well-Known Member
The issue of wear is so subjective, and can be a pitfall depending on the customer.
For generic effect, the Combat Clone treatment is a good start. It is still a shortcut, but has the same appeal as the pre-washed, faded, distressed denim jeans are often offered with. ELC has their "Time-Worn" treatment, and GW has the "Combat Clone". It has appeal for some, and for some it is not desired. That's why it is an option, which I think is evidence of the jacket makers trying to bring some value-added option to some of their customers.
But since it is a historical garment, used in various aircraft and situations, the wear characteristics could vary based on the individual and the aircraft (not to mention those who were working in the control tower and not in an aircraft). The chute, the Mae West, the cockpit, the desk chair or briefing room chair back, the control tower railing, and the way the original wearer would interact with these are all factors. People have subtle nuances as part of their personality, one person is more likely to lean on his left side, another rests his back against a wall, someone else leans with his shoulder. It is all going to change the wear of the jacket, adding some of the character of the person inside the jacket. Some of us prefer to do this ourselves, but others may not keep the jacket long enough to achieve the desired effect.
For ages I have been one who hasn't wanted to have anything scuff or scrape my A2's. I am changing in that regard, though I still have my quirks. I don't mind a scuff or scrape now, provided the object contacted is from before 1945 (my car has to be exempted, out of practicality). :lol:
For generic effect, the Combat Clone treatment is a good start. It is still a shortcut, but has the same appeal as the pre-washed, faded, distressed denim jeans are often offered with. ELC has their "Time-Worn" treatment, and GW has the "Combat Clone". It has appeal for some, and for some it is not desired. That's why it is an option, which I think is evidence of the jacket makers trying to bring some value-added option to some of their customers.
But since it is a historical garment, used in various aircraft and situations, the wear characteristics could vary based on the individual and the aircraft (not to mention those who were working in the control tower and not in an aircraft). The chute, the Mae West, the cockpit, the desk chair or briefing room chair back, the control tower railing, and the way the original wearer would interact with these are all factors. People have subtle nuances as part of their personality, one person is more likely to lean on his left side, another rests his back against a wall, someone else leans with his shoulder. It is all going to change the wear of the jacket, adding some of the character of the person inside the jacket. Some of us prefer to do this ourselves, but others may not keep the jacket long enough to achieve the desired effect.
For ages I have been one who hasn't wanted to have anything scuff or scrape my A2's. I am changing in that regard, though I still have my quirks. I don't mind a scuff or scrape now, provided the object contacted is from before 1945 (my car has to be exempted, out of practicality). :lol:
Well said and my feelings as well. Few of the jackets we have collected with "the look" saw like treatment, like elements, nor like storage since.
I have attempted to wear the ELC Star I have during my flight training(starting with almost 40 hrs of tail wheel - to do it the way "they did"), pre-flights, maintenance, building/rebuilding, etc. I have done most all car/moto maintenance in it and basically used it in the place of anything else I would normally have chosen to wear never hesitating to slide under a car or plane - just to show no preference to it. I didn't grab a work jacket, I grabbed the A-2. It's actually a fondness/hate relationship. I want to make it great but have no reason to like the thing otherwise. Had I done this with a GW it would look much more the part by now.
That said, I suspect "the look" happens so gradually that one day it's just there and maybe only noticed by others while we think it has a long way to go.
Dave
I have attempted to wear the ELC Star I have during my flight training(starting with almost 40 hrs of tail wheel - to do it the way "they did"), pre-flights, maintenance, building/rebuilding, etc. I have done most all car/moto maintenance in it and basically used it in the place of anything else I would normally have chosen to wear never hesitating to slide under a car or plane - just to show no preference to it. I didn't grab a work jacket, I grabbed the A-2. It's actually a fondness/hate relationship. I want to make it great but have no reason to like the thing otherwise. Had I done this with a GW it would look much more the part by now.
That said, I suspect "the look" happens so gradually that one day it's just there and maybe only noticed by others while we think it has a long way to go.
Dave
ausreenactor
Well-Known Member
foster said:
'Wear' it.. What a novel concept...
bretron
Member
To me it's the equivalent of buying pre distressed (rather than raw) denim jeans. Fades are to jeans what patina is to leather. My preference is to earn them stripes thee old fashioned way. That said, it means you pretty much need to shelf all but one and commit to constant wear. Clearly everyone on this forum has a bit of a jacket fetish, so developing the right patina on a leather jacket is a near impossibility. So for that reason, I see the justification of the combat clone.
Marv
Well-Known Member
Out of all of the Combat Clone A2s John has produced so far, I think this one is the most authentic looking in my opinion and I do rather like it.
http://www.goodwearleather.com/photos/Combat_Clone_No2/
http://www.goodwearleather.com/photos/Combat_Clone_No2/
buzzthetower
Administrator
Gents,
All the posts are good feedback. One reason I've started the combat clone series is that I love how originals look - imperfect sewing, uneven balance of collar and pockets, yet from a distance, all looks good. I've always wanted to start this operation, and finally got to it. I know that only a few will want this kind of treatment to their jacket, and would only be happy if someone eagerly wanted the treatment.
Fact: most tanneries, and I really mean 99% of those open today will fight your desire to get leather that shows *any* aging. Their goal is to make leather that will look as perfect as it can, as long as possible. History has proven that leather showing show aging with use, especially if it happens fast rather than slowly, is a ticket for complaints and demands of a refund. The backlash is that tanneries don't like to make leather that will age with use (to the degree of WWII leather).
On the other hand, the environment of the 1940s was such that tanneries were making huge lots of leather for both civilian and military garments, and the winners of government contracts were the lowest bidders, with the best record. Some did a solid job with finishing, and some did a pretty poor job with finishing, by today's standards. There were many original jackets for which the finish would show wear, and even slowly look more and more like tan, the base color of the leather, even within a year.
The leather that I purchase will not age like most leather in WWII. If you wear a jacket every day, whether that be horsehide or goatskin, it ain't gonna look like the same jacket made during WWII, even if used under identical conditions.
The jacket below is a great example of what a cheap finish looks like after a few years of wear. This jacket was most likely worn in WWII, and afterward, but a jacket made with Shinki horsehide would never look like this with the same use...
http://www.goodwearleather.com/original_dubow_40/Image_01.jpg
The parts of this Dubow that cannot be seen, that were never exposed to the elements, to friction, and to sunlight, are literally a dark russet color, with shine. Not light russet, not tan, not russet, but dark russet. That finish was obliterated by constant use. It was a cheap finish on cheap leather, and the two parted ways with years of wear.
The Dubow is an extreme example, but this is what happened to the leather of WWII, which is not the leather of today. So, if you want a reproduction to look like a WWII jacket, you're going to have to put some effort into it. Oddly enough, a customer sent back a jacket as a sizing guide, and he is a pilot. He wears this Monarch every weekend, when he flies a PT-17 Stearman for customers. Note how the wear is close to the Cooper, though not as extreme. This Shinki leather, which I ask the tannery not to press flat, will show some wear, but not quite like WWII leather in how much of the finish comes off. This jacket is over a year old, and is worn just as WWII crews would wear a jacket. I think they're quite similar, but the Cooper has a little bit more finish wear. Do they look radically different in wear? No.
http://www.goodwearleather.com/monarch_cooper/
As for the leather, there are no dried out places. The sprayed on finish is sanded, or worn down, but the leather isn't dried out, messed up, or in any way damaged by the treatment. It's just as robust and solid as when new. There's a huge difference between the finish sitting on the top of leather, and the leather. You can dry out leather (with tremendous heat), but making some of the finish wear down doesn't do anything of any consequence to the base leather.
Also, the manner of tanning has no different impact on the way the finish wears. It can be veg-tanned or chrome tanned, but the manner of finishing is a separate item in itself, compared with the tanning method. Base color also has nothing to do with the tanning, but with the finishing process.
All originals are imperfect - you will never find an original with perfect sewing, perfect epaulets, collars, pockets, knits, and so on. All are done in a factory with human imperfection. So, the ultimate copy of a WWII A-2 is an imperfect one. To me, the stitching being non-perfect is more important than the aging of the leather finish. That alone makes a reproduction look just like a WWII jacket, even with no aging.
Speaking of knits, that one year old Monarch that has leather surface wear also has knits that look just like they did when new. No signs of holes, stretching, or other problems, so having solid knits on a Combat Clone isn't a stretch of history. Holes and pulls certainly did happen, but within the first several years of a WWII jacket, it could have solid knits.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming!
John
All the posts are good feedback. One reason I've started the combat clone series is that I love how originals look - imperfect sewing, uneven balance of collar and pockets, yet from a distance, all looks good. I've always wanted to start this operation, and finally got to it. I know that only a few will want this kind of treatment to their jacket, and would only be happy if someone eagerly wanted the treatment.
Fact: most tanneries, and I really mean 99% of those open today will fight your desire to get leather that shows *any* aging. Their goal is to make leather that will look as perfect as it can, as long as possible. History has proven that leather showing show aging with use, especially if it happens fast rather than slowly, is a ticket for complaints and demands of a refund. The backlash is that tanneries don't like to make leather that will age with use (to the degree of WWII leather).
On the other hand, the environment of the 1940s was such that tanneries were making huge lots of leather for both civilian and military garments, and the winners of government contracts were the lowest bidders, with the best record. Some did a solid job with finishing, and some did a pretty poor job with finishing, by today's standards. There were many original jackets for which the finish would show wear, and even slowly look more and more like tan, the base color of the leather, even within a year.
The leather that I purchase will not age like most leather in WWII. If you wear a jacket every day, whether that be horsehide or goatskin, it ain't gonna look like the same jacket made during WWII, even if used under identical conditions.
The jacket below is a great example of what a cheap finish looks like after a few years of wear. This jacket was most likely worn in WWII, and afterward, but a jacket made with Shinki horsehide would never look like this with the same use...
http://www.goodwearleather.com/original_dubow_40/Image_01.jpg
The parts of this Dubow that cannot be seen, that were never exposed to the elements, to friction, and to sunlight, are literally a dark russet color, with shine. Not light russet, not tan, not russet, but dark russet. That finish was obliterated by constant use. It was a cheap finish on cheap leather, and the two parted ways with years of wear.
The Dubow is an extreme example, but this is what happened to the leather of WWII, which is not the leather of today. So, if you want a reproduction to look like a WWII jacket, you're going to have to put some effort into it. Oddly enough, a customer sent back a jacket as a sizing guide, and he is a pilot. He wears this Monarch every weekend, when he flies a PT-17 Stearman for customers. Note how the wear is close to the Cooper, though not as extreme. This Shinki leather, which I ask the tannery not to press flat, will show some wear, but not quite like WWII leather in how much of the finish comes off. This jacket is over a year old, and is worn just as WWII crews would wear a jacket. I think they're quite similar, but the Cooper has a little bit more finish wear. Do they look radically different in wear? No.
http://www.goodwearleather.com/monarch_cooper/
As for the leather, there are no dried out places. The sprayed on finish is sanded, or worn down, but the leather isn't dried out, messed up, or in any way damaged by the treatment. It's just as robust and solid as when new. There's a huge difference between the finish sitting on the top of leather, and the leather. You can dry out leather (with tremendous heat), but making some of the finish wear down doesn't do anything of any consequence to the base leather.
Also, the manner of tanning has no different impact on the way the finish wears. It can be veg-tanned or chrome tanned, but the manner of finishing is a separate item in itself, compared with the tanning method. Base color also has nothing to do with the tanning, but with the finishing process.
All originals are imperfect - you will never find an original with perfect sewing, perfect epaulets, collars, pockets, knits, and so on. All are done in a factory with human imperfection. So, the ultimate copy of a WWII A-2 is an imperfect one. To me, the stitching being non-perfect is more important than the aging of the leather finish. That alone makes a reproduction look just like a WWII jacket, even with no aging.
Speaking of knits, that one year old Monarch that has leather surface wear also has knits that look just like they did when new. No signs of holes, stretching, or other problems, so having solid knits on a Combat Clone isn't a stretch of history. Holes and pulls certainly did happen, but within the first several years of a WWII jacket, it could have solid knits.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming!
John
foster
Well-Known Member
Might I suggest two options (and perhaps a different name for one of them)?
"Combat Clone" refers, at this time, to both a construction issue as well as a surface treatment after construction.
I think the name, "Combat Clone" is an excellent name pertaining to the weathering of the jacket.
But some of us, myself one of them, are interested more in the construction being more authentic (imperfect stitching, etc) and that is an option I do think has merit on its own. Perhaps that, separate from the combat clone treatment, could be called something that emphasizes the wartime economization where items passed inspection and acceptance. "Combat Serviceable" or "C.S." was used by the QMC during the war, though it's not a good match and the wording would get confusing when compared to Combat Clone (I still have to read and re-read horsehide or steer hide to really catch which is which in typed text). And this method of production doesn't have to equate to "combat" since not all A2 jackets ended up in the skies over enemy territory. Some served in "Chairborne" roles by those at the air bases or in the airfield control towers but those guys still served and some were privileged to wear the A2.
Or perhaps "A.P.", not for armor piercing, but for austerity production. But that is more of a British term than an American one, so perhaps not.
I like the idea of 'perfect' flaws in a jacket. Perfection via historically correct imperfection. It's a fun concept after the initial migraine (mental adjustment) effect wears off.
"Combat Clone" refers, at this time, to both a construction issue as well as a surface treatment after construction.
I think the name, "Combat Clone" is an excellent name pertaining to the weathering of the jacket.
But some of us, myself one of them, are interested more in the construction being more authentic (imperfect stitching, etc) and that is an option I do think has merit on its own. Perhaps that, separate from the combat clone treatment, could be called something that emphasizes the wartime economization where items passed inspection and acceptance. "Combat Serviceable" or "C.S." was used by the QMC during the war, though it's not a good match and the wording would get confusing when compared to Combat Clone (I still have to read and re-read horsehide or steer hide to really catch which is which in typed text). And this method of production doesn't have to equate to "combat" since not all A2 jackets ended up in the skies over enemy territory. Some served in "Chairborne" roles by those at the air bases or in the airfield control towers but those guys still served and some were privileged to wear the A2.
Or perhaps "A.P.", not for armor piercing, but for austerity production. But that is more of a British term than an American one, so perhaps not.
I like the idea of 'perfect' flaws in a jacket. Perfection via historically correct imperfection. It's a fun concept after the initial migraine (mental adjustment) effect wears off.
Personally, I think the more choices we as consumers get offered is a good thing. Especially when offered by a craftsman like John. I like the look of this Cooper quite a bit and think it's an excellent way that someone like myself, who will probably never be able to own an original, can get a very well made facsimile. I've shown the GW Dubow I own in another thread and that has been worn hard by me for nearly 2 years and previous owners before that. It definitely looks better for it but not quite like an original. As John says, the leather is just 'too good'.
As for the knits, if you have the Eastman book, take a look at the Cooper in there. 100% original and apart from the odd hole the knits are very new looking. This is true for others in there too.
As for the knits, if you have the Eastman book, take a look at the Cooper in there. 100% original and apart from the odd hole the knits are very new looking. This is true for others in there too.
ausreenactor
Well-Known Member
foster said:
H.P - Hastened Production. (High Performer?)
2BM2K
Well-Known Member
John, good info, thanks.
My interest is in authentic construction, including imperfections, as opposed to wear.
I have a Goodwear Dubow (horsehide LHA101, 1.323kg) and an original Dubow (cowhide, 1.296kg).
The leather feels the same to touch and feels the same to wear.
The Goodwear is even developing folds which are similar to the original.
There is a lot of useful information in the Eastman book about the leather. I guess what is needed is a tanner who is enthusiastic about A2 jackets.
Aerial star appear to be using leather which is similar to the specifications; http://aerialstar.com/leather.htm
My interest is in authentic construction, including imperfections, as opposed to wear.
I have a Goodwear Dubow (horsehide LHA101, 1.323kg) and an original Dubow (cowhide, 1.296kg).
The leather feels the same to touch and feels the same to wear.
The Goodwear is even developing folds which are similar to the original.
There is a lot of useful information in the Eastman book about the leather. I guess what is needed is a tanner who is enthusiastic about A2 jackets.
Aerial star appear to be using leather which is similar to the specifications; http://aerialstar.com/leather.htm
