Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
Thanks LC. We have been very lucky with the generosity of others willing to share photo’s of their jackets.
-
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.
Discussion: “A Better Fighting Garment…” - A Beginner’s Guide to the US Navy’s WWII-era and later Intermediate Flight Jackets
- Thread starter Lord Flashheart
- Start date
mulceber
Moderator
SUPERSEDED BY 2.0
Hi all, after a relaxing Christmas break, we're ready to continue with this project. So, without further ado...
Part 2 - After the Second World War - Post WW2, the Korean War, and the 1950s.
6. G-1 (55J14) [1947 - 1950]
The 55J14 is the first iteration of what would become the venerable Type G-1 jacket. It had a few prominent manufacturers; namely: Aviators Clothing co. (formerly the well-known AAF contractor, Aero Leather Clothing), L.W. Foster Sportswear, A.Prtizker & Sons, Star Sportswear, Burjac Sportswear (formerly known as Edmund T. Church Co., which had a small M-422A contract), and the (incredibly rare) B-G Inc. While this specification was issued for four years, the seal-brown goatskin of the 55J14 is especially prone to red-rot. As a result, fewer wearable examples of the 55J14 exist today than of the M422A, and the 55J14 may well be the rarest of all the G-1 flight jackets to be found in wearable condition.
Jackets made under the 55J14 specification tended to be shorter than previous specifications and tighter in the gut. They nonetheless retain most of the characteristics of earlier intermediate flight jackets, such as the USN stenciled under the collar. Furthermore, to quote Dave Sheeley, it appears that the 55J14s were the last series of jackets to be made of both vegetable- and chromium-tanned goatskin; the last clear use of veg-tanned goatskin (amongst chrome-tanned goatskin) appeared in the 1950 B-G Inc. contract. The B-G 55J14 is also the last model USN jacket that was constructed using both nylon and cotton thread. We therefore follow Sheeley in characterizing the 55J14 as a transitional flight jacket.
Hi all, after a relaxing Christmas break, we're ready to continue with this project. So, without further ado...
Part 2 - After the Second World War - Post WW2, the Korean War, and the 1950s.
6. G-1 (55J14) [1947 - 1950]
The 55J14 is the first iteration of what would become the venerable Type G-1 jacket. It had a few prominent manufacturers; namely: Aviators Clothing co. (formerly the well-known AAF contractor, Aero Leather Clothing), L.W. Foster Sportswear, A.Prtizker & Sons, Star Sportswear, Burjac Sportswear (formerly known as Edmund T. Church Co., which had a small M-422A contract), and the (incredibly rare) B-G Inc. While this specification was issued for four years, the seal-brown goatskin of the 55J14 is especially prone to red-rot. As a result, fewer wearable examples of the 55J14 exist today than of the M422A, and the 55J14 may well be the rarest of all the G-1 flight jackets to be found in wearable condition.
Jackets made under the 55J14 specification tended to be shorter than previous specifications and tighter in the gut. They nonetheless retain most of the characteristics of earlier intermediate flight jackets, such as the USN stenciled under the collar. Furthermore, to quote Dave Sheeley, it appears that the 55J14s were the last series of jackets to be made of both vegetable- and chromium-tanned goatskin; the last clear use of veg-tanned goatskin (amongst chrome-tanned goatskin) appeared in the 1950 B-G Inc. contract. The B-G 55J14 is also the last model USN jacket that was constructed using both nylon and cotton thread. We therefore follow Sheeley in characterizing the 55J14 as a transitional flight jacket.
Last edited:
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
Guys !
PLEASE! …. PLEASE! …… PLEASE! … Do what ever is necessary to turn the information in this thread into a permanent resource “Sticky” or some other type of permanent resource document. The information here is too valuable to let fade away over time into the VLJ thread archives.
Thank you all for this impressive research and photographs .
MODS …… Please make this happen .
PLEASE! …. PLEASE! …… PLEASE! … Do what ever is necessary to turn the information in this thread into a permanent resource “Sticky” or some other type of permanent resource document. The information here is too valuable to let fade away over time into the VLJ thread archives.
Thank you all for this impressive research and photographs .
MODS …… Please make this happen .
Brettafett
Well-Known Member
Ditto the above. Amazing research and collaboration. Thank you!
Silver Surfer
Well-Known Member
outstanding info, pix, and thread. thanx to all for taking the time to post all of the pix, and data.
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
SUPERSEDED BY 2.0
Continuing the story from Jan ...
7. MIL-J-7823 (AER) [1951 - 1960] “....the specifications were defective…”
The 7823 (AER) is the first iteration of its own series of G-1 jackets, with the first contract of 1951 belonging to Monarch Mfg. Co. Despite subtle differences between different manufacturers, the 7823 (AER) series retained most of the 55J14’s hallmarks, such as the no.5 blackened Conmar zipper. Most noticeably, because the 7823 specification ran from 1951 to 1961 (a 10 year span), there were many formal and informal amendments to the specification over time. An example of an informal amendment is most easily demonstrated by the shape of the pocket flaps as between 7823 (AER)s. Imagine a 1951 Monarch Mfg. (N383s-80667), a 1957 Cagelo Sportswear (N383-39321A), and a 1958 L.W. Foster Sportswear (DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134). Their pocket shapes range from scalloped, to triangular, to rounded (respectively). Minor evolutions like these exist throughout the 7823 (AER) specification. Although perhaps a quirk between manufacturers, it is commonly agreed that pocket flaps (as with many other features) became plainer in design for easier manufacturing as time went on. An example of a formal amendment is demonstrated with L.W. Foster Sportswear’s 7823 (AER) & AMEND #2 of the N383-22356A contract of 1955, where the amendment is clearly stated on the tagging of the jacket. Perhaps another important change of note is the shift from the USN stencil under the collar of jackets to a USN hole stamp on the wind-flap in the mid-late 50s.
An important change with ramifications for how Navy jackets were made came in 1956, when contracting for military garments passed from the Navy to a completely new agency, the Military Clothing and Textile Supply Agency (MCTSA), which served all branches of the military. While bringing under one roof all the contracting for the clothing used by the different branches made a certain amount of sense, the MCTSA lacked the experience and flexibility of the Navy. The approach of the MCTSA became a source of conflict.
The result was L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. the United States, a court decision handed down on January 24, 1969 https://casetext.com/case/lw-foster-sportswear-co-v-united-states-2 concerning two 1958 contracts for about 54,000 jackets.
From 1949 to 1956, L.W. Foster had successfully manufactured approximately 200,000 flying jackets for BuAer under a series of contracts which contained specifications the same as or very similar to the 1958 contracts. L.W. Foster "envisioned no difference" as to what would constitute an acceptable garment under the contracts now being given out by the MCTSA because, although a new procurement agency was involved, the contract was for same jackets which it had previously made for the Navy. At the peak of these contracts the company was delivering nearly 3000 jackets each week although they were delivered late. L.W. Foster sought an adjustment of the contract price to reimburse additional costs which was rejected by MCTSA.
L.W. Foster argued in court that the specification requirements for the type of seams for the joining of the knit to the leather and the rayon lining underneath did not accord with the best practices of the trade, were virtually impossible to perform without causing abrasions and cut leather, which would be scored as defects, and that the operation should be performed by another method. Another problem developed with regard to the method of sewing the pocket flap to the face of the jacket. The company argued that the method prescribed by the specifications was inconsistent with the contract diagram, was "practically impossible" to accomplish and could cause damage to the jacket. On top of this the quality assurance regime revealed scoring as major defects healed scars and healed briar scratches by an Inspector who did not know what these were and with mended knits scored as defects but which did not affect appearance or serviceability. These were not the only issues that led to the lawsuit.
In judgment, the six Judges held “There is no doubt, in the first place, that the specifications were defective. The record clearly reflects instances in which defendant's agents admitted as much. The Government later amended the specifications in question, incorporating many of the changes found necessary in the performance of this contract.” and found that the company knew that it could not produce an acceptable flying jacket under the contract specifications, as written, at the time that it submitted its bid. But it had had five or six previous contracts with the Navy for the same type of jacket, with the same or very similar specifications, and in every case deviations were made and allowed as a matter of course — and had to be made for production to go on. The Judges concluded that the company had acted reasonably in assuming that the formal change from BuAer to MCTSA did not break the working relationship which had already been established.
The circumstances of this lawsuit may well have played a part in the split of Lou and Irvin Foster. Whilst Lou stopped making leather jackets, Irvin nevertheless went on to deliver a number of subsequent 7823 series jackets under Irvin B.Foster & Sons Sportswear Co. We speculate that Irvin may have worked with the Navy to revise the specification and make the design commercially practical. As the government amended the jacket specification after 1960, this would have made the construction more predictable for everyone albeit, from our perspective on VLJ, probably less interesting and varied in detailing. As we'll see from this point forward, the different G-1 contracts become much more uniform in their design and are quite difficult to distinguish without a spec label.
Continuing the story from Jan ...
7. MIL-J-7823 (AER) [1951 - 1960] “....the specifications were defective…”
The 7823 (AER) is the first iteration of its own series of G-1 jackets, with the first contract of 1951 belonging to Monarch Mfg. Co. Despite subtle differences between different manufacturers, the 7823 (AER) series retained most of the 55J14’s hallmarks, such as the no.5 blackened Conmar zipper. Most noticeably, because the 7823 specification ran from 1951 to 1961 (a 10 year span), there were many formal and informal amendments to the specification over time. An example of an informal amendment is most easily demonstrated by the shape of the pocket flaps as between 7823 (AER)s. Imagine a 1951 Monarch Mfg. (N383s-80667), a 1957 Cagelo Sportswear (N383-39321A), and a 1958 L.W. Foster Sportswear (DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134). Their pocket shapes range from scalloped, to triangular, to rounded (respectively). Minor evolutions like these exist throughout the 7823 (AER) specification. Although perhaps a quirk between manufacturers, it is commonly agreed that pocket flaps (as with many other features) became plainer in design for easier manufacturing as time went on. An example of a formal amendment is demonstrated with L.W. Foster Sportswear’s 7823 (AER) & AMEND #2 of the N383-22356A contract of 1955, where the amendment is clearly stated on the tagging of the jacket. Perhaps another important change of note is the shift from the USN stencil under the collar of jackets to a USN hole stamp on the wind-flap in the mid-late 50s.
An important change with ramifications for how Navy jackets were made came in 1956, when contracting for military garments passed from the Navy to a completely new agency, the Military Clothing and Textile Supply Agency (MCTSA), which served all branches of the military. While bringing under one roof all the contracting for the clothing used by the different branches made a certain amount of sense, the MCTSA lacked the experience and flexibility of the Navy. The approach of the MCTSA became a source of conflict.
The result was L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. the United States, a court decision handed down on January 24, 1969 https://casetext.com/case/lw-foster-sportswear-co-v-united-states-2 concerning two 1958 contracts for about 54,000 jackets.
From 1949 to 1956, L.W. Foster had successfully manufactured approximately 200,000 flying jackets for BuAer under a series of contracts which contained specifications the same as or very similar to the 1958 contracts. L.W. Foster "envisioned no difference" as to what would constitute an acceptable garment under the contracts now being given out by the MCTSA because, although a new procurement agency was involved, the contract was for same jackets which it had previously made for the Navy. At the peak of these contracts the company was delivering nearly 3000 jackets each week although they were delivered late. L.W. Foster sought an adjustment of the contract price to reimburse additional costs which was rejected by MCTSA.
L.W. Foster argued in court that the specification requirements for the type of seams for the joining of the knit to the leather and the rayon lining underneath did not accord with the best practices of the trade, were virtually impossible to perform without causing abrasions and cut leather, which would be scored as defects, and that the operation should be performed by another method. Another problem developed with regard to the method of sewing the pocket flap to the face of the jacket. The company argued that the method prescribed by the specifications was inconsistent with the contract diagram, was "practically impossible" to accomplish and could cause damage to the jacket. On top of this the quality assurance regime revealed scoring as major defects healed scars and healed briar scratches by an Inspector who did not know what these were and with mended knits scored as defects but which did not affect appearance or serviceability. These were not the only issues that led to the lawsuit.
In judgment, the six Judges held “There is no doubt, in the first place, that the specifications were defective. The record clearly reflects instances in which defendant's agents admitted as much. The Government later amended the specifications in question, incorporating many of the changes found necessary in the performance of this contract.” and found that the company knew that it could not produce an acceptable flying jacket under the contract specifications, as written, at the time that it submitted its bid. But it had had five or six previous contracts with the Navy for the same type of jacket, with the same or very similar specifications, and in every case deviations were made and allowed as a matter of course — and had to be made for production to go on. The Judges concluded that the company had acted reasonably in assuming that the formal change from BuAer to MCTSA did not break the working relationship which had already been established.
The circumstances of this lawsuit may well have played a part in the split of Lou and Irvin Foster. Whilst Lou stopped making leather jackets, Irvin nevertheless went on to deliver a number of subsequent 7823 series jackets under Irvin B.Foster & Sons Sportswear Co. We speculate that Irvin may have worked with the Navy to revise the specification and make the design commercially practical. As the government amended the jacket specification after 1960, this would have made the construction more predictable for everyone albeit, from our perspective on VLJ, probably less interesting and varied in detailing. As we'll see from this point forward, the different G-1 contracts become much more uniform in their design and are quite difficult to distinguish without a spec label.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
| SPECIFICATION MIL-J-7823(AER) | Contract dates | Comments |
| MONARCH MFG. CO. CONTRACT NO. N383s-80667 | 1951 [Sheeley] / 1952 [roughwear VLJ]? | |
| WERBER SPORTSWEAR, INC. CONTRACT NO.383S-88886 | 1952? | |
| A. PRITZKER & SONS, INC.CONTRACT NO. N383S-319A | 1953 Was omitted on the earlier list [roughwearVLJ] | |
| RALPH EDWARDS SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO. QM.(CTM)-2313 | ||
| L.W.FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO., INC CONTRACT NO.N383s-74471 | ||
| SPECIFICATION MIL-J-7823(AER) & AMEND. #2 L.W. FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO, INC. CONTRACT N383-22356A | 1955 [deeb7 VLJ] | |
| J.A.DUBOW SPORTING GOODS CORP. CONTRACT NO. N383S-4765A | ||
| J.A.DUBOW SPORTING GOODS CORP. CONTRACT NO. N383S-4833A | ||
| CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO N383s-9211A | 1954 [Sheeley] | https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/duplicated-fathers-original-g-1-flight-jacket.20658/ |
| CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO N383s-14722A | ||
| CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO N383-28657A | ||
| CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO N383-39321A | 1957 [ roughwear VLJ] | https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...cket-mil-j-7823-aer-helantisubron-five.26740/ https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...ermediate-flight-jacket-mil-j-7823-aer.26351/ |
| CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONT QM(CTM)-144-O.I.-2515-E-57 | 1957 | |
| L.W. FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO., INC. CONTRACT NO.DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2312 | Contract date 29th April 1958, delivered in 1958 See L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. the United States. January 24, 1969 : | Delivery at peak of nearly 3000 jackets per week. |
| L.W.FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO., INC CONTRACT NO. DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134 | Contract date four weeks after QM(CTM)2312 1958, delivered in 1959 See L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. the United States. January 24, 1969: | Delivery at peak of nearly 3000 jackets per week. https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...e-flight-jacket-mil-j-7823-aer-vma-223.27125/ |
| CALIFORNIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY CONTRACT #QM(CTM)4771-E-60 | 1960 | https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/original-california-sportwear-g-1.25300/ |
| BREIER OF AMSTERDAM, INC. QM(CTM)6837-C-60 | 1960 |
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
CAGLECO SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO N383-39321A MIL-J-7823(AER) courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
A. PRITZKER & SONS, INC.CONTRACT NO. N383S-319A MIL-J-7823(AER) courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
L.W.FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO., INC CONTRACT NO. DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134 MIL-J-7823(AER) courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
SPECIFICATION MIL-J-7823(AER) & AMEND. #2 L.W. FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO, INC. CONTRACT N383-22356A courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
RALPH EDWARDS SPORTSWEAR CONTRACT NO. QM.(CTM)-2313 MIL-J-7823(AER) courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
L.W.FOSTER SPORTSWEAR CO., INC CONTRACT NO. DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134 MIL-J-7823(AER) courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera Apologies for the duplicates !
Last edited by a moderator:
Chandler
Well-Known Member
So I asked @Lord Flashheart if there was a need for some images of the Monarch contract of the 7823 and he said, "Of course." so here are a few snaps of mine. I think I can dig up some better, studio pics of this one if I ask politely, but I'll start with these.
Of interest to this particular jacket is that there's no Navy identifier anywhere; no stencil on the collar at all. It also has that telltale "hooked" hanging loop, so I have to wonder if this one served as a "community" jacket and hung in the ready room a long time.
Also, has anyone provided details of Coast Guard jackets? I thought I remembered hearing they were provided with G-1s -- maybe that explains no Navy I.D. on this one?
Anyway, as promised.
Of interest to this particular jacket is that there's no Navy identifier anywhere; no stencil on the collar at all. It also has that telltale "hooked" hanging loop, so I have to wonder if this one served as a "community" jacket and hung in the ready room a long time.
Also, has anyone provided details of Coast Guard jackets? I thought I remembered hearing they were provided with G-1s -- maybe that explains no Navy I.D. on this one?
Anyway, as promised.
mulceber
Moderator
Great photos, Chandler. In that same vein, we also have this:
BREIER OF AMSTERDAM, INC. QM(CTM)6837-C-60, courtesy of @entertainment
note the idiosyncratic turquoise liner.
BREIER OF AMSTERDAM, INC. QM(CTM)6837-C-60, courtesy of @entertainment
note the idiosyncratic turquoise liner.
Last edited:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
Thank you Chandler and Entertainment for adding those examples to this thread. The Coastguard question isn’t one we’d come across so it’d be interesting to hear from anyone who might know about their jackets. Certainly seems possible that the USN marking wouldn’t be present and perhaps shows another small twist on a contract perhaps?
You‘re not going to mistake that Breier with that liner either!
You‘re not going to mistake that Breier with that liner either!
Last edited:
entertainment
Well-Known Member
The colors of the Breier look pretty accurate on my monitor including the turquoise lining. The pigment finish is quite opaque.
Note the "Amend. #3" text on the label.
Note the "Amend. #3" text on the label.
mulceber
Moderator
SUPERSEDED BY 2.0
Part 3 - The Vietnam War - The 60s and 70s
8. MIL-J-7823A (AER) [1961]
A noticeable difference from the 7823 to the 7823A is the change from a no.5 blackened Conmar main zipper to a no.10 blackened Talon ‘rectangle’ zipper. From the 7823A onwards, all G-1s would continue to use a no.10 zipper for enhanced durability (later specifications would have either a ‘paperclip’ style Scovill or Conmar No.10). Additionally, following from the trend set by late 50s 7823s, all G-1 jackets from the 7823A onwards will bear rounded pocket flaps (a simplification of the previously (but more ornate) scalloped or triangular pocket flaps). As Roger Moore notes, “in 1961, the A… series jacket was introduced and only two manufacturers had contracts: Ralph Edwards Sportswear [previously Cagleco] and Irvin B. Foster.” Moore, as do many collectors, therefore considers the A series to be one of the scarcest of the 7823 series jackets.
Part 3 - The Vietnam War - The 60s and 70s
8. MIL-J-7823A (AER) [1961]
A noticeable difference from the 7823 to the 7823A is the change from a no.5 blackened Conmar main zipper to a no.10 blackened Talon ‘rectangle’ zipper. From the 7823A onwards, all G-1s would continue to use a no.10 zipper for enhanced durability (later specifications would have either a ‘paperclip’ style Scovill or Conmar No.10). Additionally, following from the trend set by late 50s 7823s, all G-1 jackets from the 7823A onwards will bear rounded pocket flaps (a simplification of the previously (but more ornate) scalloped or triangular pocket flaps). As Roger Moore notes, “in 1961, the A… series jacket was introduced and only two manufacturers had contracts: Ralph Edwards Sportswear [previously Cagleco] and Irvin B. Foster.” Moore, as do many collectors, therefore considers the A series to be one of the scarcest of the 7823 series jackets.
Last edited:
mulceber
Moderator
SUPERSEDED BY 2.0
9. MIL-J-7823B (WEP) [1961 - 1963]
From the 7823B onwards, all G-1 flight jackets have a no.10 ‘paperclip’ style zip (blackened for the 7823B and brass for the C onwards). This replaced the rectangular Talon zipper of 7823A. The 7823B is otherwise almost identical to its predecessor.
9. MIL-J-7823B (WEP) [1961 - 1963]
From the 7823B onwards, all G-1 flight jackets have a no.10 ‘paperclip’ style zip (blackened for the 7823B and brass for the C onwards). This replaced the rectangular Talon zipper of 7823A. The 7823B is otherwise almost identical to its predecessor.
Last edited:
Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
SUPERSEDED BY 2.0
10. MIL-J-7823C (WEP) [1964 - 1966]
It's time to turn our attention to the 7823C specification that was introduced in 1964 and lasted till 1966. As Moore notes, “[t]hese are often considered by collectors to be the last of the ‘good’ jackets as they are the last [specification] to universally have the mouton collar…”, goatskin, and single-ply rib-racked knits. The easiest way to identify between a 7823B and a 7823C specification is the zipper. The 7823B has a blackened ‘paperclip’ no.10 zipper whereas from the 7823C specification onwards the ‘paperclip’ no.10 zippers were left in naked brass.
10. MIL-J-7823C (WEP) [1964 - 1966]
It's time to turn our attention to the 7823C specification that was introduced in 1964 and lasted till 1966. As Moore notes, “[t]hese are often considered by collectors to be the last of the ‘good’ jackets as they are the last [specification] to universally have the mouton collar…”, goatskin, and single-ply rib-racked knits. The easiest way to identify between a 7823B and a 7823C specification is the zipper. The 7823B has a blackened ‘paperclip’ no.10 zipper whereas from the 7823C specification onwards the ‘paperclip’ no.10 zippers were left in naked brass.
Last edited by a moderator:
