Chandler
Well-Known Member
Note the plural, jacket*s*. All size 42.
Nice piece of history to see how they were shipped to supply.
Interesting that they printed such variable info as the contract number.
Yeah, I'll ask -- wasn't full, was it?
-
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
Nice piece of history to see how they were shipped to supply.
Interesting that they printed such variable info as the contract number.
Yeah, I'll ask -- wasn't full, was it?
Wz1999
Well-Known Member
Yes, there was an original 55J14 jacket but from a different maker ( L.W Foster 96273 size 40)Note the plural, jacket*s*. All size 42.
Nice piece of history to see how they were shipped to supply.
Interesting that they printed such variable info as the contract number.
Yeah, I'll ask -- wasn't full, was it?
Chandler
Well-Known Member
Well, that's not very "authentic," is it?
Seeing a jacket with the box, you have to wonder how accurate the plurality is on the printed end.
Um, "Train?"
johnwayne
Well-Known Member
Anyone help?
I’ve gone through this thread several times out of general interest as I own two Cagleco G1’s. However, one contract number does not appear anywhere (or maybe I’ve missed it but don’t think so)! I originally bought this from someone here but so long ago I can’t recall other than he sent it from California!! That aside it’s no is 383-48082A - see pic. I was advised some time back it’s a ‘57 but the number being nothing like my 39321A which I believe is a ‘57 too, does leave me wondering??
I’ve gone through this thread several times out of general interest as I own two Cagleco G1’s. However, one contract number does not appear anywhere (or maybe I’ve missed it but don’t think so)! I originally bought this from someone here but so long ago I can’t recall other than he sent it from California!! That aside it’s no is 383-48082A - see pic. I was advised some time back it’s a ‘57 but the number being nothing like my 39321A which I believe is a ‘57 too, does leave me wondering??
Attachments
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
To my knowledge Cagleco only had the G-1 government contract for one year 1957. So with that info they would both have to been made during that one year time period .
You can check the manufacturing dates here
G-1 military flight jacket - Wikipedia
Spitfireace
Well-Known Member
You learn something everyday .. or so I think.
Pilot
Well-Known Member
According to Full Gear; 6 different contracts, dating from 1954-1957, just interrupted by two LW Foster contracts in 1955/56To my knowledge Cagleco only had the G-1 government contract for one year 1957. So with that info they would both have to been made during that one year time period .
You can check the manufacturing dates here
G-1 military flight jacket - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
mulceber
Moderator
Looks like both of @johnwayne's jackets are on Full Gear's list. We should update ours (in fact, there's a couple of things I'd update, if the window for editing hadn't already expired).
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
I agree about updating this thread (Better Fighting Garment). There are some squishy factoids in it and some pretty severe speculation in parts. It would be cool to make it conform to Wikipedia standards which contrary to popular belief are quite high. For instance- you can't use editor's ideas or experience as references (no original research)- which occurs a lot in this thread. Most facts presented would have to have a reference and speculation or original research labeled as such. In general BFG is a beautiful thing superbly illustrated- it would be cool to make it an actual article!
Chandler
Well-Known Member
Hopefully not with pressure from pedantic know-it-alls.
Oh, sorry -- did I post that publicly?
mulceber
Moderator
Some of these errors have been bugging me for a while now. The big one for me was our claim that 55J14s were prone to red rot, when it was just one (maybe two?) contracts that's prone to red rot. But there's been a moment or two as well when a person posted a contract that wasn't in our list.
Chandler
Well-Known Member
@mulceber -- as has often been taught to us (at least in the old days), nobody's perfect.
While that often seems to be a fault these days, I don't think anyone should be raked over the coals for something rather trivial. A suggestion of correction shouldn't sound like a condemnation of incompetence. This thread is a work of passion and it shows.
While that often seems to be a fault these days, I don't think anyone should be raked over the coals for something rather trivial. A suggestion of correction shouldn't sound like a condemnation of incompetence. This thread is a work of passion and it shows.
Last edited:
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
Hopefully not with pressure from pedantic know-it-alls.
Oh, sorry -- did I post that publicly?
It's good to know it all!
And I guess being pedantic about the small details of jackets or calling out false information on a forum dedicated to the small details of and information about jackets isn't necessarily bad. A forum dedicated to discussing the characteristics of jackets made between 1938 and 1968 is going to be pretty nerdy and pedantic. BTW- have you ever edited Wikipedia? It's a thing. Like on this forum you shouldn't get too emotional about it! You seem to have a bit of a dislike for me but I'm OK with it!
YoungMedic
Well-Known Member
Just realized I've been reading and saying Cagleco incorrectly, to myself really. I had thought it was CALEGO
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
Cape Girardeau Leather Company
