Early Irvin

[rich]

The seller has called it a multi paneled jacket even though it isn't really. Never seen a collar buckle like that before, added later? I hope he doesn't reverse it on a regular basis!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ORIGINAL-IRVIN-FL ... 500wt_1181

 

[Roughwear]

It has seen some action that's for sure. Shame the collar rings are missing.

 

[Jaydee]

I hope he doesn't reverse it on a regular basis!

It totally drives me nuts when I see WWII jackets turned inside out. I cringe everytime. I can see doing it if there is a repair that absolutely has to be done. But to take a photo? They don't deserve to be handling any type of flight gear in my opinion!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The collar buckle doesn't look like an obvious replacement. I'm sure i've seen a picture of one before with a collar buckle, with a prong-type buckle, though. Maybe one of yours Andrew? The original patent drawings, of course, do not have rings or buckles, but snaps.

What's wrong with turning it inside out? Most of the wwii era Irvins i've seen/handled have been sturdy enough to take it. It is, after all, just a jacket.

bk

 

[Roughwear]

The collar buckle doesn't look like an obvious replacement. I'm sure i've seen a picture of one before with a collar buckle, with a prong-type buckle, though. Maybe one of yours Andrew? The original patent drawings, of course, do not have rings or buckles, but snaps.

What's wrong with turning it inside out? Most of the wwii era Irvins i've seen/handled have been sturdy enough to take it. It is, after all, just a jacket.

bk

I beg to differ with you Baron. The collar buckle is most certainly a later addition and the re-stitching is evident if you look closely. Some of the very first ones from 1932 had a conventional buckle but not of this design. This jacket dates from much later in the '30s and I have owned several identical ones all with small collar rings. I guess the seller turned the jacket inside out to show the condition of the fleece, but unless the jacket is particularly robust it is not a sensible thing to do IMO.

 

[rich]

It is, after all, just a jacket.
bk

Egad Sir, surely you jest. Here's a picture, one half of it shows 'just a jacket'......................!!!

 

[TankBuster]

It is, after all, just a jacket.
bk

Egad Sir, surely you jest. Here's a picture, one half of it shows 'just a jacket'......................!!!

Agreed! :lol:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I beg to differ with you Baron. The collar buckle is most certainly a later addition and the re-stitching is evident if you look closely.

You have exceptional eyesight.

Re: inside out. I am in earnest. Sure, the Irvin is prettier than the red thang above (though at least the red one fits the model ), but still, they've undoubtedly been through much worse treatment than being turned outside-in. I'll go so far as to state that since we have no idea that an unlabeled Irvin was even military issue, the memes we often labour under are totally irrelevant. We all love to think that our old Irvins are somehow connected to the RAF, but unless an Irvin bears a label with the "broad arrow" or other labelling confirming it as issued (most don't, IME), how can one be sure "The Few" meme is even appropriate? (yellow hoods excluded) It is undoubted that "Irvin" jackets were being produced and sold to the non-military public before, during, and probably after, WWII. They are, literally, however appealing to the eye and however much we like them, just old clothes.

bk

 

[Peter Graham]

They are, literally, however appealing to the eye and however much we like them, just old clothes.

Much like this, that you rave over.viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5160

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Absolutely! I'm not into (dubious) mental associations; i'm into old clothes. Just because they're old doesn't mean they should be coddled. The white jacket gets worn, just like my Irvins.

Also: that white jacket is extremely rare, and deserving of extra raving. Irvins are not. Though that doesn't stop me raving over Irvins, too.

bk

 

[rich]

Absolutely! I'm not into (dubious) mental associations; i'm into old clothes. Just because they're old doesn't mean they should be coddled. The white jacket gets worn, just like my Irvins.

Also: that white jacket is extremely rare, and deserving of extra raving. Irvins are not. Though that doesn't stop me raving over Irvins, too.

bk

There were something like 110,000 aircrew in Bomber Command, I don't think they were all issued sheepskins, but if you also take into account those issued to Fighter Command, that is going to be an awful lot of jackets. The pre-war civilian flying fraternity could not have touched anything like these numbers. Therefore I'd say it's a good probability that a surviving sheepskin jacket was issued to aircrew. The labels were removed during wartime service for reasons of security (although I can tell you with some confidence that Letchworth, at least, was never visited by the Luftwaffe) The labels are only tacked on as you know, which makes it all the more easy for them to part company with the jacket. And then there were those who after the war simply removed the label because they didn't wish to be seen with Air Force property. It's really not at all surprising that the labels are so often missing, to imply this is so because they were of civilian origin is disingenuous.
If the same jackets had, by some quirk of fate, been issued to London Transport Bus conductors instead, they would not in my view command the same prestige and this is the defining point between 'just a jacket' and Irvins. I'm very conscious of what was at stake in 1939/45 and you could reasonably argue that western democracy, at the very least, has only endured because of the men - and women - who stepped up to the mark and accomplished what they did. So an Irvin jacket for me can never be just a jacket, it's
a emblem, an accessible symbol of what these people did for us and I think that's something that needs to be remembered. Good samples of these jackets are a diminishing resource - probably not helped much by people turning them inside out - so in my view it's respectful and necessary to take care of these things because they are a real and tangible link with those people and as such they have a gravitas far beyond some pedestrian commercial product. I don't care for your rather unlovely assertion that this is all the result of some 'dubious mental association' because we need to remember our history and if we don't look after these things, who will?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, i agree i was a little flippant. My apologies for that. I also agree on the importance of remembrance of the deeds of very courageous, and often unwilling, young men and women. But i wonder where the reasonable end of such an argument is as regards issued clothing. Western democracy was most certainly saved by the people involved, but that would have been the case independent of what they were wearing. Should all the buttons used on uniforms be revered because they were involved?

To my mind, the Irvin has enduring appeal almost solely because of its aesthetics. It is a damn fine looking jacket (unlike many other pieces of issued clothing), and functional to boot. It is well designed to the aesthetic principles of the early 1930s. This functionality, and design, lent the jacket and trousers enduring appeal to motorists, not only aeronauts. Hence the endless stories of motorcyclists picking them up in surplus stores post-war. I suspect they were not picking them up due to the connection to the RAF, but rather because they were fine looking, and well made, jackets.

This same argument holds for A2s. I find it strange that "private purchase" theatre used jackets are held in less regard than issued examples, though they are often much more aesthetically pleasing, and hold just as relevant connection to combat troops. Perhaps my problem stems from my different entry to the vintage jacket world than many members here. I have little interest in militaria other than the pieces that are pleasing to my eye. I suspect this is not the case with most members here, who might have more than a passing interest in, for example, re-enactment. To me they truly are, at root, just jackets. Damn fine looking jackets, but their association with specific arms of the armed forces doesn't really increase their cache for me. Sadly it does increase their price

I hope i haven't offended anyone too deeply, as that is never my intention. I don't know why threads in the eBay section get me going, but they seem to.

bk

 

[rich]

Well put Peter - and no offence taken.

 

[Andrew]

Should all the buttons used on uniforms be revered because they were involved?

Hell yes! They all deserve to be in a Museum and the pocket lint too!

 

[Andrew]

Absolutely! I'm not into (dubious) mental associations; i'm into old clothes. Just because they're old doesn't mean they should be coddled. The white jacket gets worn, just like my Irvins.

Also: that white jacket is extremely rare, and deserving of extra raving. Irvins are not. Though that doesn't stop me raving over Irvins, too.

bk

There were something like 110,000 aircrew in Bomber Command, I don't think they were all issued sheepskins, but if you also take into account those issued to Fighter Command, that is going to be an awful lot of jackets. The pre-war civilian flying fraternity could not have touched anything like these numbers. Therefore I'd say it's a good probability that a surviving sheepskin jacket was issued to aircrew. The labels were removed during wartime service for reasons of security (although I can tell you with some confidence that Letchworth, at least, was never visited by the Luftwaffe) The labels are only tacked on as you know, which makes it all the more easy for them to part company with the jacket. And then there were those who after the war simply removed the label because they didn't wish to be seen with Air Force property. It's really not at all surprising that the labels are so often missing, to imply this is so because they were of civilian origin is disingenuous.
If the same jackets had, by some quirk of fate, been issued to London Transport Bus conductors instead, they would not in my view command the same prestige and this is the defining point between 'just a jacket' and Irvins. I'm very conscious of what was at stake in 1939/45 and you could reasonably argue that western democracy, at the very least, has only endured because of the men - and women - who stepped up to the mark and accomplished what they did. So an Irvin jacket for me can never be just a jacket, it's
a emblem, an accessible symbol of what these people did for us and I think that's something that needs to be remembered. Good samples of these jackets are a diminishing resource - probably not helped much by people turning them inside out - so in my view it's respectful and necessary to take care of these things because they are a real and tangible link with those people and as such they have a gravitas far beyond some pedestrian commercial product. I don't care for your rather unlovely assertion that this is all the result of some 'dubious mental association' because we need to remember our history and if we don't look after these things, who will?

Rich for PM, bloody well said Mate!

 

[Roughwear]

Spot on Rich. I had no idea Irvins could create this sort of controversy!

If one is objective about issued or non issued Irvins then as the Baron says Irvins with military contract labels and CC ones were almost certainly issued. I would add to this electrically wired Irvins which were issued to bomber crew and were most unlikely to be bought until after the war by civilian pilots.

As Rich quite rightly observes many Irvins without labels would have been issued, but of course there is no way of being certain unless there is clear provenance accompanying the jacket. i.e. it was issued to a specific RAF pilot or RAF aircrewman before or during the War. Irvin Air Chute advertised their Irvin suits to non RAF personnel from 1937 onwards if one uses the evidence of surviving adverts and therefore this particular jacket may have been either an RAF issued item of a private purchase.

 

[Roughwear]

The jacket which started this interesting thread off sold for £510-a fair price for a mid 30s Irvin.

 

[Roughwear]

This early Irvin turned out to be very rare indeed. It is an early example of the work of Wareings and may be from their 1935 contract, their first with the AM. All the '30s Irvins I have seen by this maker were finished in seal rather than the russet of this one. Without a contract label there is no way of knowing precisely when it was made but 1935-7 would not be wildly out.

The collar buckle is indeed a later replacement, as is the post War brass Lightning main zip. The sleeve zips are the rare nickle un-marked DOT double trunnion variety, which were first used in the mid '30s. I will instal a correct DOT main zip and have already fitted collar rings and mended the elastic strap. All in all its a decent wearable original which will benefit from a light coat of Pecards.

 

[rich]

The jacket which started this interesting thread off sold for £510-a fair price for a mid 30s Irvin.

A-ha, so that was just a roundabout way of saying 'I bought it for £510............'

Nice addition Andrew, I found the marks on the fleece curious - is it just dust as the seller stated? Looking forward to the pics!

 

[m444uk]

To my mind, the Irvin has enduring appeal almost solely because of its aesthetics. It is a damn fine looking jacket (unlike many other pieces of issued clothing), and functional to boot. It is well designed to the aesthetic principles of the early 1930s. This functionality, and design, lent the jacket and trousers enduring appeal to motorists, not only aeronauts. Hence the endless stories of motorcyclists picking them up in surplus stores post-war. I suspect they were not picking them up due to the connection to the RAF, but rather because they were fine looking, and well made, jackets.

bk

This 1957 film gives a clue to the fate of much service clothing in the post war period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8qFD2s0Fwg

RAF and Coastal command jackets, Navy sweaters, Army leather jerkins and much else besides
are worn to death as cheap work-ware.

( a piece of trivia... I estimate 3 actors in this film have Bond connections soon after this film was made.
Stanley Baker and Patrick Mcgoohan turned the role down and Sean Connery reluctantly accepted the role
as James Bond as the producers third or fourth choice)