Improved Eastman RW 1401-P

[stanier]

Another thing to consider when buying an ELC jacket (besides the oddly shaped collar) is the fact that they apparently will no longer do alterations for customers. I recently tried to order a jacket in a 38 short, instead of the 38R offered, and was told shortening sleeve and torso length was no longer an option. That's a deal-breaker for me. Jacket's too expensive not to have it fit right.

Maybe ELC realise that with their inclination to fit the pockets high that on a 38 short jacket they'd be more like breast pockets! :shock:

 

[Jeff M]

Another thing to consider when buying an ELC jacket (besides the oddly shaped collar) is the fact that they apparently will no longer do alterations for customers. I recently tried to order a jacket in a 38 short, instead of the 38R offered, and was told shortening sleeve and torso length was no longer an option. That's a deal-breaker for me. Jacket's too expensive not to have it fit right.

Bummer.
I'm by no means unusual in my torso measurements, but find most "standard" in my "size" a bit uncomfortable to wear.
Can't imagine there are a whole lot of folks out there built like the average airman was built in WW2.

 

[Silver Surfer]

regarding pocket placement, check out greedbay item# 171165079984 perry a-2. guestimate about 1 1/2"-1 3/4" from the waistband seam.

 

[Smithy]

Another thing to consider when buying an ELC jacket (besides the oddly shaped collar) is the fact that they apparently will no longer do alterations for customers. I recently tried to order a jacket in a 38 short, instead of the 38R offered, and was told shortening sleeve and torso length was no longer an option. That's a deal-breaker for me. Jacket's too expensive not to have it fit right.

Yup, that would tip me out of it as well. I was a 42'' extra long (extra inch and a half in body and arms) with my 1940 Pattern Irvin from them, and wouldn't want to not have the long or extra long options out of the picture if I was ordering from them again.

Bad call by ELC if that has become standard practice over there.

 

[chancerider]

Another thing to consider when buying an ELC jacket (besides the oddly shaped collar) is the fact that they apparently will no longer do alterations for customers. I recently tried to order a jacket in a 38 short, instead of the 38R offered, and was told shortening sleeve and torso length was no longer an option. That's a deal-breaker for me. Jacket's too expensive not to have it fit right.

If that is true, it's a flat-out dumb business decision. Who do they think are buying these things? People will want it Right..not "ELC Right". Charge extra for alterations or "Long" sizes if you must...but these jackets are not Model-T Fords.

 

[foster]

It's not very complicated to adjust those patterns for a little more or less length. I can't understand why it would be a discontinued feature, unless they are having problems with the jackets in a second-hand resale market not being marked according to the different lengths? Or perhaps it becomes too confusing to make some of them in the midst of the standard sizes?

 

[Falcon_52]

I think it's just Eastman's business model. Customization costs more and takes longer to produce. Like 3onamatch said though: with these prices, the jacket better fit correctly. I can't argue with that.

Noel

 

[omarco]

I'll be disappointed if that's the case. ELC had it right with the stock sizing and optional extra length, it took some of the risk and guess work out of other made to measure options. It'll be a real shame if they knock it on the head, at 6'1" there will be no more orders from me.

 

[herk115]

Whatever the reason for ELC's placement of pockets on their A2s, they are generally placed further from the waistband than on originals from the same contract. It is apparent even from the comparative picture of the original RW 1401-P next to the repro on the ELC website. Yes you often find anomalies in the alignment of pockets on original jackets and you also find anomalies in the dimensions of the pocket. Having measured the pocket sized on original RWs the sizes are not consistent. The pockets on a tagged size 42 RW 23380, which I recently sold were significantly smaller than those on my three size 44 RWS from other different contracts.

You guys, please forgive me, but when I look at the side-by-side comparison on the ELC website I honestly do not see anything amiss. Both jackets look spot on to me. Am I missing something? If I am, please enlighten me. My own ELC 1401-P's pockets are both 1 1/2 inches above the waistband and they look fine. My GW Bronco's pockets are 1 3/8 inches on the left and 1 1/2 inches on the right. My U.S. Authentic (yes, I actually bought a U.S. Authentic...gasp! ) are both only 1 inch above the waistband. When I lay all three of these jackets flat on the floor and back away any farther than two feet, my eye honestly cannot tell a difference. They all look as an A-2 should. When worn, I can't tell the slightest difference looking in the mirror (though I will now and will forever be self-conscious about it...thanks a lot).

We are talking literally about one or to eighths of an inch here over ELC 1401s and original 1401s. Given that it has been long established that things like variation in pocket height were common within contracts, even in two jackets made side by side, aren't we splitting hairs here? I know that's been said a lot before, and I fully understand that if one is going to cough up over $1000 USD and wait over a year for a jacket it had better fit right, but I think we should define "right" in the first place.

Just to illustrate my point I recently saw a wartime A-2 on display at the Estrella Warbird Museum in Paso Robles, California. It just reeked of hurried wartime production. The workmanship looked sloppy, the hide like a piece of moldy jerky (but that's good, right?), nothing like the spartan examples that come out of GW, ELC, and BK. I think if one placed a tape next to the pockets on that jacket, there would be differences in the height of the two pockets, and maybe they might even be "too high" or "too low" for our standards.

 

[Peter Graham]

Just to illustrate my point I recently saw a wartime A-2 on display at the Estrella Warbird Museum in Paso Robles, California. It just reeked of hurried wartime production. The workmanship looked sloppy, the hide like a piece of moldy jerky (but that's good, right?), nothing like the spartan examples that come out of GW, ELC, and BK. I think if one placed a tape next to the pockets on that jacket, there would be differences in the height of the two pockets, and maybe they might even be "too high" or "too low" for our standards.

Well said that man.

 

[Silver Surfer]

ditto!

 

[Anonymous]

It's not very complicated to adjust those patterns for a little more or less length. I can't understand why it would be a discontinued feature, unless they are having problems with the jackets in a second-hand resale market not being marked according to the different lengths? Or perhaps it becomes too confusing to make some of them in the midst of the standard sizes?

Possibly because the jackets are no longer made in house?
Some Japanese fellas told me they visited ELC a while ago and there was nobody making jackets. They guessed that ELC makes them in Turkey now. I don't know if it's true.

 

[Persimmon]

Just to illustrate my point I recently saw a wartime A-2 on display at the Estrella Warbird Museum in Paso Robles, California. It just reeked of hurried wartime production. The workmanship looked sloppy, the hide like a piece of moldy jerky (but that's good, right?), nothing like the spartan examples that come out of GW, ELC, and BK. I think if one placed a tape next to the pockets on that jacket, there would be differences in the height of the two pockets, and maybe they might even be "too high" or "too low" for our standards.

Well said that man.

Given the money I am paying for repro jackets I would want it to look at its best
And that means for me replicating the contract as good as possible
Perhaps I just want it to be a copy of the best produced accurate most precise original in the contract as if made by the very best of those wartime machinists

 

[Silver Surfer]

perhaps gary, rob, et al were taking tea when the visit was made. pockets can be put lower on elc a-2s. you just have to ask to have it done. no biggie.

 

[flyboy]

What Alan just said!

 

[herk115]

Given the money I am paying for repro jackets I would want it to look at its best
And that means for me replicating the contract as good as possible
Perhaps I just want it to be a copy of the best produced accurate most precise original in the contract as if made by the very best of those wartime machinists

I think what the issue is here is the difference between "desirability" and "accuracy." Yes, by all means, if I'm paying four figures and waiting over a year for a jacket, I would want and expect it to be a perfect copy of the best surviving example of my favorite contract. Absolutely no argument there. This is what I would "desire."

On the other hand, if one wants to go for accuracy, the jacket would have to exhibit the substandard workmanship, materials, incorrect issue of proper size of jacket by the quartermaster, and errors in sizing and positioning of pockets, epaulets, etc., that were present in the frenzied atmosphere of wartime production. This would be more "accurate."

It's simply a choice we all have to make when we order a jacket. There is no right or wrong; it's all about what we are looking for in a jacket.

 

[269sqnhudson]

I don't see a difference in the side-by-side photos on the ELC site. They look the same.

I've had a couple of 44 Long ELC A2s with pockets a bit high but that, I assume, is because they don't necessarily take the extra length into account when placing pockets (maybe their placement is measured from the top?)
The 44 and 46 Regukar ELC A2s I've had have been fine re pocket height. I just measued my 2007 RW 1401 and it's a shade under 1.5 inches.

T