mulceber
Moderator
What details stand out to you as second half of the ‘30s?
-
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.
missing link?
- Thread starter Silver Surfer
- Start date
What details stand out to you as second half of the ‘30s?
Technonut2112
Well-Known Member
Nice jacket! It was common practice to remove government property labels from jackets when taken home from service. Perhaps that may have happened, then someone hand-stitched another label which had 'A-2' and other contract nomenclature on it which looked 'official' to possibly inflate the jacket's value. The zipper obviously makes it pre-war. It's just a matter of nailing-down the maker. There doesn't look to be any other stitch holes that I can see around the label, so it could of originally had one at least that size or smaller on it.. I wonder if there are any stitch holes under the label? Did any known pre-war contracts have any that size or smaller?
Last edited:
Skyhawk
Well-Known Member
1. Wider, single top stitched epaulets placed in front of the shoulder seam
2. 1/16" single top stitched line at the waist and cuffs
3. Mid 1930's Riveted Talon Hookless Zipper
4. Snaps inside the collar and pocket flaps
2BM2K
Well-Known Member
The single line of stitching on the epaulettes suggests a build date of 1934 or earlier.
The double stitched pockets and flaps are unusual, only the Goldsmith and the much later V505 have these.
The doctered label is odd but everything else about it looks to be in line with it being an official contract A2.
It could be a previously unknown A2 contract, possibly the design being based upon a Goldsmith jacket.
The double stitched pockets and flaps are unusual, only the Goldsmith and the much later V505 have these.
The doctered label is odd but everything else about it looks to be in line with it being an official contract A2.
It could be a previously unknown A2 contract, possibly the design being based upon a Goldsmith jacket.
This is an interesting idea about removing the label. However it was not until December 1941 that "Property Air Force US army" first appeared on spec labels, so perhaps there was less reason to remove an early label. I too do suspect the Switlik label was added to inflate the value of the jacket.
saucerfiend
Well-Known Member
Which contract do you think it may be?
ausreenactor
Well-Known Member
Holy A-2 jacket Batman!
At the moment there is no obvious contract. It may simply be a test jacket from a yet unidentified maker.
Officer Dibley
Well-Known Member
So you’ve moved on from thinking it’s a fake then ?
mulceber
Moderator
It doesn't match any of the contracts. If we're going with the idea that it was a test jacket, then I'm content enough with the idea that it was made by Switlik and they hamfistedly added a tag from one of their flying trousers to make it look more like the real deal. I'd be interested though to hear what the company has to say if/when Vic gets in touch with them about this jacket.
There is no evidence for Switlik ever making A-2s. I find it very unlikely that they would have defaced one of their A-2 trousers labels and applied it to a test A-2 jacket, as the drawing number is wrong for A-2s. The label appears to be hand sewn on and I suspect it is quite a recent addition to the jacket after if was relined. Had it been on the jacket before the re-lining why was it not machine stitched on before the new lining was installed?
I have an open mind on this jacket at the moment.
mulceber
Moderator
Ken said on the first page that there's no evidence that the jacket was re-lined. The liner is likely original.
My thinking is that for the purposes of delivering a test jacket, they don't need the correct drawing number. They're just trying to show they can make a jacket that fits in seamlessly with the other contracts. So they defaced the number in order to make it look as close as they could, and called it good.
Why does there need to be evidence of them making A-2s though? We wouldn't expect to see any evidence of the many failed bids for an A-2 contract. We know however that they were a government contractor during this period and that they supplied leather goods. It's perfectly plausible that they would have tried to branch into making jackets as well.
My thinking is that for the purposes of delivering a test jacket, they don't need the correct drawing number. They're just trying to show they can make a jacket that fits in seamlessly with the other contracts. So they defaced the number in order to make it look as close as they could, and called it good.
Why does there need to be evidence of them making A-2s though? We wouldn't expect to see any evidence of the many failed bids for an A-2 contract. We know however that they were a government contractor during this period and that they supplied leather goods. It's perfectly plausible that they would have tried to branch into making jackets as well.
Last edited:
mulceber
Moderator
Also, what is the liner made of? I recall in the recent thread about the SAT jacket, it was discovered that both it and the Goldsmith had spun silk liners that could be mistaken for cotton at first glance. Regardless of whether the label is authentic, this does appear to be an early jacket, so I'd be interested to know which fabric was used for the liner.
Maverickson
Well-Known Member
Hi All,'
I keep hearing about that Switlik label having been hand stitched after the fact. However it looks to have exposed bobbin thread. Therefore machine stitched.
Not to mention, all the details I am seeing point to that lining being original.
What does that tell you?
Cheers, Dave
I keep hearing about that Switlik label having been hand stitched after the fact. However it looks to have exposed bobbin thread. Therefore machine stitched.
Not to mention, all the details I am seeing point to that lining being original.
What does that tell you?
Cheers, Dave
Nnatalie
Well-Known Member
The exposed bobbin thread being the little bits between the longer bits, that look as if they're crossing over the main thread? There are two in the first circled area and one in each of the next two circles.
