Lord Flashheart
Well-Known Member
That is absolutely cracking Jan. Great leather, great fit - you win 
-
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.
My last A-2 (hopefully) - Good Wear
- Thread starter Smithy
- Start date
coolhandluke
Well-Known Member
As Pilot said, John's really the person who would know. I know 27752 and 1401-P are the most commonly-reproduced, but they aren't the only great Rough Wear contracts. Personally, I really like their first two contracts.
Thanks Jan. I was gravitating towards the 27752 mainly because it is a little more relaxed in the chest and torso, but looks like the sleeve ends are still fairly trim. John had recommended that I look at all three of his RW contracts, both Werbers, his Dubow 20960, and Aero 16160. I'd prefer a contract that blouses well and isn't overly trim in the mid-section. This isn't a necessity. I've just grown to appreciate that look.
I'm hoping that I'll be able to place an order next month. Unfortunately, I had to come out of pocket approximately $15k last month for home repairs, which has delayed my plans a bit.
leper-colony
Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding random, the Poughkeepsie contract does not have a trim mid-section. Any of Jon's jackets would be great.
mulceber
Moderator
Yeah, comparing the two I have, the 27752 is definitely baggier. That said, it's tagged as a 44, vs. a 42 for the 18091. Of the two, I think I slightly prefer the bigger one - Rough Wears lend themselves to being a bit oversized.
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
All these jackets should be slightly oversize IMO. In original RWs no one contract was bigger than the other- in fact really from the 18091 onward they basically all have the same pattern- and even the 16159 is basically the same with slightly different pocket construction. If there are differences it's between jackets and the vagaries of label insertion or simple mistakes. In real life all these jackets were supposed to fit over an undershirt, a shirt, and a thick wool flight suit (at least). As we've discussed a billion times the weird bodies of the men back then make the jackets look smaller than they were.
As far as GWs- if you talk to John and give him your measurements he'll get it right. If you buy "off the rack" jackets as I usually do fit will vary!
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
BTW- perfect fit IMO, lots of epaulet activity and perfect over the waist. To me it looks realistic as hell!
P-47 thunderbolt
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, why would RW change the cutting patterns per contract? I'm sure they just used what materials were at the best price/ easiest to source at the time - horse, cow, goat. Otherwise they are essentially the same. I have a couple of original 18091s and a couple of RWs made by John. John's certainly have that roughwear feel to them, I think the key is a thinish hide - this allows the correct drape.
I would say the hide choice is the clincher rather than contract number.
mulceber
Moderator
Should emphasize here that the leather was actually contracted for by the government, which dealt with the tanneries directly and had the leather shipped to the jacket manufacturer. The company whose name is on the label had nothing to do with what leather was chosen. They just used the leather the government had shipped to them.
P-47 thunderbolt
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, I did know that, somewhere in the back of my mind. I guess that shows that contractors just had to make do with what they were given. I guess I'm just trying to say that any GW RW will look great in a good hide. The question of which hide to choose is more important than the Roughwear contract number you want on the label
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
Documentation on this?
mulceber
Moderator
Eastman's A-2 guide, page 30, first paragraph.
Last edited:
YoungMedic
Well-Known Member
I was wondering if you would go there with the initial title, and by part 2, I could exhale. Well done, great looking piece too. Congrats
33-1729
Well-Known Member
With Mr Chapman reproducing the Rough Wear 42-1671P that was discovered a few years ago and the ACT 37-3061P as mulceber noted a few days ago he has, on his own, reproduced every known surviving A-2 contract. I don't think any company or anyone else has come close with the breath of offerings and attention to detail. Bravo!
coolhandluke
Well-Known Member
Thanks a ton for the suggestion. Poughkeepsie is actually the one contract that I really like, that JC hadn't recommended. The fit shown in the photos on his site is 100% what I'm after. Even more so than the RW.
mulceber
Moderator
Hah! Thank god it didn't stretch to three posts or I would have had to find some way to pun off of Return of the Jedi.
leper-colony
Well-Known Member
The "name "Rough Wear" is seductive, but you will always come home to "Poughkeepsie".
Last edited:
Mr. Mike
Well-Known Member
Hey Jan,
that is really a stunning enhancement to your collection! Thanks for sharing and in particular for the Part II investigation! The jacket suits you very well. Like you I also consider the #18091 as probably the most interesting one as it bears a lot of nice specifics (like e.g. that it was RWs only contract exclusively made from goat).
I gave it a try in John's American Goat but unfortunately the RW pattern does not suit me that well and by no means comes close to how it suits you ;o) (see below). I guess for me the more baggy patterns don't work that well
(. So I had to let it go for another try ... . No doubt at all that this jacket was/is a real gem and John did his magic as always (and the #18091 still remains my favorite amongst the RWS)!
mulceber
Moderator
FWIW, it's not bad on you. The main thing that jumps out at me is the collar needs training. It might look a bit better if it was trimmer in the belly too. John's told me that, even within the same size, Rough Wears varied in how generous they were in the lower torso. His hypothesis is that this was due to variation in how wide the back was cut.
leper-colony
Well-Known Member
Yep it's a leather bag, but it oddly works when you look closer! Fan of the tag as well.
