Need help on buying my first Irvin!!

[Kermit3D]

As shown in these period photos, Irvin jacket was often worn one size up

 

[B-Man2]

Yep . And the reason they all looked over sized is that they were normally made to be worn in the air at 28,000 feet with layers of clothing underneath . When worn on the ground, there’s nothing but a shirt or wool battle dress jacket on underneath, so they fit big .

 

[crism1]

It's very easy to make a supersized functional Irvin look good when underneath you are wearing a thick wool blouse, wool shirt, tie, suspenders, underwear tshirt and so on. Nowadays we don't wear as much stuff and an oversized Irvin would just look baggy, while in the historical pictures they look "filled".
Sideslip sizing is perfect as 44 and looks like he fills his jacket as ww2 pilots filled them but probably with a ww2 uniform underneath he should have worn the 46 to look as good

 

[Sideslip]

It's very easy to make a supersized functional Irvin look good when underneath you are wearing a thick wool blouse, wool shirt, tie, suspenders, underwear tshirt and so on. Nowadays we don't wear as much stuff and an oversized Irvin would just look baggy, while in the historical pictures they look "filled".
Sideslip sizing is perfect as 44 and looks like he fills his jacket as ww2 pilots filled them but probably with a ww2 uniform underneath he should have worn the 46 to look as good

Quoting crism1, which nicely summarises and aligns with all other comments but thank you each and all for your input, thoughts and advice. I have the same conclusion that 44 actually fits nicely, correctly for 'normal' wear. I tried it on also with a base layer, roll-neck, trousers and flight suit and still comfortable. If/when flying open cockpit would probably add another layer and it still fits. The 46 is definitely my 'wartime issue' size, but do not have battledress or other uniform jackets. As @B-Man2 says though, the design was for protection against the cold under various layers at 28,000 feet (I would probably be in Scotland by the time my aircraft reached its service ceiling of 11,000 feet and then I would need to land to refuel ). Don't get half that height in a biplane around London. @Kermit3D period photos also match the 46 look. I may end up keeping the pre-war 44 and return the 46. But wait... pre-war or BoB . No, just kidding, I will just make a decision.

@brandon_alv14 - I am sorry to have somewhat threadjacked your question which was not the intention, but hopefully some of it was still useful to help you in your search/choice. I can vouch for the Aero Irvin's in terms of out of the box 'oooh'. I was not sure what my family would think, but each and everyone literally said 'oooh, that is nice, what is it?' And then it grows on you.

 

[Micawber]

Thats the Catch 22 of posting 'what size is best' photos, everyone will have an opinion and not all will be the same

Good luck with whatever you decide Sideslip

 

[crism1]

yup, whatever you decide you gonna have an awesome jacket

 

[MrProper]

Here is an Irvin with rather t-shirt fit.

 

[Kermit3D]

Quoting crism1, which nicely summarises and aligns with all other comments but thank you each and all for your input, thoughts and advice. I have the same conclusion that 44 actually fits nicely, correctly for 'normal' wear. I tried it on also with a base layer, roll-neck, trousers and flight suit and still comfortable. If/when flying open cockpit would probably add another layer and it still fits. The 46 is definitely my 'wartime issue' size, but do not have battledress or other uniform jackets. As @B-Man2 says though, the design was for protection against the cold under various layers at 28,000 feet (I would probably be in Scotland by the time my aircraft reached its service ceiling of 11,000 feet and then I would need to land to refuel ). Don't get half that height in a biplane around London. @Kermit3D period photos also match the 46 look. I may end up keeping the pre-war 44 and return the 46. But wait... pre-war or BoB . No, just kidding, I will just make a decision.

@brandon_alv14 - I am sorry to have somewhat threadjacked your question which was not the intention, but hopefully some of it was still useful to help you in your search/choice. I can vouch for the Aero Irvin's in terms of out of the box 'oooh'. I was not sure what my family would think, but each and everyone literally said 'oooh, that is nice, what is it?' And then it grows on you.

I shared the photos as an example. But I totally agree that size 44 works well. And it also fits very well with an "historical adjustment".

 

[flyincowboy]

Here is an Irvin with rather t-shirt fit.
View attachment 68209View attachment 68210View attachment 68211

nice leather !

 

[Bremspropeller]

Go with the 44 - but that's just MY taste.
It all depends what YOU think looks best in your eyes


Also, don't be too fooled by pictures of blokes wearing it as a "I'm flying at 28000ft for hours and hours in an unpressurised and unheated airplane" working-garment. Unless you're going to bomb Berlin (I kindly request you're not), that fit won't look good nowadays.

Then there's always exceptions to the commonly known "historical" Irvin style and fit - like this Typhoon pilot:

I think it looks Sierra-Hotel. Much better than looking like you've accidentally slipped into your camping-tent.
Again, that's my opinion...

 

[Kermit3D]

Absolutely true, and personally I prefer a slightly adjusted Irvin.

 

[Chris 55]

The best were actually made by a chap called Jon who had a company called Aces High - he was an expat living in France and made stunning Irvins. Very sadly they are no more.

With them gone I would say that of those available the best are ELC and Aero. I think you'd be hard picked to argue for either, although some of ELC's outer finishing on their sheepskins has looked particularly cardboardy over recent years.

I'm an Irvin snob and if it was me and I was after another repro because my ELC carked it or got nicked I'd buy an Aero now. Far fairer priced as well.

Back to sizing in your latest photos, the 44 pre-war looks utterly spot on. I wouldn't change a thing and would ring Ken tomorrow and tell him you're keeping it and the other one has been chucked at a courier.

I have to put picture up just because it's an Ace's High.

 

[B-Man2]

Here is an Irvin with rather t-shirt fit.
View attachment 68209View attachment 68210View attachment 68211

Love that Coastal Command Irvin.

 

[B-Man2]

I have to put picture up just because it's an Ace's High.View attachment 68222

I could kick myself in the ass for not jumping on one of these back in the day.....

 

[B-Man2]

Go with the 44 - but that's just MY taste.
It all depends what YOU think looks best in your eyes


Also, don't be too fooled by pictures of blokes wearing it as a "I'm flying at 28000ft for hours and hours in an unpressurised and unheated airplane" working-garment. Unless you're going to bomb Berlin (I kindly request you're not), that fit won't look good nowadays.

Then there's always exceptions to the commonly known "historical" Irvin style and fit - like this Typhoon pilot:
View attachment 68219

I think it looks Sierra-Hotel. Much better than looking like you've accidentally slipped into your camping-tent.
Again, that's my opinion...

A good example of what we always agree on... that wartime fit was all over the place, depending on what they had, what was issued or what the owner could get his hands on.

 

[Chris 55]

A good example of what we always agree on... that wartime fit was all over the place, depending on what they had, what was issued or what the owner could get his hands on.

Totally agree.
If your sitting the tail of a bomber at 20,000ft
You want as many layers as possible under your Irvin to keep you warm for 8 hour round trip.
Sitting in spitfire you don't want that many layers.

 

[Micawber]

Totally agree.
If your sitting the tail of a bomber at 20,000ft
You want as many layers as possible under your Irvin to keep you warm for 8 hour round trip.
Sitting in spitfire you don't want that many layers.

My old bones aren't getting any younger and my blood is getting thinner so I'm grateful for layers and a proper thick fleece when trundling around old, windswept airfields and nearby villages in towns in a WW2 Jeep in winter.

 

[Chris 55]

I could kick myself in the ass for not jumping on one of these back in the day.....

My old bones aren't getting any younger and my blood is getting thinner so I'm grateful for layers and a proper thick fleece when trundling around old, windswept airfields and nearby villages in towns in a WW2 Jeep in winter.

Good man.

 

[J.R.303]

Yep, agreed with what's been said above. Hold out for a month or two until Five Star has gotten the perfect shearling for their Irvin, and then buy from them. You might even ask Shawn if he'd add a pocket like on a B-3. We know that in WW2 the pilots interacted with each other and occasionally customized their jackets based on what they saw on people in other services. It's not unthinkable that an RAF pilot would have seen a B-3, gotten ideas, and had a piece of leather stitched to the chest panel of his Irvin to give it a map pocket.

That being said, I don't think the absence of a pocket is huge deal. Your trouser pockets are very accessible when you wear a flight jacket, so you don't REALLY need it.

Regarding Aero, they have a very nice pattern, but their Merino sheepskin should be avoided on authenticity grounds, since it's neither thick enough nor dense enough.

The merino is plenty thick enough and very dense. I had an original ww2 irvin with nearly identical sheepskin. There were huge variations back in the day because of availablity. It's a jacket that is wearable and practical on a nearly day to day basis. I wore mine last weekend.
I did get too hot in a couple of shops though!!

 

[B-Man2]

The merino is plenty thick enough and very dense. I had an original ww2 irvin with nearly identical sheepskin. There were huge variations back in the day because of availablity. It's a jacket that is wearable and practical on a nearly day to day basis. I wore mine last weekend.
I did get too hot in a couple of shops though!!

Hi JR!
I just wanted to share my opinion with you regarding the Aero Merino Fleece Irvin Jacket that I purchased from Ken when they first came out around last May or June. Don’t quote me on the exact month as I didn’t make note of it . I found the jacket to be awesome in every detail except one . The tanned hides used for the Aero are the closest to an original that I’ve found . The looks of the jacket and the appearance of the jacket looks like a WWII Irvin in every respect . Unfortunately I’m not of the same opinion as to the density and depth of the fleece as yourself and John Lever. May I say that John wrote a wonderful review of the jacket and he has probably the most experience of anyone on this forum owning and handling fleece jackets. However, once again, I respectfully disagree with both of your opinions on this jacket. Briefly here’s why ; When I received the jacket and put it on, I immediately noticed that there was a definite difference in the thickness and density of the fleece. I also noticed that the length of the fleece was shorter than any of my other Irvin’s to include an ELC and an original 1939 Warings . I noticed that the first time I wore the jacket, it actually draped on me much like an A2 drapes . That was the first time I had ever experienced an Irvin that draped. I did a comparison between the fleece density and length of 3 Irvin’s I owned at the time , the original , the ELC and a What Price Glory Irvin jackets . What I found was that the Aero fleece most closely approximated the WPG jacket in fleece density , length and weight . Interestingly the WPG jacket is advertised as being a lighter weight more adaptable jacket for everyday wear . I immediately contacted Ken at Aero regarding this issue and after several conversations, and exchanges of photographs with measurements and density comparisons of the three jackets , Ken agreed that there “might be “ a difference in the merino fleece Irvin’s compared to his other normal Aero Irvin jackets currently for sale . He asked me to hold onto the jacket and that he would see to it that I would be able to trade the jacket in for one of the next batch of Merino fleece jackets being made sometime in the coming September time frame . He assured me that the new jackets would be comparable in weight to the more traditional Aero Irvin’s being sold . I agreed to do that and have been waiting ever since . However, Ken has been absent from the forum for sometime now , so I have little hope of an exchange at this point .
So with these facts in mind that’s why I differ with yours and Johns opinions on this jacket . I tried to say this in a respectful way, so as not to piss anyone off . It’s just my opinion .
I’ve attached a couple of photos of the draping effect of the Aero Merino vs the original Warings so you can visualize what I was describing .
Cheers