NEW GW DUBOW 27798

[Roughwear]

Fine looking jacket Andrew - what changed your mind about the GW SAT?

The Dubow design is a much sharper one than the SAT and after careful thought I decided to stick with my original order.

 

[Dr H]

I agree Andrew, I really like the buttoned pockets, but the blousing at the waist certainly makes is less trim than most.

 

[Roughwear]

I agree Andrew, I really like the buttoned pockets, but the blousing at the waist certainly makes is less trim than most.

Ian, you have hit the nail on the head.

 

[deand]

That's a mean, tough, and beautiful jacket you have there!







dean

 

[deeb7]

There are some subtle differences with my previous Dubow pattern ...

Very nice ... Andrew, are you able to tell us what these differences are? Will they change any of the basic measurements on the pattern, or are they less significant than that?

 

[RCSignals]

I like this jacket, and i like how he has rounded the collar tip. I recall photos his previous Dubow having a very sharp pointed tip.

 

[grommet]

Andrew,

Beautiful jacket!

I am somewhere on John's list. I spend a fair amount of time tinking about which model to order, which seems to made the wait less frustrating.

Since you seem to have a lot of experience with these jackets, how would you compare, in terms of comfort, the Dubow 27798 and the Rough Wear 27752? (I realize this may seem like an apples to oranges comparison to you.)

 

[better duck]

Andrew,
Great jacket! I own a GW RW 27752 in that leather, and I can tell you it ages beautifully. And I too am curious about the differences from the previous pattern!

 

[SuinBruin]

I like this jacket, and i like how he has rounded the collar tip. I recall photos his previous Dubow having a very sharp pointed tip.

I think the collar tips Andrew's Dubow may be just as pointy, or maybe even pointier, than those on John's earlier Dubows. If John has made pattern changes based on taking apart an old Dubow, my guess is they have more to do with fit and internal construction than something rather easily copied, like collar shape. (I have 2 of John's Broncos, one from 2008, and one from 2011. He updated the pattern in the interim, but the changes are pretty nuanced.)

In any case, the 27798 is a kickass pattern....

New Dubow collar:

"Old" Dubow collar:

 

[Andrew]

Andrew,

Beautiful jacket!

I am somewhere on John's list. I spend a fair amount of time tinking about which model to order, which seems to made the wait less frustrating.

Since you seem to have a lot of experience with these jackets, how would you compare, in terms of comfort, the Dubow 27798 and the Rough Wear 27752? (I realize this may seem like an apples to oranges comparison to you.)

Different Andrew but here's my take...

This might be a subjective comparison comparing one of John's early 27798's (photo was taken in 2008) to an original 27752 but the difference is quite distinct. Both of these are 48's and fit me well, i'm a little lighter since these shots but the Dubow is trim and comfortable whilst I find the RW blowsy- especially round the middle and chest. The shoulders and upper arm in the Dubow have more room and the forearms have a nicer taper despite the shoulder width being less. The benefit of this is that you don't get any shoulder droop. The collar differences are obvious and well known but I don't think you'de ever be able to flip the back of the collar on a Dubow.

I find the Dubow is a more contemporary cut so for daily wear with my limited experience it's by far my favourite maker but if I had to wear a flight suit over my uniform every day then don a parachute i'd go with the RW as it's got more give so I think it would have been a good design for it's intended function.

 

[Dr H]

Very good analysis Andrew. I'm familiar with neither pattern and found that illuminating.

 

[grommet]

Andrew,

Beautiful jacket!

I am somewhere on John's list. I spend a fair amount of time tinking about which model to order, which seems to made the wait less frustrating.

Since you seem to have a lot of experience with these jackets, how would you compare, in terms of comfort, the Dubow 27798 and the Rough Wear 27752? (I realize this may seem like an apples to oranges comparison to you.)

Different Andrew but here's my take...

This might be a subjective comparison comparing one of John's early 27798's (photo was taken in 2008) to an original 27752 but the difference is quite distinct. Both of these are 48's and fit me well, i'm a little lighter since these shots but the Dubow is trim and comfortable whilst I find the RW blowsy- especially round the middle and chest. The shoulders and upper arm in the Dubow have more room and the forearms have a nicer taper despite the shoulder width being less. The benefit of this is that you don't get any shoulder droop. The collar differences are obvious and well known but I don't think you'de ever be able to flip the back of the collar on a Dubow.

I find the Dubow is a more contemporary cut so for daily wear with my limited experience it's by far my favourite maker but if I had to wear a flight suit over my uniform every day then don a parachute i'd go with the RW as it's got more give so I think it would have been a good design for it's intended function.

Thanks for the helpful response. John says on the GW website that the wide sleeve tops and narrow back panel combine to make the Dubow a comfortable pattern, so it is interesting that you find this the case when comparing it to the Rough Wear. My GW Acme (Aero) 16160 is just a little tight in the shoulders and sleeve tops, so I am looking for something that will fit better in those areas.

 

[Dr H]

Alan, both the Doniger are comfortable in those areas.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Thanks for the helpful response. John says on the GW website that the wide sleeve tops and narrow back panel combine to make the Dubow a comfortable pattern, so it is interesting that you find this the case when comparing it to the Rough Wear. My GW Acme (Aero) 16160 is just a little tight in the shoulders and sleeve tops, so I am looking for something that will fit better in those areas.

Alan:

I once owned an earlier example of the GW 16160 and had the same experience. What makes this pattern a tough fit for certain body types is its sloping shoulders, narrow upper back panel, and smallish armholes. I've been tempted several times by the Rough Wear, but it also appears to have more slope to the shoulders than I'd prefer. The 27798 has nice square shoulders, and as previously mentioned its roomy upper-arm design more than makes up for its narrow upper back panel. I find mine to be quite comfortable; however, I'd also encourage you to consider the GW Star (which I also own). This pattern has a wide upper back that works well for those with broad shoulders. I'd have a tough time picking a favorite between the two, but fortunately I don't have to.

 

[walt]

A thing of beauty is a joy forever, jammy git

 

[unclegrumpy]

I once owned an earlier example of the GW 16160 and had the same experience. What makes this pattern a tough fit for certain body types is its sloping shoulders, narrow upper back panel, and smallish armholes. I've been tempted several times by the Rough Wear, but it also appears to have more slope to the shoulders than I'd prefer. The 27798 has nice square shoulders, and as previously mentioned its roomy upper-arm design more than makes up for its narrow upper back panel. I find mine to be quite comfortable; however, I'd also encourage you to consider the GW Star (which I also own). This pattern has a wide upper back that works well for those with broad shoulders. I'd have a tough time picking a favorite between the two, but fortunately I don't have to.

Excellent comments....thanks!

I have been looking at the GW site for a long time trying to sort out the fit of the various makers, and this helps. One thing I have always thought that would be helpful is some further guidance in selecting a maker based on body shape.

Since most of us are not 19 to 24 years old or proportioned like people from the 1940's, it helps to get the some input as to how these makers actually fit today. I think it would be helpful if there was more information to help limit the choices. For example, there are probably makers that are better fits for short fat people and others that are better for the tall muscular types...like most of us on the forum

One of the areas of fit I always have trouble with on A-2's is the arm hole size. Many jackets are just too snug up under the arm pits. The across the back and shoulders is also a problem area for me.

So again, this helps a lot, as would hearing the experiences of others as well.

 

[rich]

Since most of us are not 19 to 24 years old or proportioned like people from the 1940's

These dims are from Charles Sweeting's Combat Flying Clothing.....

"the then chief of the laboratory, Col. Otis O. Benson, Jr., in cooperation with Harvard professor Earnest A. Hooton, the noted physical anthropologist, directed another program at the AML. They studied 1,871 young men in the AAF to determine the average height, weight, dimensions, and physical characteristics of flyers and made their findings available to clothing, equipment, and aircraft designers and manufacturers. The typical American flyer in 1942 had the following measurements:
Height 5ft. 9in
Weight 154.3 lbs
Arm span 71 1/2 in
Reach 35 in
Shoulders 17 3/4 in
Chest diameter 8 in
Waist diameter 8 in
Chest circumference 36 1/4 in
Waist cicumference 30 in
Head (7 1/8 hat) 22 1/4 in
Biceps 11 1/2 in
Forearm 9 1/2 in
Thigh 20 5/8 in
Calf 14 in
Height, seated 36 1/4 in
Back to knee seated 23 3/8 in
Knee to floor 21 3/4 in
Breadth of seat 14 in
Foot length 10 1/2 in
Hand length 7 5/8 in

 

[grommet]

Thanks to all for their comments. It has given me a lot to ponder. As to the dimensions of the average WW 2 aviator, I am having trouble picturing what it would look like to be 5'9", weight 154 lbs and have a chest only 36 inches and a size 30 waist. The extra weight would have to go somewhere, presumably not the head or limbs.

 

[watchmanjimg]

In my opinion the dimensions of the average WW2 aviator have no bearing on our discussion, other than to explain why most of the original jackets out there are size 36-38. At the same time, we've all seen smaller and larger examples as well. Why bother focusing on this? GW's reproduction of specific contracts based on patterns derived from original jackets affords us the opportunity to find a contract whose characteristics best suit our build, which is far more likely to bring joy than worrying about someone else's measurements.

In any case, the WW2 aviator's dimensions are not so far removed from modern tailored clothing patterns. The standard difference between the coat and trouser sizes, or "drop" as it's called in the industry, is typically six inches. Thus, an ordinary size 36 coat would be supplied with size 30 trousers. All bets are off when dealing with "portly" or "athletic fit" suits, but again this has little or nothing to do with our analysis here.

 

[rich]

Why bother focusing on this?

No intention to 'focus'. Sorry it's annoyed you so much - thought it might have been of interest, it's as simple as that.