-
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.
Silver Surfer
Well-Known Member
ive looked at this one several times, and i do not understand the flap over it. it is clearly a super example of a goat perry. period. seems to me that there are a bunch of guys with to much time on their hands.....or something.
TankBuster
Active Member
I have to agree. Nice jacket, and there are a million different reasons as to why
the lining is ripped in a couple of areas. The great originals will hold their value,
and likely increase. It's the mediocre stuff that may see a decline in my opinion.
the lining is ripped in a couple of areas. The great originals will hold their value,
and likely increase. It's the mediocre stuff that may see a decline in my opinion.
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
What flap ? Terribly sorry that I thought it interesting that there was a contrast between the inner and outer wear. Of course it's a beautiful jacket. Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands.Silver Surfer said:
TankBuster
Active Member
Peter Graham said:
I skipped over that part of the post. (too much time on your hands) Apologies Peter!
Guess I need to pay more attention to what I'm agreeing with!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Silver Surfer said:
THAT WAS MOST HELPFUL THANKYOU a real gem of a post :roll:
Jeff
TankBuster
Active Member
Whoever listed this jacket, took some really great photos.
The quality pictures alone will get some extra money out of this jacket.
The quality pictures alone will get some extra money out of this jacket.
Roughwear said:
Perry 42-16175-P Contract A-2 (40)
Perry had two contracts, and this one was the first, the second being W535-AC-23377.
United States Flight Jackets ... John Chapman.
W535-AC-23377 appears first on the Acme Depot list merely because all the contract numbers are grouped together.
A
Anonymous
Guest
TankBuster said:
Jeff you are so right with the pictures telling the story ,take this members post on VLJ
[quote="Here's the new Aero
Looking at the photos of Andrew wearing the jacket does not show the fine grain seen in the close ups of the jacket (great set of photos).When presenting a jacket on ebay with pictures is should make the person looking at the jacket think I want that jacket .Not a picture of a jacket uncropped hanging on a door looking like everyone elses jacket showing how untidy his house is in the background .I think John Chapman of GW does an excellent job of photgraphing his jackets nothing is left to the imagination and no dissapointments on arrival.Better pictures mean more interest and more bids and sellers who dont do this can only blame them selves for the final price realized .
All the best Jeff
TankBuster
Active Member
Agree 100%. I love the shots of a nice A-2 jacket hanging on the back of some
closet door, and on a wire hanger no less. I have to agree that Chapman is the
master of photographing jackets.
closet door, and on a wire hanger no less. I have to agree that Chapman is the
master of photographing jackets.
Roughwear said:
Well he's handled quantities of these jackets, deconstructed some, and studied them in detail. I guess that you could ask him directly.
The two contracts appear to be from the same 1942 fiscal year, and both have the collar stand pattern. We must be talking only a matter of months ....
Perhaps you could give reasons for your opposing view?
deeb7 said:
I have sent JC a PM. I have no hard evidence at all David, just assumed the goat contract was first, partly because some had the Crown which more often used on earlier contracts (such as RW 1401, Aero 21996) whilst I have only seen Conmars on the hh order!
David, JC actually makes two contrasting comments on the Perry contracts. From his earlier CD is the one you quoted and from his GW website: They had one earlier and smaller contract that was mostly made using goatskin .
Am I correct in assuming the contract numbers were issued in sequence with the larger numbers being awarded after the smaller ones? So the Cable W535ac23382 came after the Perry W535ac23377. The next Cable order was the 42-10008-P and according to John this came later because it has the Property AAF statement on the label which the earlier contract does not have. The Perry 42-16175-P is a higher number than this second Cable contract so it must be later than the 23377 goatskin contract.
Am I correct in assuming the contract numbers were issued in sequence with the larger numbers being awarded after the smaller ones? So the Cable W535ac23382 came after the Perry W535ac23377. The next Cable order was the 42-10008-P and according to John this came later because it has the Property AAF statement on the label which the earlier contract does not have. The Perry 42-16175-P is a higher number than this second Cable contract so it must be later than the 23377 goatskin contract.
Roughwear said:
So he does ... now he's in BIG TROUBLE !! :lol:
Andrew, the numbers are sequential, but I've always assumed that the groups of consecutive numbers were orders given to different makers at the same time. The two contracts above are both from a group of seven.
Quite possibly ... I've also tried to work it out by interpolation, but then, both Perry contracts have the Property AAF statement, so I don't think that it's enough.
