Original Rough Wear Pockets

[ZuZu]

I have literally hundreds of photos in my RW morgue file and while there are certain similarities between RW pockets there are crazy-making differences and varieties of pocket shapes. I've actually studied them enough to see the underlying shape most of them have but I can tell you as a certainty that there is no identifiable difference between any contracts except the 16159 (and even there...). If you couldn't see the label you could NOT identify a RW contract by it's pockets. The goatskin on a 18091 would give it away but if you were to take just tracing between all the contracts you couldn't pick out the 18091.

I think the 16159 was the prototype "ideal" Rough Wear pocket. It has the shape they intended with all their contracts.

Relatively straight sides, pretty angular corners and a point in the middle.

 

[ZuZu]

All the rest of the contracts had bastardizations of this ideal pocket- probably because of more hurried manufacture.

Angular almost Aeo-like 1401p:

Almost straight across blob 1401p:

and beautiful carefully sewn 1401p

 

[ZuZu]

27752s:
Blob and one flap wider:

Weird and angular:

and beautifully sewn 27752 (almost Eastmanlike):

 

[ZuZu]

So what is this? It's a redye- 27752? 23380? 1401p? Impossible to tell:

 

[Tattoo A2]

Cool post, I may have to take out my original Roughwears now and look at the pockets on them. I guess the Great Escape A2 mystery lives a while longer going by your references, LOL

 

[ZuZu]

I realise that some of these pockets have been manipulated a lot, but I think my point is valid- no big differences which set off one contract from another. I used to think that 27752s often had shorter pocket flaps but I've seen this in all contracts- maybe just a bit more in 23380s and 27752s.

 

[ZuZu]

Cool post, I may have to take out my original Roughwears now and look at the pockets on them. I guess the Great Escape A2 mystery lives a while longer going by your references, LOL

Wow- original RoughwearS? how many? lucky you. I can't wear original A-2s as they cause my OCD to go into overdrive- too scared!

 

[Juanito]

My old Rough Wear. Unknown contract since all the cloth parts were gone from the jacket, but Andrew though most likely the 27752 contract due to the pocket size.

 

[Brettafett]

And its not just the flaps, but the shape of the curves at the base of the pocket. Some have more roundness, others less. Some almost appear Perry-like...

 

[mulceber]

Cool thread, and very convincing. One thing I'd observe is that the amorphous pocket flaps are easier to construct - at the start, the panels of the pocket flap are laid inside-out. Then a stitch is sewn around the outside edge, and then the flap is turned right-side-out before proceeding to the next step. If you picture trying to turn the pocket flap right-side-out, any sharp angles or corners in the stitching are going to be a pain to deal with - worth doing, if you're trying to make a pretty jacket that will sell, but if time is of the essence and you already have the government contract, making the pockets round and amorphous streamlines that step. Evidently they didn't do it across the board though.

 

[Tattoo A2]

Wow- original RoughwearS? how many? lucky you. I can't wear original A-2s as they cause my OCD to go into overdrive- too scared!

At the time I have 2 or 3, I would have to check my woman proof stash. Here is a photo of my ELC great escaper 16159 very pointy flap center.

 

[B-Man2]

Interesting thread. I’ve often read posts from various contributors who unequivocally said that they could identify a contract or a manufacturer by the shape of the pocket or the pocket flap and I’m sure that in many cases they’re right. But I also thought that in many cases that wasn’t alway true. The reason being that tight wartime production schedules and the fact that there were numerous different pattern cutters , sewing machine operators and a general attitude of acceptance of small mistakes in an effort to get the job done, negated exacting specifications for areas like pocket flaps and epaulettes. However, I think the collars of the jackets are a better way of making a determination of a jackets manufacturer. Not talking specific contracts but just a general indication of who made the jacket . For example the RWs are notorious for having large “clown style collars ‘ whereas the Cable A2’s had rounded collars and the Donigers had pointed collars . My thought is that when attempting to ID an A2 you have to take into consideration a number of sections of the jacket, as examining one area doesn’t always help you make the correct decision.

 

[Silver Surfer]

I would like to add, that in my experience handling originals, I’ve found that if anything, rw 1401-p consistently had longer pocket (top to bottom) flaps, than the earlier, and later rw contracts.

 

[ZuZu]

I would like to add, that in my experience handling originals, I’ve found that if anything, rw 1401-p consistently had longer pocket (top to bottom) flaps, than the earlier, and later rw contracts.

I used to think that but in studying 100s of RW jacket photos I've found that not to be the case.

Both pocket flaps on this 1401p are relatively narrow (top to bottom)

On this 1401p the left flap is longer and the right one narrower:

I could go on with examples of 1401ps with longer, normal and narrower pocket flaps. Same with 23380s and 27752s. You won't find a consistent "tell" in the pocket flaps of ANY Rough Wears (except the 16159). The only "tell" is the leather- such as whether it is goatskin (18091 obviously) or that weird specific russet that 1401p's had sometimes.