ROUGH WEAR B-3 42-5111-P

[Roughwear]

Last month this very nice duo tone B-3 arrived from the States. It's a size 42 and has had very little wear. The shearling is strong and has very little surface flaking. The 42-5111-P was Rough Wear's second contract for B-3s and this one dates from 1942. This one belonged to a vet who flew B-17s in the UK, but it was only lightly worn, then stored since the War.

 

[T-Bolt]

Very nice B-3 that you have added to your collection, Andrew. I have not ever owned a shearling jacket, but the more I see beautiful examples like this......I think there could be one for me in the near future.


Ted

 

[dujardin]

pure beauty

byeeeeeeee marcel

 

[JRaptor]

That is probably the nicest original B-3 I have ever seen!

 

[Swing]

WOW! I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better example! Congrats on a very nice purchase.

~Swing

 

[Roughwear]

It's unusual to find a B-3 without issues. This one was a BIN on Ebay several weeks ago and was half the price of an ELC B-3, so I did not hesitate and hit the button!

 

[bazelot]

Great B-3. It looks like it is fully wearable. Now you just have to wait for the winter to wear it

 

[Miles_Archer]

Even the seemingly strongest old B-3s are just a blown shoulder just dying to crush your hopes and dreams. Best left as a display piece.

 

[Roughwear]

Even the seemingly strongest old B-3s are just a blown shoulder just dying to crush your hopes and dreams. Best left as a display piece.

This one is quite strong and can be worn without fear of a shoulder blow-out. However, I have two other B3s in a similar condition which have also not suffered this fate despite occasionally wearing them.

 

[Peter Graham]

Lovely jacket Andrew. Here's one for an argument. In my opinion the B-3 is a much better looking jacket than the Irvin.

 

[Roughwear]

Lovely jacket Andrew. Here's one for an argument. In my opinion the B-3 is a much better looking jacket than the Irvin.

Interesting suggestion, Peter. The B-3 is certainly a stylish jacket and I particularly like the duo tone ones. However Irvins vary enormously from the two panel ones through to the multi-panel late war designs. I like this variety just as I like the variety in B3s, though this was more limited than with Irvins. I do not have a favourite.

 

[Peter Graham]

I'll elaborate slightly. I know that both jackets varied a lot between specs but the cut and fittings stayed the same and I think the slightly longer B-3 looks better. I also think that fittings are important to the look of a jacket and I find the multiple straps, snaps and pocket on the B-3 more interesting. I also find labels fascinating and the B-3 label has much more info and looks much better. I know I'm digging myself into a hole here so I'll stop. Mind you.....Irvins generally last much better than B-3's. :?

 

[Hawkeye]

Lovely jacket Andrew. Here's one for an argument. In my opinion the B-3 is a much better looking jacket than the Irvin.

Blasphemy!!! burn him!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: In all seriousness though, both are good looking jackets in their own ways. The B-3 is visually a more workhorse, utilitarian military jacket what with the horsehide arm re-inforcements, map pocket and the multitude of straps and buckles. Whereas the Irvin is a cleaner, I would even say more streamlined design, that while still recognizably an Air force jacket with enough straps and buckles (and 3 zips!) to keep it "interesting", as you say Peter, blends very well into civilian fashion,(then and now) and its just a damn good looking jacket, whether you look at the early large panelled designs to the late-war multi-panel jobs.
Personally, I think the whole thing is similar to the A-2 vs G-1 argument. We can argue all we want about which looks better, but chances are you'll be ending up with at least one of each example anyways.

Oh yeah...Irvin. Anytime, anywhere.