The Proto 55J14

[ZuZu]

Last year I got myself a brand new Star G-1 jacket off Ebay. It has a couple of strange characteristics that make it seem to be a test model 55J14: It has no USN painted on the collar. The 55J14 label has no maker name on it and the zipper is a STRAIGHT pull Conmar. This might seem to ba a one-off but there is a similar jacket on John Chapman's CD which shows a Foster jacket with exactly the same features.

My jacket is unambiguously a Star, and the jacket on John's CD is a Foster for sure, having that pencil pocket line and all.

Star label:

Foster label:

Star zipper pull:

Foster zipper pull:

 

[ZuZu]

The later 55j14s have bell shaped pullers, the USN stencil and individualized maker labels.
My jacket and John's Foster seem to be a weird pre-contract anomaly.

There are FEC jackets with almost exactly the same characteristics as my Star but they inevitably have a Talon zipper and the weird "repro" label:

The FEC jacket I photgraphed for this post is EXACTLY like my late 40s 55J14. No differences but label and zipper pull. Flying Equipment Company must have had a strange parallel official/unofficial status discussed here many a time I'm sure...

 

[YoungMedic]

I have a similar jacket, probably from the same run

 

[mulceber]

Yeah, I've encountered these before and I've never been sure what to make of them. It seems a little odd to think that they would need to do a test run for the 55J14, since they were producing AN-J-3As right up to the very year they started producing the 55J14, and apart from a tendency to shorter bodies and longer sleeves, the 55J14 isn't really a departure from the AN-J-3A.

Foster and Star both got 55J14 contracts in Fiscal Year 1950. 1950 is also the year the Korean War broke out. I wonder if there was a rush for equipment, and the Navy decided they needed more jackets ASAP. In that situation, it would be natural to turn to their most recent contractors: Foster and Star would have still been working on their contracts, so the Navy could just say "hey, we're gonna add X thousand more jackets to your contract. No need to draw up a new contract, we'll just have you make more." That would explain the irregularities with the labels, and why they used the non-standard zippers with the straight pull instead of the bell pull: the Navy had to find more materials to supply Foster and Star, and they were in a rush, so they had minimalist labels and chose whatever decent zipper they could get their hands on.

edit: the Flying Equipment Co. label is consistent with this hypothesis, as contract no. 261953 would put it in Fiscal Year 1950 as well (B-G Inc's contract, 25923 and Foster's 29897 contract both date to Fiscal Year 1950, so since 261953 is between those contract numbers, it should be from the same year). (Jeff suspects this jacket's label is fake; that sounds right to me as I've never heard of that contractor and it doesn't say 55J14 on it).

 

[Skyhawk]

Those zips were also used on the Later G-1 Amendment #2 jackets by at least one maker. I had one. The label was standard so it was not a rush run. Later in the 1960's, the paperclip style zip was put into the specs. so that ended any chance of having an odd zipper as it would not meet the specs. Before that, the zip was not specified to such a exact type.

 

[ZuZu]

I have a similar jacket, probably from the same run

View attachment 100621View attachment 100623View attachment 100625

That's interesting because it has the Talon zipper so it's a bit of a hybrid 0r more probably both Conmars and Talons were accepted. (just had to be brown). Your jacket looks to be a Star as it has the same font on the label of my Star. They are great wearers. Unlike the Great Legend of 55J14s these Stars/FECs have never deteriorating goatskin.

 

[mulceber]

The label was standard so it was not a rush run.

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Skyhawk]

Standard nomenclature. Department, type, contract number, and contractor name.

 

[ZuZu]

Yeah, I've encountered these before and I've never been sure what to make of them. It seems a little odd to think that they would need to do a test run for the 55J14, since they were producing AN-J-3As right up to the very year they started producing the 55J14, and apart from a tendency to shorter bodies and longer sleeves, the 55J14 isn't really a departure from the AN-J-3A.

Foster and Star both got 55J14 contracts in Fiscal Year 1950. 1950 is also the year the Korean War broke out. I wonder if there was a rush for equipment, and the Navy decided they needed more jackets ASAP. In that situation, it would be natural to turn to their most recent contractors: Foster and Star would have still been working on their contracts, so the Navy could just say "hey, we're gonna add X thousand more jackets to your contract. No need to draw up a new contract, we'll just have you make more." That would explain the irregularities with the labels, and why they used the non-standard zippers with the straight pull instead of the bell pull: the Navy had to find more materials to supply Foster and Star, and they were in a rush, so they had minimalist labels and chose whatever decent zipper they could get their hands on.

edit: the Flying Equipment Co. label is consistent with this hypothesis, as contract no. 261953 would put it in Fiscal Year 1950 as well (B-G Inc's contract, 25923 and Foster's 29897 contract both date to Fiscal Year 1950, so since 261953 is between those contract numbers, it should be from the same year).

It's definitely a mystery- yes. I think your whole second paragraph is highly thought out speculation but I really think its better to leave it a mystery- until there is some paper it is hard to say. As with WW2 G-1 type jackets here are many anomalies with the 55J14 series- some B-G 55J14s had shiny gold colored Talons, the Foster had that weird pencil slot line, the Fosters were short-bodied but the Stars were not etc. etc. I personally think the Navy (as was obvious from WW2 jackets) didn't care about specifics- just give us a jacket please m'am My opinion is that somewhere along the line some paperwork numbers got changed and the 55J14 was born.

As far as the FEC contract number I'm pretty sure it was just an internal company code or straight BS for a commercial jacket- it doesn't fit into your theory of contracts- it has an extra digit.

Please don't take this as super argumentative- this is similar to discussions I've had with you know who- he also likes the informed speculation angle- I prefer "...just the facts m'am..." It's fun!

 

[mulceber]

Standard nomenclature. Department, type, contract number, and contractor name.

No they aren't - all the jackets that Jeff showed lack any contract number or contractor name. The one Tim showed has contractor name, jacket type and contract number, but it doesn't have the spec number (55J14). All pretty irregular.

As far as the FEC contract number I'm pretty sure it was just an internal company code or straight BS for a commercial jacket- it doesn't fit into your theory of contracts- it has an extra digit.

Well it fits the theory IF it's a genuine government spec label. If not, it neither confirms nor refutes anything. But FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with you. It might well be a real jacket, but I suspect the label is fake, especially since you said it looks like a Star, and Star was located in the Boston area, not Chicago.

My opinion is that somewhere along the line some paperwork numbers got changed and the 55J14 was born.

Yep, agreed. Most likely a response to the bureaucratic re-shuffling that occurred with the National Security Act of 1947, which led to the creation of the department of defense, Air Force splitting from Army, etc.

I really think its better to leave it a mystery- until there is some paper it is hard to say.

The sad truth is, there are unlikely to be any papers because academics don't care about this kind of stuff. They consider it trivia - which I suppose it is, but as you said, it's fun! In lieu of a thriving academic industry devoted to flight jackets, I'm quite content with informed speculation, provided it's well-reasoned and uses what hard evidence we have. Coming from academia, I can tell you that scholars speculate all the time. If they didn't there wouldn't be much to publish, since there isn't a ton of new data coming out (and besides, the data can frequently lie too, but that's a whole other can of worms) and nobody wants to read yet another recitation of the same old facts. They want new interpretations, which requires departing from what's solidly known and building new information. As long as you're being clear with your audience about what you know and what you only suspect, it isn't a problem.

 

[ZuZu]

No they aren't - all the jackets that Jeff showed lack any contract number or contractor name. The one Tim showed has contractor name, jacket type and contract number, but it doesn't have the spec number (55J14). All pretty irregular.


Well it fits the theory IF it's a genuine government spec label. If not, it neither confirms nor refutes anything. But FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with you. It might well be a real jacket, but I suspect the label is fake, especially since you said it looks like a Star, and Star was located in the Boston area, not Chicago.


Yep, agreed. Most likely a response to the bureaucratic re-shuffling that occurred with the National Security Act of 1947, which led to the creation of the department of defense, Air Force splitting from Army, etc.


The sad truth is, there are unlikely to be any papers because academics don't care about this kind of stuff. They consider it trivia - which I suppose it is, but as you said, it's fun! In lieu of a thriving academic industry devoted to flight jackets, I'm quite content with informed speculation, provided it's well-reasoned and uses what hard evidence we have. Coming from academia, I can tell you that scholars speculate all the time. If they didn't there wouldn't be much to publish, since there isn't a ton of new data coming out (and besides, the data can frequently lie too, but that's a whole other can of worms) and nobody wants to read yet another recitation of the same old facts. They want new interpretations, which requires departing from what's solidly known and building new information. As long as you're being clear with your audience about what you know and what you only suspect, it isn't a problem.

261953 isn't between 25923 and 29897. Ees too beeg! More likely something to do with 1953...

 

[mulceber]

261953 isn't between 25923 and 29897. Ees too beeg! More likely something to do with 1953...

Now you can see why I didn't major in math. Correct, one too many digits there!

 

[ZuZu]

Now you can see why I didn't major in math. Correct, one too many digits there!

!953 was when Joe Stalin died and I was born...

 

[mulceber]

Yeah, I think that might be further evidence that the label is fake: looks like a 55J14, but the contract number is an order of magnitude bigger than ANY of the known 55J14 contract numbers?

 

[mulceber]

Oh, FWIW, the Fedora Lounge's guide to dating Talons would date Tim's jacket to the 1950s. So his at least is evidently a late 55J14.

A Guide to dating Talon Zippers (updated and revised)

How to help date your jacket and other items based on their zippers, 1910s-present. Guides for dating the pull, the stop box, the slider and the top-stops. Separable bottomed zippers, where you can disengage the two sides of the zipper, as found on jackets, were first introduced in 1930. The...

www.thefedoralounge.com

 

[Skyhawk]

No they aren't - all the jackets that Jeff showed lack any contract number or contractor name. The one Tim showed has contractor name, jacket type and contract number, but it doesn't have the spec number (55J14). All pretty irregular.


Well it fits the theory IF it's a genuine government spec label. If not, it neither confirms nor refutes anything. But FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with you. It might well be a real jacket, but I suspect the label is fake, especially since you said it looks like a Star, and Star was located in the Boston area, not Chicago.


Yep, agreed. Most likely a response to the bureaucratic re-shuffling that occurred with the National Security Act of 1947, which led to the creation of the department of defense, Air Force splitting from Army, etc.


The sad truth is, there are unlikely to be any papers because academics don't care about this kind of stuff. They consider it trivia - which I suppose it is, but as you said, it's fun! In lieu of a thriving academic industry devoted to flight jackets, I'm quite content with informed speculation, provided it's well-reasoned and uses what hard evidence we have. Coming from academia, I can tell you that scholars speculate all the time. I

Yep that is what I was saying. Mine had a standard label and the zip. There's did not. The zip alone is not some sign of a pre contract jacket.

 

[mulceber]

Agreed, the zip definitely doesn't indicate a pre-contract jacket. My hypothesis is these 55J14s with the odd labels came from later contracts and were an unplanned addition to the Foster N383S-29897 and Star N383Ss-39943 contracts.

As Jeff pointed out, it's only informed speculation. But I don't really see these jackets being test jackets or something like that.

 

[Erwin]

Hi folks,

This is a very interesting and informative post. Hopefully, this is not too off-topic. Are you able to confirm what organization/department worked on test flight jackets for USN? I assume (based on the test report for the experimental cold weather jacket which I've seen) that it was US Naval Supply Research and Development Facility. A similar organization like Natick Labs for Army.