mulceber
Moderator
Hardly. No new stitch holes were added to our knowledge. One could always remove the patches and it would be the same jacket as before.Ruined a perfectly good jacket.
Hardly. No new stitch holes were added to our knowledge. One could always remove the patches and it would be the same jacket as before.Ruined a perfectly good jacket.
It's interesting that in the auction page I found that the images of (what appears to be) the original pilot wearing the jacket has no patches.I'm not sure I'd even call it messing with the jacket. If you know who the pilot is, and you know what patches would have been there (or at least have a pretty good guess), then it's really just a more proactive form of restoration, imho.
I'm not positive, but I don't think those photos of pilots are of the owner. Looks like two different people, and then there's a photo of people not even wearing leather jackets. It looks to me like the auction just had some pictures of people in the CBI theater to add some color.It's interesting that in the auction page I found that the images of (what appears to be) the original pilot wearing the jacket has no patches.
And I have to wonder if there aren't 2 jackets in the pilot's possession -- the second image, which appears later in his service, has no name tag.
Bottom line -- interesting provenance on this piece. But who owned it between that first auction and Vic?
Yeah, I didn't look at the group pictures, but the 2 solo shots look like the same guy... with a lot of combat experience in between.I'm not positive, but I don't think those photos of pilots are of the owner. Looks like two different people, and then there's a photo of people not even wearing leather jackets. It looks to me like the auction just had some pictures of people in the CBI theater to add some color.
Agree with it not being the same jacket, but I still think it's the same person based on physical facial details.Possibly, but given that the older looking one is the one without the name plate, it's definitely not the same jacket, and I'm inclined to think it's not the same person either.
The bottom photo is Donold Young , 4th Fighter Group. Nothing to do with the jacket.Yeah, I didn't look at the group pictures, but the 2 solo shots look like the same guy... with a lot of combat experience in between.
Just checked again and will stick with that opinion.
But yeah -- is it the original owner? Gotta wonder. But it's a reputable auction house, right?
How about the first pic? To my eye it honestly looks like the same man.The bottom photo is Donold Young , 4th Fighter Group. Nothing to do with the jacket.
media-18835.jpeg | American Air Museum
www.americanairmuseum.com
Sounds like something Mr Craig Cockleib IMA would doAh that IS interesting! So from the looks of it, the patches are high-end copies. But the original jacket had the stitch holes, so whoever restored it was likely trying to restore it to its original condition. They probably researched the pilot, found out what unit he was with, and applied the appropriate patches based on that information.
The bottom photo is Donold Young , 4th Fighter Group. Nothing to do with the jacket.
media-18835.jpeg | American Air Museum
www.americanairmuseum.com
I doubt that any of the photo's are connected to the jacket.
Sounds rather misleading.It is normal that auctions houses or websites use generic period pictures just as reference of the item listed. That doesn't mean the item and pictures are historically related unless the seller specifically establish a connection on the description, which is not the case here.