Just one quibble gents...but to my mind a fairly substantial one.
Why authorize something as standard issue, and then only order 25 of them, from only one supplier?
Planes were that kind of expensive - thus the "Y" service test batches of half a dozen or a dozen, plus one for static tests. But jackets were relatively cheap.
To be clear, I'm arguing that Spatz's no-epps A-2 was a "YA-2," ie, service test - and that that's what the Goldsmith order was and why it was so very small.
Roughwear has come to say no, what Spatz has is an "XA-2," ie, a prototype - and that Arnold's A-2, with epps and tab collar but w/o snaps, is the Goldsmith "YA-2" due to extra pocket stitching and the unique collar/stand.
Max Werber was known for labor- and money-saving touches (he patented a pieced panel leather jacket in 1929). Assuming he made the Arnold jacket (ie, that it is 32-6225), he might have costed it out after the fact and figured to save x¢ per unit-hour by single-stitching the pockets and substituting snaps for buttons/holes on 33-1729. Any little bit saved would have been welcome to the Army and certainly to Werber Coat. They had a good relationship in the 30s, so Werber must have given particularly good quality for the money.
Possible quibbles with my scenario:
- Security 32-485 was first with snaps, but only on the collar points. Why would the later Werber 32-6225 not use them? Pilots can't have preferred buttons - unless they distrusted snap fasteners. Or maybe snaps got a lot cheaper during FY '32 - lots of things did!
- Adding epaulets is a bigger change than any collar/snap/stitch. Would a military article change so significantly between spec drawing and full production?
Drawing No. 30-1415 will reveal much. It must be found!!!