a-2 pocket placement. lets make some definitive answers.

[Tim P]

I have just been watching a documentary on the b26 and its attendant ww2 footage shows lots of A-2's obviously. Now the controversy that has raged on here about the fact that only one manufacturer positions their pockets correctly may or may not have weight. Some of the footage I saw showed really wide pocket spacing on these jackets.
Now I am not saying that one is correct or incorrect. this has never been that much of an issue to me, its always been about hand-warmer pockets, multi paneled backs and arms, whether the thing has a stand collar and a correct zip etc. But now it is in my mind (and a few more minds I expect) can I request that all those with original A-2's (I have had two in my time but have none at the moment) list here the size of the jacket, the manufacturer (contract too if you like) and how wide the pockets are spaced, for consistency can I suggest distance from the edge of the windflap on the jackets left side and from the leather rather than the zip teeth on the right?
This way we can inform ourselves and see how much variance there was. I reckon there are enough originals around here for a decent idea to be formed.
Tim.

 

[Chandler]

this has never been that much of an issue to me, its always been about hand-warmer pockets, multi paneled backs and arms, whether the thing has a stand collar and a correct zip etc.

It's funny you say that, because back in the dark days of A-2 repros (read: Avirex) the one thing that always stood out to me was pockets being placed way too close together. All of the WW2 images I'd ever seen showed A-2 pockets well away from center, and while I never attempted to gauge an exacting measurement (as some), as I found other, better repros, the look was much closer to authentic.

As to the difference in halves of inches, well -- I hope we'll try to keep the discussion out of the OCD range.

Chandler

 

[Anonymous]

this has never been that much of an issue to me, its always been about hand-warmer pockets, multi paneled backs and arms, whether the thing has a stand collar and a correct zip etc.

It's funny you say that, because back in the dark days of A-2 repros (read: Avirex) the one thing that always stood out to me was pockets being placed way too close together. All of the WW2 images I'd ever seen showed A-2 pockets well away from center, and while I never attempted to gauge an exacting measurement (as some), as I found other, better repros, the look was much closer to authentic.

As to the difference in halves of inches, well -- I hope we'll try to keep the discussion out of the OCD range.

Chandler

WW2 original A-2s generally had pockets wider spaced than Avirexs and Coopers but more narrowly spaced than Eastmans, RMNZs and Buzzs at least in the large sizes. 1" or even 1/2" can make a big difference visually- too far apart is IMO as bad as too close together. Pocket spacing on many contracts of WW2 originals at least on larger sizes seems to be in relation to the windflap (pocket spacing to windflap remained more or less the same) or the pocket was at most centered (more or less) between windflap and underarm seam. Most guys in WW2 wore 38s or 40s which with 3" to the windflap are going to look like they have wide pocket spacing. That's why Eastmans and others look OK when they are a small size. As they get larger the pockets get too wide apart (because the underarm seam is the determinate of spacing) and you get the pot-bellied look.

 

[Chandler]

>sigh< What was I just saying about OCD?

Go 'way -- shoo!

Chandler

BTW -- your post count is belying Rooster...

 

[jacketimp]

>sigh< What was I just saying about OCD?

Go 'way -- shoo!

Chandler

BTW -- your post count is belying Rooster...

the number of the :twisted: well you know.

aaaaah numerology...........six six six inverted is 9 9 9.......9+9+9=27.....2+7=9.

9 is the highest number.......10 is 1+0........ooops sorry wrong forum........

 

[Chandler]

HIJACK!!

Chandler

BTW - 1+0 doesn't equal 10, it equals 1.

 

[Anonymous]

>sigh< What was I just saying about OCD?

Go 'way -- shoo!

Chandler

BTW -- your post count is belying Rooster...

OCD is a good thing when you're looking for a COPY of something! As far as shooing- pal, far BETTER men than you have tried to make me "shoo!" What the hell do you even know? Don't hate me 'cause I'm RIGHT!

 

[Chandler]

I know a troll when I see one -- shoo, scat, go'way!!

Chandler

 

[Anonymous]

I know a troll when I see one -- shoo, scat, go'way!!

Chandler

A troll is a lurker who hides and then tries to start fights between members -right? I don't hide and I can back my shit up unlike you. What do you know? I'm starting to get a sense of the answer to that question and it's- NOT MUCH! Why don't you go away or at least change that stupid avatar?

 

[morato]

There are no definitive answers on pocket spacing,or collar shape,hide colour,hide tanning,thread colour or anything else on originals.....because they were not precision engineered,and varied so much between jackets within the same contract/maker.All you can do is generalise,but there are always exceptions and surprises with originals,and consequently repros,depending on which original they used as a template,what mood the cutter was in etc.Even ELC and RMNZ are basically tiny cottage industries compared to mainstream clothing manufacturers.As an example I have an original Dubow where the collar shape is spot on with an RMNZ I have,but nothing like GW's jacket.I've got two Rough Wear's,1401's,originals,with very different collar shapes,stitch quality,pocket spacing (by a small amount) ,leather finish,colour...heck one of them even has TWO completely different pocket flap shapes!They were thrown together during the war with untrained machinists,hides not tanned properly beacuse of shortages and demands on supply...etc etc.

 

[Anonymous]

There are no definitive answers on pocket spacing,or collar shape,hide colour,hide tanning,thread colour or anything else on originals.....because they were not precision engineered,and varied so much between jackets within the same contract/maker.All you can do is generalise,but there are always exceptions and surprises with originals,and consequently repros,depending on which original they used as a template,what mood the cutter was in etc.Even ELC and RMNZ are basically tiny cottage industries compared to mainstream clothing manufacturers.As an example I have an original Dubow where the collar shape is spot on with an RMNZ I have,but nothing like GW's jacket.I've got two Rough Wear's,1401's,originals,with very different collar shapes,stitch quality,pocket spacing (by a small amount) ,leather finish,colour...heck one of them even has TWO completely different pocket flap shapes!They were thrown together during the war with untrained machinists,hides not tanned properly beacuse of shortages and demands on supply...etc etc.

This is partially true but still does not excuse wrong details. Generally speaking my parameters from my first post are true- and why would someone make a copy of an original jacket with a weird anomaly? Do you want widely spaced pockets because this was found on a couple of originals? I personally think that drawing 30-1415 probably had some general measurements that the jacket companies either chose to follow or not- for instance the drawing might have shown pockets- 6" , collar -3", pockets at 3" from windflpap etc. The companies then interpreted from that. If you study photos photos and period photos you'll see that some of the repros simply have big mistakes. I also am a bit dubious of your low quality scenario- I think WW2 jackets in general were well made with decent leather- just not made with super smooth leather (since when is smoothness an indicator of leather quality?) or sewn with computer like precision. Made in a hurry- yes- low quality- no.

PS- Thanks for discussing this with examples from your experience and providing "proof" of your arguments. Refreshing change from previous posts!

 

[Chandler]

Why don't you go away or at least change that stupid avatar?

Who's picking the fight?

The minute this thread went live I knew the direction you would take this, my first post was trying to add to the discussion, you're just trolling for attention. Once again.

Refreshing change from previous posts!

Like you would know.

Now Shoooooo! Fly, Shoo!

Chandler

(whose avatar is at least legible)

 

[Chandler]

I have just been watching a documentary on the b26 and its attendant ww2 footage shows lots of A-2's obviously. Some of the footage I saw showed really wide pocket spacing on these jackets.

Tim, can you report the name of the documentary? I'd like to see it myself.

Chandler

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't you go away or at least change that stupid avatar?

Who's picking the fight?

The minute this thread went live I knew the direction you would take this, my first post was trying to add to the discussion, you're just trolling for attention. Once again.

Refreshing change from previous posts!

Like you would know.

Now Shoooooo! Fly, Shoo!



Chandler

(whose avatar is at least legible)

Pal- I'll be here long after your little wannabeness is gone! Your moniker really should be Collins (as in Jackie)- you're a shallow little thing! I was clarifying your first post- WW2 pockets aren't "well away" from the pockets as in Lost Worlds or Eastman- only "well away" as far as Avirex. The problem with many repros is the scaling up to a large size thing - the windflap is the constant- not the underarm seam- get it? Now go change into your reall identity Coliins- I want to see lipstick on that next avatar!

 

[Chandler]

The big kids are talkin' here, so just go play in traffic Ralphie. :roll:

Chandler

 

[Anonymous]

The big kids are talkin' here, so just go play in traffic Ralphie. :roll:

Chandler

Funny- I'm thinkin' you're the troll...Collins!

 

[rich]

What is that in your avatar Rotte? I'll guess Russia 1941 or Vietnam 1965? Sorry, eyes ain't wot they woz.
BTW, I'm not attacking you over it!

 

[Chandler]

BTW, I'm not attacking you over it!

:lol:

Says it all.

Chandler

 

[Tim P]

no no no no no.
two pages and not one comparison measurement.
I am genuinely interested in the pocket spacing issue and not, I have to say, in who knows more than who (in their opinion) I was hoping just for a civil compilation of stats to improve the knowledge base for all. can we strive for that?
Please?

the documentary is unkown to me as I caught it a few minutes in. It was on UK sky 531 military history channel.

 

[rich]

Sorry Tim.