A2 epaulette placement - centered or off center?

[texas_aggie]

Howdy all!

During my research I've noticed that the 'very high end' A2 reproductions (Buzz Rickson, Aero, Goodwear, etc...) have the shoulder seam back-of-enter with the trailing edge of the epaulette touching the seam and therefore centered directly over the shoulder. I've also noticed that because of this placement, the epaulettes tend to be visible from the rear of the wearer and also that they tend to 'bow' up a little.

On the other hand, it seems that the majority of mid-range A2 reproductions (Five Star, Headwind, Cockpit USA, US Wings, Gibson & Barnes) place the shoulder seam directly over the shoulders with the trailing edge of the epaulette also touching the seam, but causing the epaulette to roll forward slightly. This usually means that the epaulettes can't be seen from the rear of the wearer but that they do tend to be wear flatter and not 'bow' up like on the higher end reproductions.

I've also noticed that the issued A2 jackets (Excelled Leather, United Sheepskin, etc...) follow a similar trend to the mid-range reproductions.

And yet I've also seen higher-end reproductions (Lost Worlds, for example) that follow the mid-range example of slightly canted epaulettes and I've also seen some old(er) A2's that do this as well.

I understand that this design difference is a bit of a point of contention among forum members and I'm wondering what some of you have to say about this. Do we know why this design change happened? Is it purely cost and materials? Or is there another reason? And, does anyone know when this change occurred, ie: during the 1980s when the USAF started re-issuing A2's from Avirex or Cooper?

Thanks!

 

[mulceber]

Howdy all!

During my research I've noticed that the 'very high end' A2 reproductions (Buzz Rickson, Aero, Goodwear, etc...) have the shoulder seam back-of-enter with the trailing edge of the epaulette touching the seam and therefore centered directly over the shoulder. I've also noticed that because of this placement, the epaulettes tend to be visible from the rear of the wearer and also that they tend to 'bow' up a little.

On the other hand, it seems that the majority of mid-range A2 reproductions (Five Star, Headwind, Cockpit USA, US Wings, Gibson & Barnes) place the shoulder seam directly over the shoulders with the trailing edge of the epaulette also touching the seam, but causing the epaulette to roll forward slightly. This usually means that the epaulettes can't be seen from the rear of the wearer but that they do tend to be wear flatter and not 'bow' up like on the higher end reproductions.

I've also noticed that the issued A2 jackets (Excelled Leather, United Sheepskin, etc...) follow a similar trend to the mid-range reproductions.

And yet I've also seen higher-end reproductions (Lost Worlds, for example) that follow the mid-range example of slightly canted epaulettes and I've also seen some old(er) A2's that do this as well.

I understand that this design difference is a bit of a point of contention among forum members and I'm wondering what some of you have to say about this. Do we know why this design change happened? Is it purely cost and materials? Or is there another reason? And, does anyone know when this change occurred, ie: during the 1980s when the USAF started re-issuing A2's from Avirex or Cooper?

Thanks!

There's a slight problem with how you're approaching this: you're assuming that ALL of the high-end makers do X while all of the originals do Y. In reality, GW, Eastman, Buzz Rickson, etc. will center the epaulet over the shoulder seam or put it in front of the seam, depending on which contract they're reproducing. Some of the originals put the seam over the shoulder seam, and some put it in front - it was purely at the discretion of the person at the (original) company who was making the patterns.

 

[Chandler]

JMO (and there are plenty on this forum), but epaulettes on an A-2 (or any jacket) should be square on top of the shoulders.

Rolling forward or backward (something I've never seen myself) just looks shoddy.

 

[mulceber]

Both of these are GW:
GW 18091

GW 18777-P

 

[Chandler]

Both of these are GW:
GW 18091

GW 18777-P

But they both sit square on the shoulder(s), right?

No roll forward (or backward) as mentioned in the OP.

 

[mulceber]

But they both sit square on the shoulder(s), right?

No roll forward (or backward) as mentioned in the OP.

It seems like the OP is talking about two different phenomena - whether the epaulettes sit on the shoulder seam or in front of it, and the issue of whether they sit squarely on the shoulders. On that second one, I don't have much of an opinion - all the originals and repros I've owned have sat on the shoulder.

 

[texas_aggie]

That's what I'm curious about: do ALL the originals sit squarely on the shoulders?

Or do some contract reproductions sit forward like with contemporary versions?

 

[Chandler]

- all the originals and repros I've owned have sat on the shoulder.

This, times 10.

 

[texas_aggie]

Okay. So if that is the case, then why do all the contemporary versions have the epaulettes slightly rolled forward?

You see it in, I would argue, every mid-range manufacturer.

 

[Chandler]

Or do some contract reproductions sit forward like with contemporary versions?

They shouldn't.

FWIW -- I looked for examples of that forward slouch on the web and couldn't find any pics -- maybe the cheap repros are even fixing that weird fit.

 

[Chandler]

You see it in, I would argue, every mid-range manufacturer.

My G&B fits square.

 

[Silver Surfer]

in original some contracts they are directly over the seam, on others they are on front of the seam. the only place I haven't seen them placed is where the pockets should be. plenty of wonky epaulet placements on originals. oh, and than there's the stitching.....

 

[texas_aggie]

Fair enough! What I was trying to get at was that I thought I noticed a trend in contemporary reproductions where the epaulettes were slightly rolled forward compared to the WW2 variation, maybe a few degrees at most.

On the other hand, after opening this can of worms, I've come to realize that the only consistency with regard to A2's... is inconsistency!

 

[mulceber]

On the other hand, after opening this can of worms, I've come to realize that the only consistency with regard to A2's... is inconsistency!

And that's half the fun.

 

[Chandler]

What I was trying to get at was that I thought I noticed a trend in contemporary reproductions where the epaulettes were slightly rolled forward compared to the WW2 variation, maybe a few degrees at most.

You weren't seeing things, but it's mostly prominent in the very cheaply manufactured "repros." (I hesitate to even call them that)

 

[mulceber]

After a bit of digging, apparently original Broncos have the rolled forward epaulettes, and Dubows to a lesser degree. But yeah, the overwhelming majority of manufacturers showed more care in how they constructed these jackets.

 

[Chandler]

After a bit of digging, apparently original Broncos have the rolled forward epaulettes, and Dubows to a lesser degree.

Examples? I'd be surprised if they looked as bad as the department store knock-offs I've seen.

 

[mulceber]

Examples? I'd be surprised if they looked as bad as the department store knock-offs I've seen.

As you said, nowhere near as egregious as many modern jackets.

 

[Chandler]

As you said, nowhere near as egregious as many modern jackets.

Yeah, definitely nowhere near the "roll" I've seen on a lot of modern jackets.

 

[texas_aggie]

@Chandler do you have photos of what you mean by 'roll' on poorer reproductions?