• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

AVI Raf Irvin

Greg Gale

Greg Gale

Well-Known Member
FYI Morten sent me an Irvin to review, but despite the fact that all of my AVI jackets are 42, the 42 Irvin was comically large, so I sent it back and he's going to send a 40. But from what I've seen, the materials are exquisite, the workmanship is top notch. Much better than on the WPG Irvin I have which is a bit wonky. It really is a great jacket.

I didn't take any photos, but I will do a review in a few months when I get home again.

When compared to other repros the sleeves are rather wide, but Morten said this is exactly how it is on the originals they based their copy on. Also, the leather color is seal brown (not dark seal), most originals I've seen are russet, but I've also seen an occasional seal brown one too. I'd be happy to hear owners of originals chip in on the color and the sleeves.
 
Harris_HTM

Harris_HTM

Well-Known Member
coolhandluke said:
I have a hard time telling which Avi reviews are actually unsolicited versus those that are paid reviews.
Click to expand...
True, and not only limited to Avi or jackets. It is only a tiny minority of reviewers, mainly on social media but also on fora, that are really transparent: did they actually buy the product, use it, and as a side activity review it, did they receive it from the manufacturer in order to review it, if so do they have to return it or keep it as a present (thus a form of paid review), and so on.
 
Greg Gale

Greg Gale

Well-Known Member
Harris_HTM said:
True, and not only limited to Avi or jackets. It is only a tiny minority of reviewers, mainly on social media but also on fora, that are really transparent: did they actually buy the product, use it, and as a side activity review it, did they receive it from the manufacturer in order to review it, if so do they have to return it or keep it as a present (thus a form of paid review), and so on.
Click to expand...
Even if it's a paid review, you see detailed shots of the jacket, the fit, get sizing advice, etc...so I wouldn't dismiss them entirely. I never said anything in any of my paid reviews that I wouldn't have said in a 'free' one.
 
D

DylanDog

Member
That’s not something I would wholly agree with.
YouTube, social media and the like are full of ‘influencers’ (bloody awful term) who depend on hits and views as a source of income.
Some of the more honest or genuine ones will either buy with their own money whatever it is they’re reviewing or make it known that it has been paid for or provided by an interested party. However, plenty, maybe even the majority, do not.
Given they have to rely on sponsored or gratis products for their content, and without them their income stream would dry up, it is quite possible that their reviews will be positively biased. In some cases they are just nothing more than adverts or infomercials.
At the very least if someone is reviewing something which they’ve been given, or the content is paid for, this ought to be declared right from the outset.
 
coolhandluke

coolhandluke

Well-Known Member
DylanDog said:
That’s not something I would wholly agree with.
YouTube, social media and the like are full of ‘influencers’ (bloody awful term) who depend on hits and views as a source of income.
Some of the more honest or genuine ones will either buy with their own money whatever it is they’re reviewing or make it known that it has been paid for or provided by an interested party. However, plenty, maybe even the majority, do not.
Given they have to rely on sponsored or gratis products for their content, and without them their income stream would dry up, it is quite possible that their reviews will be positively biased. In some cases they are just nothing more than adverts or infomercials.
At the very least if someone is reviewing something which they’ve been given, or the content is paid for, this ought to be declared right from the outset.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even those with the best intentions will feel obligated to present the item in the best light possible, if they are receiving some sort of compensation in exchange for their review. It's just human nature.

Unfortunately, I fell for all of the buzz words and catch phrases used to describe Avi jackets, before I became a little more educated and experienced. Not saying any of this to downgrade their Irvin. I've been honestly interested to see how their Chinese manufactured sheepskin jackets stack up against their Pakistani counterparts. Photos really only tell a part of the story.
 
Last edited:
Spitfireace

Spitfireace

Well-Known Member
I'm a bit of a zip head and I don't see anything close to an original looking zip on most repros. This looks ok. Looks intentionally aged. Whereas, original zips of this type look pretty shiny still. Because they are nickel, and not brass. I know it doesn't belong on a 1940 Irvin. It was DOT (Department Of Transport) zips until the later war when it was Lightning branded and then same style zip marked AM (Air Ministry) in the 1944/45 era.
 
Spitfireace

Spitfireace

Well-Known Member
20230305_133832.jpg
20230305_133832.jpg
 
Micawber

Micawber

Well-Known Member
With various manufacturers cutting and making up garments with fleeces from different sources and batches, there are bound to be differences in colour. Add to the mix wear and tear in service use and potentially in civilian hands postwar it’s no wonder we see differences 80 years on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 711 (members: 8, guests: 703)

Latest posts

Share this page

Top