• 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.

define original..........

jacketimp

New Member
OK mulling this over.

vet, just post war, patches up his original A2, with original patches. Or paint nose art post war. Just after the war, NOT decades later.

would you guys consider that to be all original?

would your answer be different if it's done some time after the war?
 

bazelot

Well-Known Member
A lot of them were painted after their tour of duty. I had an A-2 jacket with painted on the back "35 missions ETO". This had to be painted after the tour. A lot of the bombs that were painted on the back of the jackets had to be painted after their tour was over as well.
 

jacketimp

New Member
bazelot said:
A lot of them were painted after their tour of duty. I had an A-2 jacket with painted on the back "35 missions ETO". This had to be painted after the tour. A lot of the bombs that were painted on the back of the jackets had to be painted after their tour was over as well.


see where you're coming from, after all there was a war going on....as if they have time to pop down to their locals......also it wouldn't be practical to have each bomb painted after each mission!
 

tgd31968

Member
I would think that you look at the jacket, not the art. If the original user had it painted on in 1980, whats the difference? It is still an original jacket, and the original owner had it done. That would be MY definition, which is worth, well, nothing officially.

I expect that virtually all of the jacket art was done after the fact. Perhaps only months later but more likely year(s).

I don't have photographic evidence but I am pretty sure that there were no artists waiting with the crash trucks to take the jackets off the fliers backs as they exited the plane to update the artwork for the next morning's mission. Maybe those guys on the bikes weren't really mechanics after all. :D

If you put yourself in the mindset of the air crew, I doubt painting the jackets was high on their list of priorities until after their tour was over. Booze, cigarettes and women were probably the main concern for most of them. with the stress of combat and not knowing if you will die tomorrow, I can't imagine making sure the jacket was painted was a concern until AFTER the combat tour, when you can afford to start to get nostalgic.

TD
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tgd31968
I expect that virtually all of the jacket art was done after the fact
Actually there's plenty of photographic evidence of jackets being used painted- in fact I'd say painting jackets was one of the things crews did during the often long time between missions. Check out any of the Bomb Group websites- they all have many many pictures of crewmembers in their painted jackets during the war. In fact Great Legend has it that many airmen didn't keep their jackets and the AAF got rid of the painted ones that were turned in. So I'd say painted jackets during was a common scenario.
 

TankBuster

Active Member
Yep, I agree. In the 8th and 9th AAF especially. Painting jackets became the norm mid to late war.
Some were painted at the end of a combat tour, but while the vet was waiting release from the
service. Anything painted years after the war in my opinion is not original in my definition.
One can normally detect if a jacket was painted in the 40's or the 60's. But each person has their
own point of view.
 

Curahee

New Member
If it was done by the original owner of an original jacket wich was used in that war, using original patches and done JUST
after that war and by himself (so not for money by someone else) I would say yes...if it looks like a duck quaks like a duck
 
Top