Dubow Pocket Question

[Striker]

What is the correct width and length for the original Dubow style pocket? Isn't it more of a square shape?

Also, is there any particular original A-2 manufacturer that made the pockets larger than the typical size?

Thanks,

Striker

 

[Roughwear]

I can answer this but am curious why you want to know.

 

[Striker]

Andrew,

Looking at the Flight Suits A-2, the pockets appear to be the shape of the Dubow, yet they look like they might be slightly larger (but I could be wrong, I'm just going by photos).

The authentic Dubow pocket looks rather small, but I guess that also depends on the particular jacket size I'm looking at in photos. A large size A-2 would have the pockets appear smaller.

No rush, but if you have a chance I'd really be interested in knowing the measurements.

Thanks,

Striker

 

[Falcon_52]

Also, is there any particular original A-2 manufacturer that made the pockets larger than the typical size?

The one manufacturer that always appeared (to me anyway) to have larger than normal pockets was Security Aviation Togs. The pockets on this first A-2 order seem to be longer top-to-bottom than the later A-2s. It may just be an optical illusion plus the sample size of photos is REALLY, REALLY small as their weren't many of these jackets made.

On the flip side, the Bronco A-2 pockets look a little smaller to me than other makers but again maybe it's down to pocket flap shape and the beveled corners on the pockets.

Noel

 

[SteveN]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know why the A-2 pockets are the size they are? I noticed that they seem to perfectly fit the old 'standard' sized whiz-wheels (aluminium) and am curious if there's any known relationship.

Regards,
- SteveN

 

[Striker]

Here's something I found interesting regarding a repro of a Rough Wear pocket.

Reading Marc's review of the Real McCoy's Rough Wear 27752, he states the following:

"The pockets are proper in stitching, placement, and mostly in pattern. The pocket flap shape is not quite representative of Rough Wear, being a bit too pointed in the center. The size of the pockets are just a bit smaller than those on the 16159 by one-quarter inch in each width and height, although the appearance is fine."

Marc states that the pocket dimensions are 1/4" smaller for both the width and the height compared with an original Rough Wear 16159.

Striker

 

[deeb7]

Marc states that the pocket dimensions are 1/4" smaller for both the width and the height compared with an original Rough Wear 16159.

Okay, so it was compared with one original example from an earlier contract. Allowing for variations in hand cutting, and any slight difference in seam allowances between machinists ... I'm not seeing this as the crime of the century.

 

[navvet]

Deeb7 has a good point. Surely variations occured even in the same shop with the same cutters. :?