mulceber
Moderator
Introduction and preliminary photos:
Jan
A couple months back, Burt and I set out on a project comparing United Sheeplined originals (https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...-owners-unite-and-show-us-your-jackets.24867/). The post generated a lengthy discussion and we had so much fun that, when it was done, we wanted to keep going. There was only one problem: United Sheeplined was the only original contract we had in common! I have a Cable, and Burt has a...whole mess of gorgeous originals, but no overlap. Undeterred, he asked me what repros I have, and when we discovered that he has an original RW 23380, while I have a repro of it by Bill Kelso, we got the idea of doing a nuts and bolts comparison. Since we found out around the same time that Jorge has two originals of this contract, and he had added such great material to the United Sheeplined thread, we invited him on board to compare his jackets as well.
Whereas the previous project was all about showing how much variability there could be among originals, this project aims to do that AND look at what details repro makers reproduce from originals when they copy a jacket. I will inevitably assess the accuracy a bit as I’m writing my part of the review, but I’m going to try not to make it all about accuracy, for a number of reasons. First, there’s enough variation among originals that most possible differences between my repro and the vintage jackets discussed in this thread could reasonably be put down simply to Andy having made his pattern based on an original that was different from theirs. Second, I think reviews that concern themselves only with accuracy tend to be either very negative or (sometimes) over the top in their praise, and I want this to be a kind, but balanced review. Third, I really like my BK repro and don’t want to knock it down! I say all this without having yet compared the jackets though, so I have no idea what we’re going to find.
I know that several other people have originals or repros of the 23380 by various makers. @Brettafett, @Lord Flashheart, @stanier, we’d love for you to chime in and share the details of your jackets as well.
Now, on to the contract: the 23380 was the fourth contract Rough Wear received, and was let to them the day after Christmas, 1941, on the same day as the Dubow 23379 and Monarch’s only A-2 contract. The 23380 contract comprised 12,000 jackets, at a price of $7.70 per jacket - a small contract compared to the massive orders the US would start placing just a few months later. All of the contracts placed within two months of Pearl Harbor were on a similar scale to the 23380 (the largest was the Perry 23377 in the first week of the new year: 20,000 jackets), however, so it seems likely that the AAF had enough of a back stock of jackets going into the war that their needs could be met for the moment by letting four to five small contracts, as opposed to really big ones.
Oh, one final thing: in general, the order in which the photos are posted will follow the order in which people are speaking. The only exception is this first section, where Burt's jacket is pictured first, followed by Jorge's two, with my repro bringing up the rear.
Burt
Well said Jan … I’ll just add that Rough Wear was the 2nd most prolific maker of A2 jackets during the Second World War , being awarded a total of 5 different production contracts and a total of 119328 jackets, behind Aero’s 7 different contracts and a total of 134500 jackets. If you served in the USAAF during the second world war as a pilot or a flight crew member, there was a good chance that the A2 jacket you were issued was probably an Aero or a Rough Wear.
Jorge
Well said guys! Having five contracts during WWII, Rough Wear made some of the most iconic A-2s. All I have left to say is that the cut and some of the details of this contract are very typical of other Rough Wear contracts. I have two examples of the 23380; one is a WWII issued (russet) model and the other is possibly a Korean War re-issued (re-dyed) model. That being said, I hope it will be entertaining and informative to compare both models side by side. Both jackets have the same cut, but they have seen different action during their service.
Collars
Burt
The Rough Wear collar is probably one of the most distinguishing characteristics of all manufacturers A2 jackets. Rough Wear collars are large, no doubt about it . Compare them to a Werber or a Perry collar and they look huge. It’s just a trait of a Rough Wear regardless of the contract .
As Jan mentioned in his introduction, this particular 23380 contract was made at the end of 1941 in December, which means that this was an early war production A2 jacket. Collar stands were being incorporated into the design of most jackets at that time and the Rough Wear 23380 utilized the collar stand as well. Later in the war other jacket manufacturers did away with the collar stand, in an effort to speed up production and cut manufacturing costs. However, Rough Wear never did that and if you own a Rough Wear jacket of any contract , it will have a collar stand.
Jorge
As Burt said, Rough Wear collars are one of the main characteristics of their contracts. The Rough Wear pattern is stylish, and the collar provides a truly classy look when worn.
Jan
Burt layed out the details of the Rough Wear collars, so all that’s left to me is to show how the Kelso repro stacks up. In general, BK stands up really well compared to its elders. The silhouette of the collar is correct, and I think both the original and the repro are a bit more subdued than Rough Wear collars can sometimes appear. The one area where there is an inaccuracy is in the collar hooks. If you look closely inside the collar on the original, you’ll see that the lining is protected from the sharp edges of the eyelets by tiny washers:
Those washers are a feature common to all Rough Wears, but they’re missing from Kelso repros. This is a minor error, and it certainly wouldn’t deter me from buying from BK in the future. In fact, I can almost guarantee that I would not have noticed this detail if I hadn’t later found mention of it in Eastman’s A-2 guide. Nonetheless, I thought it worth pointing out. Apart from this small error, the Kelso repro is spot on, especially in terms of its pattern.
Epaulets
Jorge
Rough Wear epaulets are relatively wide and this contract is not the exception. Another feature is the stitching on the epaulets drawing a very square box on their edges.
Burt
My 23380 epaulets are typical of the Rough Wear epaulet design in that it has a very light, hardly noticeable taper throughout the length of the epaulet. The edges of the epaulet have a double row of stitching and are sewn down in front of the shoulder seam. There are X box stitched into each end of the epaulet at its attachment points.
Jan
My repro copies the details of the originals quite well! Relatively wide epaulets (as Jorge said), and a very gentle tapering (as Burt said), going from the end of the epaulet that attaches to the shoulder to the end that attaches underneath the collar stand. I would also add that the x-boxes are each a perfect square, whereas some other contracts, like the Dubows and Cables, have very oblong x-boxes. Apart from one of them being vintage leather while the other is liberty horsehide, the only way I can tell these jackets apart is that the corner of one of the x-boxes on Burt’s original is slightly rounded, likely due to the operator of the sewing machine being in a rush. That is a sign of rush that is not present on my jacket, although it’s not present on Jorge’s originals either.
Jan
A couple months back, Burt and I set out on a project comparing United Sheeplined originals (https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...-owners-unite-and-show-us-your-jackets.24867/). The post generated a lengthy discussion and we had so much fun that, when it was done, we wanted to keep going. There was only one problem: United Sheeplined was the only original contract we had in common! I have a Cable, and Burt has a...whole mess of gorgeous originals, but no overlap. Undeterred, he asked me what repros I have, and when we discovered that he has an original RW 23380, while I have a repro of it by Bill Kelso, we got the idea of doing a nuts and bolts comparison. Since we found out around the same time that Jorge has two originals of this contract, and he had added such great material to the United Sheeplined thread, we invited him on board to compare his jackets as well.
Whereas the previous project was all about showing how much variability there could be among originals, this project aims to do that AND look at what details repro makers reproduce from originals when they copy a jacket. I will inevitably assess the accuracy a bit as I’m writing my part of the review, but I’m going to try not to make it all about accuracy, for a number of reasons. First, there’s enough variation among originals that most possible differences between my repro and the vintage jackets discussed in this thread could reasonably be put down simply to Andy having made his pattern based on an original that was different from theirs. Second, I think reviews that concern themselves only with accuracy tend to be either very negative or (sometimes) over the top in their praise, and I want this to be a kind, but balanced review. Third, I really like my BK repro and don’t want to knock it down! I say all this without having yet compared the jackets though, so I have no idea what we’re going to find.
I know that several other people have originals or repros of the 23380 by various makers. @Brettafett, @Lord Flashheart, @stanier, we’d love for you to chime in and share the details of your jackets as well.
Now, on to the contract: the 23380 was the fourth contract Rough Wear received, and was let to them the day after Christmas, 1941, on the same day as the Dubow 23379 and Monarch’s only A-2 contract. The 23380 contract comprised 12,000 jackets, at a price of $7.70 per jacket - a small contract compared to the massive orders the US would start placing just a few months later. All of the contracts placed within two months of Pearl Harbor were on a similar scale to the 23380 (the largest was the Perry 23377 in the first week of the new year: 20,000 jackets), however, so it seems likely that the AAF had enough of a back stock of jackets going into the war that their needs could be met for the moment by letting four to five small contracts, as opposed to really big ones.
Oh, one final thing: in general, the order in which the photos are posted will follow the order in which people are speaking. The only exception is this first section, where Burt's jacket is pictured first, followed by Jorge's two, with my repro bringing up the rear.
Burt
Well said Jan … I’ll just add that Rough Wear was the 2nd most prolific maker of A2 jackets during the Second World War , being awarded a total of 5 different production contracts and a total of 119328 jackets, behind Aero’s 7 different contracts and a total of 134500 jackets. If you served in the USAAF during the second world war as a pilot or a flight crew member, there was a good chance that the A2 jacket you were issued was probably an Aero or a Rough Wear.
Jorge
Well said guys! Having five contracts during WWII, Rough Wear made some of the most iconic A-2s. All I have left to say is that the cut and some of the details of this contract are very typical of other Rough Wear contracts. I have two examples of the 23380; one is a WWII issued (russet) model and the other is possibly a Korean War re-issued (re-dyed) model. That being said, I hope it will be entertaining and informative to compare both models side by side. Both jackets have the same cut, but they have seen different action during their service.
Collars
Burt
The Rough Wear collar is probably one of the most distinguishing characteristics of all manufacturers A2 jackets. Rough Wear collars are large, no doubt about it . Compare them to a Werber or a Perry collar and they look huge. It’s just a trait of a Rough Wear regardless of the contract .
As Jan mentioned in his introduction, this particular 23380 contract was made at the end of 1941 in December, which means that this was an early war production A2 jacket. Collar stands were being incorporated into the design of most jackets at that time and the Rough Wear 23380 utilized the collar stand as well. Later in the war other jacket manufacturers did away with the collar stand, in an effort to speed up production and cut manufacturing costs. However, Rough Wear never did that and if you own a Rough Wear jacket of any contract , it will have a collar stand.
Jorge
As Burt said, Rough Wear collars are one of the main characteristics of their contracts. The Rough Wear pattern is stylish, and the collar provides a truly classy look when worn.
Jan
Burt layed out the details of the Rough Wear collars, so all that’s left to me is to show how the Kelso repro stacks up. In general, BK stands up really well compared to its elders. The silhouette of the collar is correct, and I think both the original and the repro are a bit more subdued than Rough Wear collars can sometimes appear. The one area where there is an inaccuracy is in the collar hooks. If you look closely inside the collar on the original, you’ll see that the lining is protected from the sharp edges of the eyelets by tiny washers:
Those washers are a feature common to all Rough Wears, but they’re missing from Kelso repros. This is a minor error, and it certainly wouldn’t deter me from buying from BK in the future. In fact, I can almost guarantee that I would not have noticed this detail if I hadn’t later found mention of it in Eastman’s A-2 guide. Nonetheless, I thought it worth pointing out. Apart from this small error, the Kelso repro is spot on, especially in terms of its pattern.
Epaulets
Jorge
Rough Wear epaulets are relatively wide and this contract is not the exception. Another feature is the stitching on the epaulets drawing a very square box on their edges.
Burt
My 23380 epaulets are typical of the Rough Wear epaulet design in that it has a very light, hardly noticeable taper throughout the length of the epaulet. The edges of the epaulet have a double row of stitching and are sewn down in front of the shoulder seam. There are X box stitched into each end of the epaulet at its attachment points.
Jan
My repro copies the details of the originals quite well! Relatively wide epaulets (as Jorge said), and a very gentle tapering (as Burt said), going from the end of the epaulet that attaches to the shoulder to the end that attaches underneath the collar stand. I would also add that the x-boxes are each a perfect square, whereas some other contracts, like the Dubows and Cables, have very oblong x-boxes. Apart from one of them being vintage leather while the other is liberty horsehide, the only way I can tell these jackets apart is that the corner of one of the x-boxes on Burt’s original is slightly rounded, likely due to the operator of the sewing machine being in a rush. That is a sign of rush that is not present on my jacket, although it’s not present on Jorge’s originals either.
Last edited: