Jacket fit.

[Smithy]

Nice! I found a great Pinterest collection, and most are very unlike the one in the first post here. There are some baggy ones, but mostly on bomber crew (for more layering?)
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/cwassociates/a2-jackets/?lp=true

Only rarely do the shoulder seams fall below the shoulder by more than 1/2 inch. Check the grain on this one:

It's a fantastic photo that. I've tried to track down who that is but without success. He's one of those brilliant examples of what war does to a face - a young man's face but with an old man's eyes.

 

[Technonut2112]

Nice pinterest collection, but I still don't see the 8 out of 10. Maybe we have a different definition of baggy/ trim. Do you consider your GW RW 27752 on the looser side? Because to me it doesn't seem baggy at all, on a scale to 1 to 10 where 1 is trim and 10 is the fist photo in this thread, I'd give it a 5-6. Can you post a picture that in your opinion is one of the 2 out of 10 that's "trim"? just so that I can calibrate

I've owned 3 repro RW contracts.. A RMNZ 1401-P, GW 18091, and the GW 27752. The 1401-P was the most 'trim' out of the 3, and I DO consider the 27752 to be one of the '8-out-of-10's'. The measurement #'s indicate a fairly trim A-2, but due to the larger upper sleeve circumference, and overall pattern, the jacket feels and is roomy. Pit-pit, shoulders, sleeves, and body-length is perfect for me.

My jacket was directly patterned from an original size 44, and fits as well as if the jacket was chosen for my 44" chest. Wouldn't want it a bit smaller anywhere. However, I can easily layer a C-2 sweater underneath, or a thick vintage sweatshirt if desired. I can sit-down and lean forward without the knits riding-up over my belt-line, and has just enough blousing over the waistline to look 'right'.. (to me.. )

That should be enough to answer your question. If you do not see my 27752 as a bit 'baggy', we clearly do have different notions of 'baggy' and trim.., and perhaps are not far off in our perceptions..

 

[Greg Gale]

No, au contraire, your 27752 is in the middle of my scale, definitely not baggy. That's my point exactly. We have similar ideas, but we mean different things by trim/ baggy

 

[Silver Surfer]

btw, has anyone noticed that the guy in the first pic of this thread is tiny? i mean really tiny. the patch on my rw is 5 1/8" in diameter, and for the sake of argument, his patch is is the same or 1/4"+-. name tags are anywhere from 3 1/2" to 4" long give or take. now look at the positioning of his patch in relation to the pocket flap tops, and the patch and name tag in relationship to the epaulets. by any reckoning, his jacket is a size 36, at most [were smaller a-2s made], and yet it is large on him. 5'3"-3", 100-115 pounds soaking wet. judging an original a-2 fit is obviously subjective, and some what speculative based on old wwll pix......yeah, i know, thats what we have to make do with. but......

 

[B-Man2]

Here’s a suggestion regarding obtaining that wartime trim look. Take your A2 jacket, regardless of the manufacturer. Now put on a set of long underwear, over that put on a wool or gabardine shirt with a tie, now over the shirt, put on a sweater. Finish off the entire look with a scarf, and now put on your A2 jacket. If your jacket is too tight or you have trouble zipping it. It’s probably to small for you.
I say this because in most of the photos in this thread the pilots and the air crews had some, or most of that kit on and that accounts to some degree for that trim look. I guarantee if they just had a tee shirt on, their jackets in most cases would look baggy. Now throw on a parachute harness and you really have a trim looking jacket. Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

[jeremiah]

Do you guys say my BK is baggy?

 

[Steve27752]

View attachment 8071 Do you guys say my BK is baggy?

I would say that the sleeves definitely need to be shortened.

 

[Persimmon]

Now put on a set of long underwear, over that put on a wool or gabardine shirt with a tie, now over the shirt, put on a sweater. Finish off the entire look with a scarf, and now put on your A2 jacket.

Ha ha. Right let me pop straight down to the local supermarket -
Can I have a pair of long johns please. What ! Oh yes, a wool shirt. What !
I need as well a WW2 engineer sweater please. What !
Finally I need one of those RAF spotty scarfs. !!

Of course Sir ..........

 

[Greg Gale]

Do you guys say my BK is baggy?

No. This is how it fits your body type/size. It's not as trim as Don Blakeslee's or Jim Goodson's, but it doesn't look like you went up a size unnecessarily. There doesn't seem to be more than 2x1/2 inches extra inches in the shoulder. Leave the sleeves alone, the chest/ shoulder size dictates the size of the jacket, the sleeve length is wherever the chips fall. Plus they will shorten a bit if you wear it a lot, but they look fine like this.

What people don't realize is that:
1) a smaller A-2 is not smaller in every aspect. The pockets are the same size, the leather is as thick as on a 44, etc...all this matters.

2) Nobody is proportionally smaller/ shorter/ bigger than the other guy. It's not like we're all cookie cutter and the a magic beam was used to alter our size.

 

[Greg Gale]

Here’s a suggestion regarding obtaining that wartime trim look. Take your A2 jacket, regardless of the manufacturer. Now put on a set of long underwear, over that put on a wool or gabardine shirt with a tie, now over the shirt, put on a sweater. Finish off the entire look with a scarf, and now put on your A2 jacket. If your jacket is too tight or you have trouble zipping it. It’s probably to small for you.
I say this because in most of the photos in this thread the pilots and the air crews had some, or most of that kit on and that accounts to some degree for that trim look. I guarantee if they just had a tee shirt on, their jackets in most cases would look baggy. Now throw on a parachute harness and you really have a trim looking jacket. Just my thoughts on the subject.

I hear this argument a lot, but I don't fully agree. I give you that, if you have a sweater underneath and you can't even zip it up or move, it's too small. But it's not how all A-2s were worn in wartime. It may be true for bomber crew, where I usually see many layers underneath, but 19 out of 20 fighter jock photos show a guy with an A-2 over a regulation shirt.

This being said, challenge accepted! home-wear shorts (sorry), a regulation shirt, a Billabong sweater that's thicker than wartime wool sweaters, a polka dot scarf, and I could still zip it up, it wasn't restrictive when moving. However, if it fit me loose and cozy when worn over all this, chances are it wouldn't look too good when worn over a shirt only. Even at this size, when worn over a T-shirt, I can put a baseball over my chest, and 2 more over my waist, zip it up, and there's still room to spare. Heck, I could shoplift 3-4 cans of beer! I tried some looser fitting ones at Duxford in July (over a regulation shirt), and the unanimous opinion was "nah..."

 

[Technonut2112]

It appears to me that you would be better off with a long size. The jacket looks too short in the body and sleeves... If there's a consensus that it looks great, Ken is right... there is an 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome going on around these parts IMO..

EDIT: This Eastman Star looks good to me in overall fit and body length, but needs the sleeves shortened a bit:

 

[Greg Gale]

As I said I'm wearing it with low-waist home shorts, not jeans, nor M37 pants. The torso is just as long as in your picture when worn with normal pants. It even blouses. It's not short. Plus there were no long sizes in wartime - and we're talking about wartime fit in this thread, aren't we?
Also, it's funny how my picture with reenactors was dismissed, but then you post a photo of a modern guy who is nowhere near as skinny as WW2 pilots. No surprise he had to go for a larger size that consequently gives him extra sleeve length and shoulder room. Which looks good too, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's baggy, it's the right fit. I'm saying the length is just a consequence of him having to go for a larger size than what a WW2 pilot of his height would have gone for.

Here's me wearing a size 42 tent. If you call this a 8 out of 10 "wartime fit", then we really don't have much to discuss about. There's room for cans of beers from my shoulder all the way to the cuffs. And if by "The emperor's new clothes syndrome" you're suggesting that I'm somehow trying to justify the way my jacket fits only because I paid a lot for this jacket, I'd call it a low blow that could very well be used the other way around too

 

[Smithy]

Your 40 looks perfect on you Greg, jumper, polka dot scarf and even shorts.

That 42 though is starting to get into Jerry Seinfeld territory

 

[Greg Gale]

Thanks @Smithy . I don't think it's "perfect". I don't think there is such a thing. But I'm sure it's the best I could get, trying many contracts and sizes. Is it too short in the sleeves? some would say so. It's on the shorter side of things. Do I care? No. Because a) that's where the chips fell with this most comfortably fitting torso size and b) I can find 50+ wartime photos in 10 minutes where the sleeves fit just as short or even shorter. Just like I could find 50+ wartime pics where the sleeves are completely tunneled.

 

[Brettafett]

Either of those jackets would suit. Depends on the wearer. Greg prefers the 40 and it looks superb. Someone else may prefer the 42 (though that collar hole appears a bit big).
Some guys may not have a choice, but to go for the 42 (blessed with a full torso )... Given a few years, both jackets would look awesome. Any WW2 aviator would be very very happy with either of them.
So much depends on the pattern also. Jeremiah, that BK Aero looks great, yes maybe sleeves a touch long, but thats solvable... This is an Aero and thats how they look. And that jacket on you, to me at least... looks classic WW2 aviator.

 

[Technonut2112]

Plus there were no long sizes in wartime

Unfortunately, these are modern times (as much as I wish it were 1942), and the average joe on the street (who is judging your appearance) has no idea regarding that fact.. I thought that Eastman would make a long.. Hell, aren't they making a 'slender' A-2 now? Didn't have those in wartime either. I apologize that my opinion isn't what you want to read, but I just call it like I see it..

 

[Greg Gale]

Unfortunately, these are modern times (as much as I wish it were 1942), and the average joe on the street (who is judging your appearance) has no idea regarding that fact.. I thought that Eastman would make a long.. Hell, aren't they making a 'slender' A-2 now? Didn't have those in wartime either. I apologize that my opinion isn't what you want to read, but I just call it like I see it..

I don't understand what it has to do with any of the above. You stated that in wartime 8 out of 10 jackets fit quite loose. I disagreed. That's it. And I don't mind if the way my jacket fits me doesn't appeal to you or anyone else, you don't need to apologize for that

 

[Technonut2112]

I don't understand what it has to do with any of the above. You stated that in wartime 8 out of 10 jackets fit quite loose. I disagreed. That's it. And I don't mind if the way my jacket fits me doesn't appeal to you or anyone else, you don't need to apologize for that

Has nothing to do with my 8 out of 10 rule... You posted a pic, and I think it looks too short in the sleeves / body... Just like I did when you first posted it. Gotta give me points for consistency..........

 

[Greg Gale]

Yeah, I got that even the first time

 

[jeremiah]

Got some cool pics in the background Greg. Jacket looks great.