Need Help to Identify "A2 Werber Leather Coat Co. Contract 1729"

[mulceber]

I've had that thought too, and I'm sure any of them could help Shawn. I just wonder if it's fair to ask them to give information to a competitor, especially knowing that, if they give it, they'll be putting another Five Star offering on the market. John's already been very generous in sharing information with Shawn. I hesitate to suggest asking him to do more.

 

[Chris 55]

I'll just ask this out of curiosity where all the jackets made in the same factory.
I know nothing

 

[mulceber]

I'll just ask this out of curiosity where all the jackets made in the same factory.
I know nothing

That’s an interesting question, and one I can’t answer with absolute certainty. My impression is that a lot of them, like Rough Wear, had one factory and that was it. But then there was Spiewak, which owned a number of subsidiaries (Bronco and United Sheeplined), each of which had a different address. So I suspect that Werber made them all in one factory, especially since they were located in a small town where space wasn’t at a premium, but I don’t know for sure.

 

[bseal]

It’s probably a Werber. There, happy to help.

 

[Pilot]

Maybe this helps a bit
page 23 of Full Gear.

 

[B-Man2]

A size 54….? That’s the first time I’ve seen an A2 that size .

 

[Pilot]

A size 54….? That’s the first time I’ve seen an A2 that size .

In ( collectors world in ) Japan everything is possible

 

[ties70]

Bryce,

if the Full Gear book shows indeed a Werber 33-1729, this adds another mystery to "Shawn's" jacket and the 1729 contract, as well....

The size 54 has an unusal construction of the zipper box / windflap area and is missing the extra leather...here are the jackets by GW and ELC:

What does this tell us?

Did ELC / GW got this detail wrong?
No, as it can be seen on Shawn's unmarked Werber and is characteristic for this maker...

Was production of the 1729 maybe all over the place?
With little oddities, like L-shaped pocket reinforcements being as likely as narrower leather tabs at the zipper?

Or are we back at the "private purchase" / "leftover" theory....at least a size 54 would have been unlikely for USAAF personnel as an "issued" item....

Ties

 

[leper-colony]

...And square pocket corners.

 

[B-Man2]

Bryce,

if the Full Gear book shows indeed a Werber 33-1729, this adds another mystery to "Shawn's" jacket and the 1729 contract, as well....

The size 54 has an unusal construction of the zipper box / windflap area and is missing the extra leather...here are the jackets by GW and ELC:

View attachment 63375

View attachment 63376

What does this tell us?

Did ELC / GW got this detail wrong?
No, as it can be seen on Shawn's unmarked Werber and is characteristic for this maker...

Was production of the 1729 maybe all over the place?
With little oddities, like L-shaped pocket reinforcements being as likely as narrower leather tabs at the zipper?

Or are we back at the "private purchase" / "leftover" theory....at least a size 54 would have been unlikely for USAAF personnel as an "issued" item....

Ties

Ties
I remembered that a while back a fly in, fly out poster , posted some photos of his grandfathers jacket that he wanted to have restored as it turned out the guy posted photos of a never altered or anything replaced , Original Werber 1729. I don’t know if this will clarify anything but here they are .

 

[33-1729]

...And square pocket corners.

Comparing an original that B-Man2 posted above to the jacket in post #1 I think calling it a 33-1729 is like fitting a round peg in a square hole. Just too many anomalies.

"Private purchase" versus "leftover"? The government inspected and owned the materials needed to construct a jacket to the vendors providing construction labor and with clear production figures known ahead of time I suspect not too many leftovers. And if there were “leftover” material parts they’d still be government owned and intended for other contracts. Even if they did transfer ownership of “leftovers” to the manufacturer they’d still be constructed and sold as commercial items through their commercial distribution network. In other words, there aren’t any “leftovers” even if they were.

 

[mulceber]

"Private purchase" versus "leftover"? The government inspected and owned the materials needed to construct a jacket to the vendors providing construction labor and with clear production figures known ahead of time I suspect not too many leftovers. And if there were “leftover” material parts they’d still be government owned and intended for other contracts.

You are right that the government sourced the materials and provided them to the company for the construction of these jackets, but any material left over once the contract was done was left to the company to do with as they saw fit. Much of the time they just kept on making jackets as before, maybe with a few upgrades, and made them available for private purchase. You can see an example of this process in action in this AN-J-3 from a while back, where Willis & Geiger very clearly just kept on making jackets after their contract was done and sold them through Abercrombie & Fitch. John Chapman outlines more or less what I just said on the page I linked above. Same leather, same thread, same liner, but with a civilian zipper and an A&F tag. Getting that extra leather was regarded as a perk of winning a government contract.

 

[33-1729]

You are right that the government sourced the materials and provided them to the company for the construction of these jackets, but any material left over once the contract was done was left to the company to do with as they saw fit. Much of the time they just kept on making jackets as before, maybe with a few upgrades, and made them available for private purchase. You can see an example of this process in action in this AN-J-3 from a while back, where Willis & Geiger very clearly just kept on making jackets after their contract was done and sold them through Abercrombie & Fitch. John Chapman outlines more or less what I just said on the page I linked above. Same leather, same thread, same liner, but with a civilian zipper and an A&F tag. Getting that extra leather was regarded as a perk of winning a government contract.

I think we’re saying the same thing. Even if there were “leftover” material parts they’d be constructed and sold as commercial items. A “private purchase”, no matter the material parts source, is still a “private purchase”.

 

[mulceber]

Ah, ok - sorry about that. I must have misread what you were trying to argue.

 

[ties70]

So, are we any closer to name what it IS, instead of what it ISN'T?

Can something be fun and frustrating at the same time...?

 

[mulceber]

Somebody here pointed out that the pockets look too square for a Werber. I agree with that, but my counterpoint is that the top-stitching near where the leather meets the knits only appeared on the first two Werber contracts, and on the 2nd Aero contract. And these knits are much too golden for the jacket to be anything but a Werber.

 

[leper-colony]

Going back to page 1, 2BM2K suggested maybe a 6225. I wish there were more historical clues to rule this in or out,

I keep tripping over:

1. Pocket corner shape (very sharp)
2. Pocket body "L" reinforcement
3. Lining in pockets and the color
4. And the knits looking like 1 weave, no expansion

 

[33-1729]

Going back to page 1, 2BM2K suggested maybe a 6225. I wish there were more historical clues to rule this in or out,

I keep tripping over:

1. Pocket corner shape (very sharp)
2. Pocket body "L" reinforcement
3. Lining in pockets and the color
4. And the knits looking like 1 weave, no expansion

A declassified A-2 document dated July 19, 1932 (below) stated the first three contracts conformed to the same specification, including Werber order number 32-6225. The declassified 94-3040 A-2 specification dated August 18, 1932 (also below) states in Section III line item 3 that “All button holes will be leather faced”. Ergo, the Werber 32-6225 had buttoned pocket flaps.

A-2 specification 94-3040 excerpt:

 

[B-Man2]

Damn fine research 33-1729!

 

[2BM2K]

A declassified A-2 document dated July 19, 1932 (below) stated the first three contracts conformed to the same specification, including Werber order number 32-6225. The declassified 94-3040 A-2 specification dated August 18, 1932 (also below) states in Section III line item 3 that “All button holes will be leather faced”. Ergo, the Werber 32-6225 had buttoned pocket flaps.

When this information was first posted there was a great deal of searching of period photo's for Werbers with buttoned pockets. There were plenty of photo's of airmen wearing SAT's and Werbers but no clear unquestionable photo of a buttoned Werber.

This raises the question of when snaps were first used, before, during or after the 32-6225 contract.

The most unusual thing about this Fivestar Werber is that the pocket snap does not have a dimple.

According to Eastman the only contract to use pocket snaps without a dimple is the HLB.

As far as I can judge the pocket snap is the same type as the collar snap. If a decision was taken to change from buttons to snaps then the obvious thing to do would be to use the same snaps as used for the collar.

Without a label there is no certainty, all that can be done is to make a note of these oddities and hope that another jacket is found.