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

[33-1729]

I mean, I get it - people want Shawn’s jacket to be an unknown contract jacket. They want a sequel to JC discovering an original RW 1671P. I’d like for that to be the case, I just recognize that the evidence doesn’t give us any reason to think so.

My point is . . . . it could be. But instead of trying to disprove tangible evidence work with it. For example, consider the 1934 Alaska photograph. Based upon the date and the custom insignia it could well contain a verifiable Werber 32-6225 (no survivors), 33-1729 (survivors), and 34-518P (no survivors). Post 125 shows what may be a 32-6225 based upon tangible evidence. If an eagle eyed observer can find details splitting a 33-1729 from a 34-518P in that specific photograph then that new contract information may be applied to Shawn's jacket. Maybe it's a 34-518P. Maybe something else.

 

[mulceber]

My point is . . . . it could be. But instead of trying to disprove tangible evidence work with it. For example, consider the 1934 Alaska photograph. Based upon the date and the custom insignia it could well contain a verifiable Werber 32-6225 (no survivors), 33-1729 (survivors), and 34-518P (no survivors). Post 125 shows what may be a 32-6225 based upon tangible evidence. If an eagle eyed observer can find details splitting a 33-1729 from a 34-518P in that specific photograph then that new contract information may be applied to Shawn's jacket. Maybe it's a 34-518P. Maybe something else.

VERY good point.

 

[YoungMedic]

Is there anything that indicates a spec change to pocket hardware that deviates from the original 3 ?

Why would the 33 Werber be different than the 32?

 

[YoungMedic]

So snapped pockets in 1931 existed?

Exactly

 

[mulceber]

Heck, some of the A-1s had snaps, albeit not on the pockets. If I had to guess, button pockets were a holdover from the A-1 - the AAC just added them to the A-2 without much consideration and then someone with clout complained, and out button pockets went. But that’s just a guess.

 

[YoungMedic]

Heck, some of the A-1s had snaps, albeit not on the pockets. If I had to guess, button pockets were a holdover from the A-1 - the AAC just added them to the A-2 without much consideration and then someone with clout complained, and out button pockets went. But that’s just a guess.

My theory is they made the better mousetrap with their first small offering which is why they won the next 5 contracts until their business troubles. Edit and that may be what’s pictured above. A much thinner zipper flap than the others as well

 

[2BM2K]

As for documentation we have all been down that route before.

Remember the good old days when all A2 jackets were made of horse hide because the documentation said so? It took DNA testing to prove otherwise.

There are three types of evidence which need to be considered together; documentation, photographic and the physical jacket.

I have put Shawn's jacket in the box marked "I don't know what it is but will keep it for future reference".

What is of interest to me is that the jacket appears to be a halfway house between the SAT jacket and the Werber 1729 contract. The pocket snap is the small type, the same as used for the collar. The 1729 contract and later used a larger pocket snap.

To me this suggests that this jacket predates the 1729 jacket. If the design was changed from buttons to snaps during production then the obvious thing is use the same type of snap as for the collar.

I view it as most likely that the 6225 contract was initially fitted with button flaps and at some point the design was changed to snaps.

Here is a photo of a SAT jacket with a lined pocket, similar to Shawn's jacket.

 

[2BM2K]

DOCUMENTATION.​

I have been rereading the documentation pdf and this is what I have found.

The pdf document is quite bulky so I have copied the cleared version of spec 94-4030, dated August 1932. This is posted below with the relevant bits highlighted.

The specification states that drawing 30-1415 forms part of the specification. Without this we are missing a lot of information.

The specification also states that "All button holes shall be leather faced" . There is no mention of having buttoned pocket flaps.

Conclusion: Pocket closure type details can only be found in drawing 30-1415.

Also, this document is for going forward in time; the specification is for future contracts.

 

[33-1729]

Had a chance to go through this thread. One of the first things you learn in medical school is Occam's Razor (the simplest solution is likely the correct one). And that's a good place to start.

1) General consensus is that Shawn's jacket is not a known government contract: I agree

2) I looked at every single jacket contract and they all had reinforced pocket corners; maybe a triangle, square, rectangle, or just another stitch line but I see nothing here. Instead of trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole I'll just call it as it is and say it looks like a civilian jacket (member @ties70 posted examples in #16). Lined pockets fit with that too.

3) The name "Hookless" was dropped in 1932, so the name Talon on the M-32 zipper came after that. So 1932 or later manufacturing date (edit - i missed my post #108 when reviewing earlier).

As an fyi I posted the drawing for the new A-2 below. Given the others I've seen from other early jacket contracts I would suspect this to be pretty much what we'd expect if we found the original.

As always, ymmv

 

[2BM2K]

2) I looked at every single jacket contract and they all had reinforced pocket corners; maybe a triangle, square, rectangle, or just another stitch line but I see nothing here. Instead of trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole I'll just call it as it is and say it looks like a civilian jacket (member @ties70 posted examples in #16). Lined pockets fit with that too.

Post #16 shows that the pocket corners were reinforced with an inverted L.

SAT lined pocket;

3) The name "Hookless" was dropped in 1932, so the name Talon on the M-32 zipper came after that. So 1932 or later manufacturing date (edit - i missed my post #108 when reviewing earlier).

SAT jackets were fitted with M32 Talon zippers, source; Eastman manual. And the SAT contract was produced before the Werber 6225 contract.
Meaning the zipper does not preclude Shawn's jacket from being a Werber 6225 jacket.

Without a label it is not possible to identify what this jacket is.

The simple thing to do is to document it and await future finds.

 

[mulceber]

Agreed, at this point I think agnosticism is the most sensible position:

• It could be Werber 6225, if some of them were made with snap pockets.
• It could be Werber 518.
• It could be a private purchase jacket made by Werber.
• It could be a fake.

Unless (until?) more originals emerge, we won’t know which it is.

 

[33-1729]

Agreed, at this point I think agnosticism is the most sensible position:

• It could be Werber 6225, if some of them were made with snap pockets.
• It could be Werber 518.
• It could be a private purchase jacket made by Werber.
• It could be a fake.

Unless (until?) more originals emerge, we won’t know which it is.

Werber. Werber. Werber. Fake?

Post-1932 civilian jacket by unknown maker?

EDIT: Fingerprinting. If I were going to try and identify this jacket, this is how I would go about it.

We have no paper trail, so the only physical evidence we have is the jacket itself (photographs of other items are photographs of other items). Recall John Chapman's interview on denimbros (and posted on this site). He spoke about the different manufacturers each having their own patterns for the same jacket. Not visible from the outside, but remove the lining and, perhaps, some stitches and he might be able to definitively identify the maker. So, if John is willing and a few hundred dollars later we may know the maker (he must not work for free). That would move us from civilian jacket unknown maker to civilian jacket, maker xyz (maybe).

Military contract? Recall the HLB 37-3891P photographs in the A-2 thread - how/could we tell? Probably not. What about 32-6225 as that keeps coming up? The procurement document states the first three contracts conform substantially (key word being "substantially"), i.e., all with button pocket flaps, so we have a paper trail discounting the theory of snapped pockets on 32-6225. Now what? Not impossible. If we can track down the 32-6225 contract paperwork that would have it if done then (in case you haven't seen, these contracts can be a bit long). What if it's not there? They may have amended the contract later, like the paperwork I found on the Australian V505, so there may be an appended 32-6225 contract. Hire a researcher at NARA for a week or two (fortunately we know exactly what to look for, so that will reduce how long they need to look) and they may find something.

Dating? Post-1932 given the zipper saying Talon and not Hookless (it was used by various makers over a few year period as this). Maybe John can find something else when he takes the jacket apart.

Anyway, that's how I do it. Figure out specifically what I need to prove (not just convince myself) and then some time and money.