Nice period photos of A-2's

[unclegrumpy]

This is exactly how an Army colorizer would do it!

I don't think so. To me, this looks like the colorization was done recently by someone who did not have an idea of the correct colors. It looks like they looked up and found what they thought was the correct Army green...but it was the later shade, not the WW II olive.

 

[Greg Gale]

Yeah, this photo was posted on FB yesterday by a colorizer guy.

 

[Smithy]

One of the really interesting things you can see in that colourised photo is the drape of those originals. Very, very soft drape, a lot different from the high end veg tanned ones when new.

 

[unclegrumpy]

One of the really interesting things you can see in that colourised photo is the drape of those originals. Very, very soft drape, a lot different from the high end veg tanned ones when new.

Interesting observation! A lot of originals were made from considerably thinner leather. I think many have also stiffened up over time. I also think most reproductions...even the best of them, tend to run on the thick and heavy side...compared again to most originals.

 

[zoomer]

Repro makers generally work from originals - NOT photographs. I think they'd be smarter to use both!

 

[unclegrumpy]

I am not sure the direction you are leaning with your comment, but I know both Eastman and Goodwear have done extensive forensic analysis of many originals. I think part of the issue is the leather that is available today.

From observation, I think that thickness falls below grain, color, tanning, and maybe a couple of other attributes in the pecking order. I don't think that leaves their current products too thick, but probably does make things lean to the thicker side of the actual WW II spectrum. Part of that is because wartime leather shortages caused use of hides that might not have been as thick as they should have been. Past tanning processes are another variable, plus I am sure there are likely others.

Anyway, I think there are always compromises. However, I also think some of these guys have worked exceptionally hard to minimize them on their pathway to perfection.

 

[Edward]

They used post depression era malnourished cattle. Today we get Purina cattle supplements with Steroid hormones for our leather stock! Mmmmmm, beefy!

 

[B-Man2]

Here’s a thought, there are enough of us with an original or two who also have repros from different makers . How about a non scientific comparative analysis of the hides of both types of jackets with regard to thickness , graining , and other general questions on this topic.
Give me a couple of days and I’ll volunteer to do the first one, something with some photos of an original and a repro of the same contract. But only if you guys think there might be some interest on this.

 

[B-Man2]

One of the really interesting things you can see in that colourised photo is the drape of those originals. Very, very soft drape, a lot different from the high end veg tanned ones when new.

Tim
Ive always thought that the drape of the jacket was to some degree influenced by the fit or size of the jacket . For instance I notice in a lot of the photos that trim fitting jackets readily take the wearers form and larger loose fitting jackets tend to have more of a draping feature in the photos.
Am I seeing things here or do others see that as well.?

 

[Smithy]

Tim
Ive always thought that the drape of the jacket was to some degree influenced by the fit or size of the jacket . For instance I notice in a lot of the photos that trim fitting jackets readily take the wearers form and larger loose fitting jackets tend to have more of a draping feature in the photos.
Am I seeing things here or do others see that as well.?

Burt I think one of the major things is that the high end repro makers seem to use leather which will develop the look of a 75 year old original in a short space of time. Leather also stiffens considerably over time. Obviously we have a lot of leather kit at the museum ranging from RFC used flying helmets up to even the odd A-2. I didn't deal with the conservation side of things but the technical conservator was telling me how with certain pieces it would have been soft as butter when new, something which Uncle mentions above. Nearly all original jackets now won't have the same drape as they did when they were relatively new. Also I think tanning techniques comes into it as well, modern veg tanned leathers especially, whilst looking beautifully period correct with the look and colour of the leather have a much stiffer drape, at least initially.

It's one of the most telling differences between high end repros and originals when new (or merely a couple of years old) is this difference in drape.

 

[Spitfireace]

Interesting observation! A lot of originals were made from considerably thinner leather. I think many have also stiffened up over time. I also think most reproductions...even the best of them, tend to run on the thick and heavy side...compared again to most originals.

I have one original and one high end reproduction A-2, and while the reproduction is very authentic, the one thing that seems different is the thickness of the leather. The original is very light in weight compared to the reproduction. The original is a Monarch and I was thinking it's maybe goatskin but I don't know if Monarch's were made from goatskin. I think that goatskin is a lighter weight than horsehide if I'm not mistaken.

 

[2BM2K]

There is no need for guesswork.

Scans of the original leather specifications as well as leather test documents were published
in the Eastman A2 manual. The leather is thin, thickness specified in inches.

A good thickness, in spec., for a modern repro would be 1.0mm to 1.1mm, no thicker.

 

[Spitfireace]

Things like collars get too thick.....combining two too thick pieces of leather

 

[zoomer]

I am not sure the direction you are leaning with your comment, but I know both Eastman and Goodwear have done extensive forensic analysis of many originals.

The difference is interesting to consider. Is "authenticity" to be based totally on the copying of physical objects? Or are clues pertaining to those objects in use also acceptable?

Forensic analysis of originals can still put photos off limits. Case in point: I happen to think ELC's Werber A-2 used a collar pattern from a smaller sized original and did not scale up the depth for larger sizes. Pictures of originals being worn show a deeper collar in proportion to the shoulders, epaulets, etc. But when copying an original as an object, one might consider pictures unreliable evidence, or not evidence at all. Using the same width collar no matter the size becomes a matter of faithfulness to known facts.

It raises questions about the recreation of an object that is no longer known to exist except in photographs, such as the Goldsmith 31-1897 the jacket world is so agog about. Can it be considered a replica at all if there is nothing to physically copy? And if it can, where does that place replicas based 100% on actual jackets, with photographic clues to fit, proportion, drape, etc., discounted?

 

[Greg Gale]

 

[dmar836]

I know this has strayed off topic but I still say there could be a 1943 dated crate of unissued A-2s found and secretly dispersed into the repro community and they would be picked apart as "incorrect" in any of the commonly discussed characteristics.

JMO,
Dave

 

[Officer Dibley]

This hangs in my office

 

[Edward]

thats awesome Dibley! love the expression on the captain's face holding the bear mascot! I have been looking at various crew pics myself to have blown up to small poster size to hang in my man cave!

 

[Pilot]

Thx for sharing...Just note some of the sleeves...quite wide and not tight at all, plus a bit of creasing...

 

[Brent]

Nice draping on those jackets. ;-)

Regards,