Originals vs Repros and a common misconception?

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's just me but I think that people seem prefer the look of original jackets (even though wrecked and almost not wearable) over the brand new (almost shiny) look of repros.

Some manufacturers even opted to re-create the look of originals by aftificially aging the jackets (some have succeded, some not) or even to source leathers that have a vintage look.

But, was the look of the jackets "vintage" when they were issued to WWII pilots? I don't think so.
Was it "vintage" during or after the war was over? I don't think so.

I know I wasn't there but at least that's what some of the photos show
See below pic

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/393 ... 6709_b.jpg

The jackets look almost as new. Let's not forget also that the jacket was part of the uniform worn by officers. The regulation still remains that you gotta take care of your uniform to maintain a pristine look. Yes OK, it was the war. The war Department and the USAAF cared about winning the war, not the good looks of the officers.

However, I find it hard to grasp that those strong leather jackets developed "vintage" look during the war.

The "vintage" look we see in the originals today, was developed by wearing the jacket for many many years after the war was over.

So, the abused look that most original jackets have shouldn't have been the look the same had during the war. Consequently, we may say that the originals, when issued, had the look of the new modern repros (to the extent of the leathers used being the same) and not that vintage look. If the above statement is true, then today's repros aren't too far away from being accurate repros.

What do you think?

There have always been two "schools" of jacket aging. The artificial aging and the natural aging.
Which school do you support and why, and what methods you think most appropriate for artificial aging?

Just my thoughts, thanks.

 

[rich]

I think you've raised very interesting points. I can only add that I've seen a few - but not too many - WW2 photos posted on the forum, where jackets do look extremely worn. I recall a few wrecked shearlings especially. Quite how they managed that level of wear in a few short years - perhaps I'm better off not knowing, I can imagine it wasn't very pleasant for them to say the least. It was life and death for those guys, for us mostly just a pastime. But this vintage look, desirable to so many, is maybe just our perception of their reality? :? :? :?

 

[Andrew]

 

[tom james]

Constent "head(and shoulders) on a swivel, parachute straps, belts, escape kits, and close quarters with metal objects all took their toll in the cockpit or a bomber's fuselage. This is not even taking into consideration field activities(my dad did a stint in a tank as a forward air contoller during a portion of "The Bulge"), barroom brawls,etc. Wartime wear and tear was anything but normal.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Tom James' comments would seem to explain it, while Andrew's picture says a thousand words. Actual working use puts a patina on leather in short order, perhaps the more so considering the type of hide and tanning methods involved.

 

[Swing]

The shoulder is the belly of the beast. That grain was there from the get go with that jacket. Has use accentuated it some? Yes, but it didn't created those stretch marks or the heavy deep grain. That's simply a jacket made from a cheap piece of leather.

I agree with the original premise that A-2s were usually in pretty good condition during the war.

~Swing

 

[Roughwear]

This is a most interesting post. I have several near mint A2s and Irvins in my collection which were hardly worn at all in the war. They are nothing like the time worn offerings of some modern makers and today look as they did when issued, judging by the areas of leather not exposed to light which are the same as the rest of the leather. Clearly wearing a leather jacket each day for much of the war will age it considerably, but as has been said already, many jackets were worn a lot after the war, which aged them more. Irvins were often used by bikers for example and many A2s were used by vets to paint their houses!

For me what distinguishes a repro A2, Irvin or B-3 from an orginal is the appearance of the leather used. John Chapman's current batch of hh comes as close to wartime hh as is possible these day.

 

[dav3469]

In my mind I made it a point to not equate "vintage" with "worn looking". Just that it is a "original". Of course If I leave my ELC B-10 and my current Cooper A-2 I got ten years ago (and still looks new due to little wear) and leave them hanging for the next 40 years, they will be "vintage" as well, but still look new with proper storage. But they obviously aren't the "vintage-originals" we see in our minds as collectors and folks with an interest in this stuff.

In my opinion there were no doubt service members who had really "broken in" looking gear, but a great many looked brand new I am sure.

I think it is the movies, TV, and entertainment venues who have done the most to contribute to the idea and visual representation of a worn looking jacket on a steely eyed pilot/biker/adventurer.

 

[Tim P]

I have long held this belief. However, daily hard (read military) use creates wear and tear that casual use will take years to replicate. crappy leather with all odds and sods of grain like Andrew says makes for a good ww2 look and forms a launch pad for a correct looking jacket. Over engineering and prissiness make for a great jacket that will last for many years but the appearence of honest wear will take ages.
That said, artificial aging is often quite obvious.

 

[Chandler]

Actual working use puts a patina on leather in short order, perhaps the more so considering the type of hide and tanning methods involved.

Can someone find the picture of Jimmy Stewart wearing his RW 1401 while briefing some pilots, in the middle of the war?

That jacket shows the above mentioned "actual working use," and a half.

This is why I like to break in my jackets on my own.

Chandler

 

[John Lever]

An original is just that. It has an historical relevance in it's own place and time. It may be mint and not been worn, or it may be badly made and worn out. In it's time it was probably state of the art.
A repro is a copy. It may be made out of identical materials and be better made with great care and attention to detail but it is representation of something that once was.
What to do ?
Make a mint perfect repro to look identical to an original when first issued, or make one that looks the way we think it looked after months of wear and dirt. ?
I think both approaches have merit. Some repro's look very like original, old dirty polished jackets with a patina produced from years of finger grease and scuffs. Strangely most old things look the way they do because of fading and wear but mainly because of dirt.
Ever thought that the Vets are the originals and we are the repro's ?

 

[Jason]

I'm sure that like anything there was significant variation in 'quality' of original jackets - and leather in particular is subject to more variables & individual characteristics than any other material of the time (cloth, nylon etc). So I'm confident that you'd find some jackets looking quite 'new' by todays standard ranging though to those that look like those in the picture that Andrew has posted.

As far as repros go, I prefer a leather jacket that isn't so new & perfect so as to look synthetic & soul-less, but definitely don't go for the pre-aged look. The only leather repro jackets that I've bought absolute brand new are a GW Perry, a RMCNZ goat RW and a WPG B-3 & Irvin. The GW Perry as it arrived had that not-hand-picked-for-the-General-new, but not wartime-second-quality look, and hits the spot very close I think. GW products have been slightly refined in recent times and are probably absolutely dead-on to how the average wartime jacket looked as it rolled off the factory floor.
The WPG products quickly got that 'lived in' look without looking tatty. The RMCNZ still looks rather new I'm afraid, it'll take a decade or more of occasional use to even begin to get that 'lived in' look - used but neat & not abused.

 

[Peter Graham]

This is a very relevant post for me at this time after having just taken delivery of my first repro A-2, an Eastman Cable. When I took it out of the box I was horrified at how new and unblemished it looked compared to originals I've owned. I hated it for a few days and would not wear it outside the house. After a while I calmed down and started thinking that maybe this is how an original might have looked when it was new. I then started thinking about how to make it look 60 years old instantly but after reading the comments posted regarding the jacket I've decided to wear the jacket in naturally. I love the look, feel and smell of original jackets and short of working on my car, riding motocross and building a house in it, my repro will never have that during my lifetime although there's a good chance that I'll do all these things in it. What I have is a nice jacket that I can wear guilt free that looks quite like an A-2 but lacks something that all the artificial or natural ageing in the world won't give it, history.

 

[Andrew]

"Lt Gen george C Kenney, Commander of the Allied Air Forces, hammering daily at Jap forces in the south West Pacific, is talking shop, with Col. Victor Bertrandias, of the AFSC at an airfield in Australia"

IOW, a period shot of a well broken jacket with obvious wear, worn by a General who's flight time by this stage was probably linited to passenger. There's loads of shots like available like this so yes they did look "vintage" during the War.

 

[Anonymous]

Here's one in good condition

http://cgi.ebay.com/all-original-A-2-WW ... 286.c0.m14

 

[fleet16b]

I would have to disagree and say that the leather jackets took alot of abuse.
The insides of military aircraft are full of sharp edges rough areas , straps belts etc.
I know first hand how an aircraft takes it's toll on a jacket.
For a current and present examples of this go to my thread in this section titled : my well worn rw1401 part 2.
It will show you what 5 years of flying in a biplane will do.
I fly on 2-3 times a week for less than 6 hrs.
If you look at the amounts and length of times these guys flew,it is much more than I fly weekly.
It also dependson what the a/c owner did during the war. I'll bet some of the better shape originals did not see alot of front line service. Some of the better A2's we see for sale are most likely from home front based personnel
Instructors, desk pilots , support personnel , admin people, Airborne Officers all wore A2's
Contrary to popular myth, A2's were not exclusive to flight personnel only.

 

[mk1mark]

I can see two seperate threads running here, there is the "How quickly would jackets pan in naturally" thread & the "Do you prefer your jacket worn or new looking" thread. As I see it, these are two very different questions.

Firstly, it is without a doubt that most service used jackets would have become very worn very quick. Speaking for a UK point of view crew could do upto 4 or 5 8 hour missions a week, all this time would be spent in an Irvin & all the paraphenalia that goes with it. Getting upto 40 hours of use a week in dark, cold, dangerous conditions will age a jacket very quickly indeed making your pristine new Irvin look very worn, very quick.

As far as the second is concerned. I have a number of original WW2 jackets, all of which are worn occasionally and ranging in condition from practically mint, almost as issued to very, very worn. Recently I bought a new version of one of the better repro A2's and I have just not been able to come to terms with it, far to shiney & new looking for me, I'm afraid. I toyed with the idea of ageing t, but in the end opted for selling it & buying an original in reasonably worn condition.

During the war, practically all these jackets were worn as work clothing & were abused as you would clothing worn for pretty hard manual labour. Nowadays practically all this type of jacket is worn as a "fashion statement", it stands to reason that modern jackets will take much, much longer to pan in than originals as they are looked after & not abused.

Just my 2 penorth, & I've broken my posting duck too!

Mark F.

 

[rich]

When pressed, up to 40 hours of wear a week is a good way of putting it. My Irvins don't see that much wear in a year - and even if they got anywhere near that, they wouldn't be overlayed with a mae-west or parachute harness etc.

 

[unclegrumpy]

One thing to also consider is that if your A-2 got too worn, you could just turn it in and get a new one.

 

[Roughwear]

One thing to also consider is that if your A-2 got too worn, you could just turn it in and get a new one.

Of course A2s were refurbished in USAAF depots and re-issued. As far as turning in your A2 and getting an new one I'm not sure how common this was? Do you have evidence to show this was common practice? A2s were sought after and when they were replaced by cloth jackets from 1943/4 there would not necessarily have been quantities of them in the USAAF stores to do this. The shortage of issued A2s was one reason why servicemen bought A2 varients themselves.