A
bazelot said:Looks like it has dry rot all over.
mazeta said:...in case any of those who doubt this jacket (and yet didn't bother to email me for clarification) suddenly decide to bid on it at the last second:
1. This one apparently "sold" a few weeks ago. Deal must have fallen through.
Wrong. This is another jacket. I have multiple examples of this contract. The other jacket was from the same contract, completely restored by Aero. It was sold and shipped off a few weeks ago.
2. Looks like it has dry rot all over.
No rot all over it. The jacket is still perfectly wearable.
3. Maybe that is why it was returned to the seller. There seems to be less interest in it this time round as well. The dry rot may be the reason for this, which is apparent in the new pics.
If you have questions about the jacket, please email me; don't guess when you don't have facts to work with.
If you're still guessing: I'm the seller of this jacket.
mazeta said:...in case any of those who doubt this jacket (and yet didn't bother to email me for clarification) suddenly decide to bid on it at the last second:
1. This one apparently "sold" a few weeks ago. Deal must have fallen through.
Wrong. This is another jacket. I have multiple examples of this contract. The other jacket was from the same contract, completely restored by Aero. It was sold and shipped off a few weeks ago.
2. Looks like it has dry rot all over.
No rot all over it. The jacket is still perfectly wearable.
3. Maybe that is why it was returned to the seller. There seems to be less interest in it this time round as well. The dry rot may be the reason for this, which is apparent in the new pics.
If you have questions about the jacket, please email me; don't guess when you don't have facts to work with.
If you're still guessing: I'm the seller of this jacket.
No worries, I can see why the circumstances would look odd. This is my absolute favorite contract, so I've managed to add three examples to my jacket collection. One I sold off (mentioned in my original post), this current one on eBay will go, and I'm keeping the third one, my absolute favorite one for more than one reason.Roughwear said:mazeta said:...in case any of those who doubt this jacket (and yet didn't bother to email me for clarification) suddenly decide to bid on it at the last second:
1. This one apparently "sold" a few weeks ago. Deal must have fallen through.
Wrong. This is another jacket. I have multiple examples of this contract. The other jacket was from the same contract, completely restored by Aero. It was sold and shipped off a few weeks ago.
2. Looks like it has dry rot all over.
No rot all over it. The jacket is still perfectly wearable.
3. Maybe that is why it was returned to the seller. There seems to be less interest in it this time round as well. The dry rot may be the reason for this, which is apparent in the new pics.
If you have questions about the jacket, please email me; don't guess when you don't have facts to work with.
If you're still guessing: I'm the seller of this jacket.
My most sincere apologies. Thanks for putting us straight on this one. It is somewhat unusual for the same seller to advertsie two Perrys from the same contract on eBay in the space of a few weeks. I guess what looked liked rot is the original layer showing through the later redye. Good luck with it.
You bring up a valid point. I received a few questions about the zipper via eBay and I modified the description accordingly. I forgot to mention in the listing that the zipper was replaced at one time. Every goatskin Perry I've owned had a Crown zipper as you pointed out. I also suspected that this jacket could be a 1756 'unknown maker' contract, since it looks so close to a Perry, but I don't think the 1756 was ever made in goat. All examples I've ever seen have been in horsehide.Jason said:This is a bit of an unusual Perry - rarer than others - for a few reasons:
Its goatskin - which makes it quite rare, I'd guess only about 1 in 4 Perrys were goatskin
It has a nickel Conmar zipper - most had brass from what I can tell. Even rarer was the use of a Crown (and I've only seen those on goatskin Perrys)
and the collar looks quite large for a Perry - undoubtedly still Perry, but unusual for one none the less.
Perhaps these features that are a bit 'out of the norm' for a Perry is holding back initial interest? Then again, these same features of rarity could see it do unexpectedly well at the end of the auction.
mazeta said:You bring up a valid point. I received a few questions about the zipper via eBay and I modified the description accordingly. I forgot to mention in the listing that the zipper was replaced at one time. Every goatskin Perry I've owned had a Crown zipper as you pointed out. I also suspected that this jacket could be a 1756 'unknown maker' contract, since it looks so close to a Perry, but I don't think the 1756 was ever made in goat. All examples I've ever seen have been in horsehide.Jason said:This is a bit of an unusual Perry - rarer than others - for a few reasons:
Its goatskin - which makes it quite rare, I'd guess only about 1 in 4 Perrys were goatskin
It has a nickel Conmar zipper - most had brass from what I can tell. Even rarer was the use of a Crown (and I've only seen those on goatskin Perrys)
and the collar looks quite large for a Perry - undoubtedly still Perry, but unusual for one none the less.
Perhaps these features that are a bit 'out of the norm' for a Perry is holding back initial interest? Then again, these same features of rarity could see it do unexpectedly well at the end of the auction.
bseal said:Too bad it has that "dry rot," the experts talk about.
bazelot said:bseal said:Too bad it has that "dry rot," the experts talk about.
Yup it's too bad!!
I own a lot of goatskin jackets (most of them USN) This orange crazing all over the jacket does not look like a healthy sign. It is not part of the healthy goatskin pattern. The only time I have seen orange stuff like this on goatskin was dry rot. Maybe it's the pictures or some crappy conditioner.