RARE WW 2 PAINTED FLIGHT JACKET GROUP,2 JACKETS, 5TH AF

[442RCT]

These jackets appear to have a lot of provenance, but they look like they were just painted.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... SS:US:1123

 

[hairpin151]

Yep,definately a recent MAACO makeover!

 

[Roughwear]

If the jackets have been stored since the war there is no reason for the paint work not to stay bright and new looking. There is serious bidding on this collection and I wonder how high they will go?

 

[better duck]

If the jackets have been stored since the war there is no reason for the paint work not to stay bright and new looking. There is serious bidding on this collection and I wonder how high they will go?

Ah, yes, but how does it feel? Two jackets, both with the caption "Ken's men", then two B24s, from different groups / squadrons (there's some sleuthing to be done there: for instance, were these planes of groups flying in the same theater?) with different artwork, the one with the girl a weak reminder of "The Dragon and his tail". (here is a picture of the original WW2 aircraft with that artwork:

Here's another of the Collins Foundation's B24, now painted in the livery of "Witchcraft"):

My gut feeling on this one (which isn't worth all that much, never having handled originals with artwork, only studied photos) would be that these are fake. At least I wouldn't part with almost 4000 USD unless some really serious study had been done.

 

[hairpin151]

I would agree with you Andrew.However,I would think that artwork such as what appears here on these jackets would have been theater done,so to speak,therefore I would think that the average flyboy who just shelled out some hard earned jink to spruce up his duds would tend to wear it,not stuff it into storage unless he was immediately shipped home or worse,a no return leg on his most recent trip accross the Channel.This artwork just does'nt have the "look" that the jacket has.IMHO.

 

[Roughwear]

So are we saying the jackets in the b/w photo are not the same as the ones being sold on Ebay? Of course they may be copies done recently. It's impossible to be sure unless one examines each jacket. It might be that the b/w photo is not as old as the seller would like it to be.

 

[TankBuster]

I'll go against the grain here... I think they are both perfectly fine. The period photos of the jackets look good to me. Cloth jackets also tend to hold their paint much better than leather. I think it's pretty spendy for painted cloth, but that's just me. If you dig more deeply into the listing, the pilot was never awarded the AirMedal, therefore he didn't fly much/if any combat. Therefore he was more than likely a very late war arrival and thus maybe the extra clean, unabused state of the paintings, and the jackets.
If someone here won them, I'd love to see some better pics of the jackets.

 

[Roughwear]

They sold for $3,950. When I first saw the listing I thought the art work was original and that the jackets had simply had little wear. Clearly many others thought the same judging by the bidding. I suppose they could have been touched up more recently, but if stored since the war they would, as Jeff says, retain their original paint finish.

 

[dmar836]

Didn't look right to me either. Two things I would want to study. First, does the right wing on the M-41 appear to touch the French flag about 1/3 from the left and on the original the wing appears to touch it on the other end of the flag? Second, the painting on the back of the B-15 looks much higher in the original pic. This may be because the coat is hanging by the loop which could make the collar roll back and appear longer thus making the painting appear closer to the collar. I would want to examine it closer based on these two things. Although, it would be a chore to recreate the front too.
I could see someone recreating both the jackets in their entirety 10 or 20 years ago based on the pics provided. But that wing tip issue sure doesn't look to be explained by the angle or a wrinkle though.
Also, the file folder of the groups contents has the B-4 bag scribbled through. Both the original content list and the scribbles appear to be modern ink(obviously on a modern folder) I wonder if that was the same painted bag hanging in the original pic in the back? Perhaps they were together until recently?
I'm sure many a dealer would be happy to pass it on without any further study as it's so nicely done. He sure has a lot of other nice items to go with it!
JMO,
Dave
Kansas City, USA

 

[better duck]

(....) appear to touch the French flag

Totally beside the issue at hand of course, but that's the Dutch flag! The French is Red White Blue in vertical stripes. So he flew over the Dutch Indies, now Indonesia, which fits in with the other flags.
Apart from that, Dave, you have a sharp eye, and I tend to agree with you on this point.

 

[Weasel_Loader]

I agree that these do not appear to be the same jackets in the B&W photo. The shape of the wing tips on the M-41s do not match up. Hope the fella who made the purchase knows his stuff. :roll:

 

[Roughwear]

Didn't look right to me either. Two things I would want to study. First, does the right wing on the M-41 appear to touch the French flag about 1/3 from the left and on the original the wing appears to touch it on the other end of the flag?

I have compared the pictures and am yet to be convinced about this. In the original photo of the M-41 there is a fold in the material which distorts the view.

Second, the painting on the back of the B-15 looks much higher in the original pic. This may be because the coat is hanging by the loop which could make the collar roll back and appear longer thus making the painting appear closer to the collar. I would want to examine it closer based on these two things. Although, it would be a chore to recreate the front too.

I think this is the camera angle. I too would need to examine both jackets to be 100% certain the art work has not be faked, but do not find the arguments that they have been faked convincing.

 

[Roughwear]

I agree that these do not appear to be the same jackets in the B&W photo. The shape of the wing tips on the M-41s do not match up. Hope the fella who made the purchase knows his stuff. :roll:

The camera angle coupled with folds in the material explain the apparent variation in the wing tip on the M-41.

 

[dmar836]

Dutch flag? Oops! And I'm Dutch German! My grandfather is rolling in his grave.

This discussion reminds me of the A-2 "El Lobo II" in Maguire's book, Gear Up! It looks good - real good but I don't believe it's the same painting.
Here's the jacket(left) and "original"(right).

Discuss.
Take into account that the black outlining is barely visible on the original so that may skew the perspective. Nonetheless, I have looked at it for years and I say it's a very well-done redo at best.

JMO,
Dave
Kansas City, USA

 

[better duck]

Dutch flag? Oops! And I'm Dutch German! My grandfather is rolling in his grave.

As penitence you should learn the Dutch National Anthem by heart - in Dutch!
http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/Monarchie/ ... rmaat.html

This discussion reminds me of the A-2 "El Lobo II" in Maguire's book, Gear Up! I say it's a very well-done redo at best.

Absolutely, how anyone could mistake the colour one for the original is beyond me.
The jackets that gave rise to this post are more doubtful.

 

[Roughwear]

Does the El Lobo controversy help to disprove the authenticity of the artwork on the two jackets in this thread? Of course wartime art work was sometimes touched up by vets or others post war.

 

[TankBuster]

I agree that these do not appear to be the same jackets in the B&W photo. The shape of the wing tips on the M-41s do not match up. Hope the fella who made the purchase knows his stuff. :roll:

The camera angle coupled with folds in the material explain the apparent variation in the wing tip on the M-41.

I agree with Andrew here. I've seen photos of jackets in wear that look much different than they really are. The angle jackets are photographed, as well as the light involved can distort paint colors and make images appear different.

For the record, I have no dog in this hunt as I didn't buy or sell them. I would just hate to have negative comments taken as fact by those who stumble upon this forum. I haven't read anything that confirms one way or the other in my opinion.

 

[dmar836]

Andrew, I wasn't trying to highjack the thread - just expand the conversation. I figured the thread would die otherwise. I guess I thought the general consensus with the B-15 and M-41 was that they everyone would want to handle them in person before rendering a final judgement. Who could be positive otherwise?
As for the wing thickness issue? I would say an angle would render it's appearance as narrower not wider. Same with El Lobo. If a jacket has been gone over and touched up, the lines would most likely be thicker rather than thinner. Certainly not relocated entirely.
Again, perhaps this example would be better in a new post. Sorry for adding confusion to the current subject.
Dave

 

[Cobblers161]

This is an interesting thread, it's made even more interesting by the fact that knowledgable collectors are disagreeing. It must be incredibly difficult making such a purchase without seeing it in the flesh.

For my penneth worth the angle the b/w photo is taken at would make the wing appear thinner and not thicker as it does here. Also the folds are not bold enough to completely alter the shape of the wing tip. Also the USAAF symbol is not in the same position in correllation to the window, engines are further apart in the original and also wider. The fact that its a two dimensional painting and not a 3 dimensional object also means the angle, as slight as this is, would not alter the perspective as greatly as it appears to. And finally.... The rectangle with the wording 'Kens Men' is actually thinner on the colour pic. If it had been retouched at any point you'd expect it to be possibly bigger, not smaller. I have no experience of jacket art but I have been a photographer for 22 years and I find it difficult to believe that a such slight variation in angle would cause the artwork to appear so dramatically different.

Be nice to be proved wrong though, if only for the buyers sake.

 

[Cobblers161]

Also the wing tip touches the Dutch Flag in a completely different place and in the colour photoit is possible to see, through the window/gun port/whatever it's called the frame of the one on the other side. In the colour pic in extends only 3/4 the length of the closest window, in the b/w it extends all the way. It could have course have been altered during a retouch.