Rough Wear 42-1671-P has been found!

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Mr Eastman found the paperwork for a Rough Wear Clothing Co. contract number W535ac-21035, order number 42-1671-P, and estimated the production to be around three hundred jackets based upon the contract value (page 209 of his excellent book). With incredible luck and a great eye, someone has just located one and the pictures are below. The presence of a civilian label on a military labeled jacket is not yet clear. What a find!!

1RW 42-1671-P.jpg


2RW 42-1671-P.jpg


3RW 42-1671-P.jpg


4RW 42-1671-P.jpg


5RW 42-1671-P.jpg


6RW 42-1671-P.jpg


7RW 42-1671-P.jpg


8RW 42-1671-P.jpg


9RW 42-1671-P.jpg


10RW 42-1671-P.jpg
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
That liner doesn’t look like cotton to my eye. Maybe it was re-lined for private sale?

Either way, stunning find!
 

Silver Surfer

Well-Known Member
some years ago I purchase a civy hb that was a wreck, but had a 1930s talon zipper in useable shape, and voila the same rough in label as above. I had mentioned this label to several collectors, and makers, and to a one, they concurred that it was not rough wear. nso......
 
Last edited:

mulceber

Well-Known Member
I know that the military routinely provided jacket makers with significantly more leather than they needed, and it was common for them to just keep making jackets and sell them on the civilian market. How it held onto its military label, I don’t know.
 

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Agree with you... a great find.. this just proves that jackets like this and the Werber 1729 a guy popped up here with several months ago are still out there waiting to be found.
I know that the military routinely provided jacket makers with significantly more leather than they needed, and it was common for them to just keep making jackets and sell them on the civilian market. How it held onto its military label, I don’t know.
It appears used in combat, so must have been issued. That also follows with the US government contract Mr Eastman found for this jacket. Hopefully we’ll learn more about the civilian tag on closer inspection.

I’m amazed that we’re still finding more out as time goes on. This is the only known example of the RW 42-1671P order, only two known examples exist for the Aero Clothing & Tanning 37-3061P order, the Australian contract paperwork was recently uncovered, the Goldsmith 31-1897 contract paperwork found, etc. Not common occurrences, but always more to learn!
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
That also follows with the US government contract Mr Eastman found for this jacket.
Well I wasn't really suggesting that it didn't come from that contract, merely that it was overflow after the contract had been completed, which would still square with the information in the Eastman A-2 guide. But you're right, the presence of a patch and traces(?) of a nameplate suggest someone military was using the jacket.
 

foster

Well-Known Member
It certainly looks like a Rough Wear A-2. I wish the lining had not been replaced, as we cannot say it remains in its original state. Could be the original label to the jacket, or could have been changed. But a previously unseen label all the same, at least among this community. I like that long bar Talon puller, same as they used on their goatskin hide 18091 contract.
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
The knits also look like they've been replaced, as they're in remarkably good condition and the cuffs are too long for an original A-2. My hypothesis here is that someone got their hands on this jacket, found that the cloth parts were knackered, and so they replaced the knits, and replaced the lining with one from another vintage jacket that was still in good condition, but then added the label from the original liner. Just a guess though.
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
Only initial requirement is the label. Details can be estimated from the pics.
Especially when the contract in question was issued literally a week after another, much better known contract from the same company.
 

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Especially when the contract in question was issued literally a week after another, much better known contract from the same company.
That’s what makes this contract so odd. Rough Wear had a number of contracts, so why make about 300 after an order for 30,000 the week before? RW used a different zipper, updated the label, etc. All of the contracts, from all the different makers, were well into the thousands during this time period. No doubt there’s a good story behind this contract.
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
300 jackets a week after 30,000, and all 300 disappear and don't show up in any collections until now. Similarly-sized contracts like the SAT and HLB contracts at least had a few showing up from time to time. As you said, there must be a good story behind it.
 

Nnatalie

Well-Known Member
The knits also look like they've been replaced, as they're in remarkably good condition and the cuffs are too long for an original A-2. My hypothesis here is that someone got their hands on this jacket, found that the cloth parts were knackered, and so they replaced the knits, and replaced the lining with one from another vintage jacket that was still in good condition, but then added the label from the original liner. Just a guess though.
That could explain the two different labels. One from the original and one from the lining.

Though then we have to deal with the fact that both labels are from Middletown, PA companies, and the two companies may in fact be the same company (same location, plus very similar names). The chances of it randomly being lined with a same city (or same company) lining strike me as rather slim.
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if this gets us any closer to unraveling this puzzle, but @Nnatalie and I did a deep dive on the relationship between Rough-in and Rough Wear. There's no direct evidence that we've been able to find, but Isaac Kirschenbaum, the president of Rough Wear (and also the son of the company's founder) is listed as the holder of at least one patent for a unique design feature on a Rough-in jacket. The patent was filed at the same time that he was president of Rough Wear. We're both confident at this point that Rough-in was one of Rough Wear's labels. If so, then it's very interesting that this jacket was re-lined with a liner and tag from Rough Wear's other label.
 
Top