Rough Wear 42-1671-P has been found!

[mulceber]

Uh, where? I checked the GW site and don’t see anything new...

 

[foster]

Uh, where? I checked the GW site and don’t see anything new...

When you go to this ordering page, it is an option in the drop-down selection

Jacket Order Form

 

[P-47 thunderbolt]

Is it at all possible that as the order was only for 300 (extra jackets) to the week before 30,000 item order, that roughwear simply used (perhaps with permission) the labels from that 30,000 order. And that the 1671-p contract exists in paper form only. Consequently all jackets from this order carry a 1401 label??? Shoot me down if this would be never happen, especially as they carry a different zipper??

If goodwear make a 1671-p label, it is possible that this is a Frankenstein???

 

[mulceber]

Is it at all possible that as the order was only for 300 (extra jackets) to the week before 30,000 item order, that roughwear simply used (perhaps with permission) the labels from that 30,000 order. And that the 1671-p contract exists in paper form only. Consequently all jackets from this order carry a 1401 label??? Shoot me down if this would be never happen, especially as they carry a different zipper??

If goodwear make a 1671-p label, it is possible that this is a Frankenstein???

The original jacket that started this thread has a 1671-P label, so I don’t think that works.

 

[P-47 thunderbolt]

Sorry maybe I'm getting contract numbers mixed up but what I mean is could this be a fake label?
And if so, could all genuine jackets from the 1617-p contract carry labels from the previous (one week earlier) contract? Perhaps roughwear simply added the 300 jackets to the previous order

 

[33-1729]

Sorry maybe I'm getting contract numbers mixed up but what I mean is could this be a fake label?
And if so, could all genuine jackets from the 1617-p contract carry labels from the previous (one week earlier) contract? Perhaps roughwear simply added the 300 jackets to the previous order

Given John Chapman’s relentless pursuit for authenticity, any thought that RW 42-1671-P was an anomaly is no more. This find only confirms the paperwork Mr Eastman found for this specific contract on page 209 of his excellent book. For a picture of the label see below, where you can clearly see it was sown into the replacement lining. Contract differences for 42-1671-P are briefly described in post #47.