RW comparison

[Anonymous]

Here's a comparison of my GW 27752 and my original 18091. They are both marked 46 but the original is actually a bit larger- the 27752's more like a 45. You can see that the original has a bit more droop than the GW but in both the droop is partially a visual deception caused by the shape of the epaulet with its bit of rise. The 27752 isn't as seal colored as it appears in my bad photos. The original is probably an inch larger in the body and the collar is squished down by years in a trunk or something- the 27752 still has a bit of lift in the collar. So I'll wait for the barrage- I know now how it feels to try and "explain" a jacket with bad photos. As you can see- the original (same as the jacket in Chandler's avatar) has as much or more sheen than the GW. So fire away! Enjoy!
Original:

GW:

Side by side:

OOPS! I couldn't do side by side- sorry!
Both jackets are roomy- the original more so but the 27752's not tight at all. I'll try to do a better review with photos sometime...

 

[bseal]

Notice how the kid is smiling in the GW shot. Children are very perceptive.

 

[269sqnhudson]

Oh that's an absolute cracker, very good fit and negligible droop.
I've never been one to worry about a bit of droop. Unless you get it tailored saville row-style you're always gonna have a bit of loose or tight, long or short going on. You can spend an hour on the web and find 1000 pics of droopy-shouldered originals being worn. Some are worse than others of course.

 

[rich]

Both fabulous jackets, wish I had either one of them...........

 

[Grant]

Not a really good comparison for fit as the original looks way to big (sorry, but looks like the jackets from the Pearl Harbor movie). Overall, the GW fits you much better. Not sure if it's the bad photo but most original 27752 contracts I've seen were more of a russet/ dark russet color. Also, I don't see the leather tabs under the collar in either jacket?

Grant

 

[jacketimp]

Here's a comparison of my GW 27752 and my original 18091. They are both marked 46 but the original is actually a bit larger- the 27752's more like a 45. You can see that the original has a bit more droop than the GW but in both the droop is partially a visual deception caused by the shape of the epaulet with its bit of rise. The 27752 isn't as seal colored as it appears in my bad photos. The original is probably an inch larger in the body and the collar is squished down by years in a trunk or something- the 27752 still has a bit of lift in the collar. So I'll wait for the barrage- I know now how it feels to try and "explain" a jacket with bad photos. As you can see- the original (same as the jacket in Chandler's avatar) has as much or more sheen than the GW. So fire away! Enjoy!

jeff,

no one's firing away a barrage at you........you've given fair comments and the replies are positive.

no one's out to get you.........at least not this imp........

by the way i prefer the original, me being an original sucka!

cheers for sharing.......

 

[Chandler]

Here's a comparison of my GW 27752

And that's the same jacket pictured in the discussion at the other thread? If so, the "sheen" is less severe in these images than the other, so that answers my question of the photography I originally posed there. Simple as that without raising any blood pressure.

OTOH, the original pictured may have some sheen, but it's nothing like that on the images in the previous thread -- looks like my G&B goatskin here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=780, but not at all like the other FS (G&B) jackets I'd mentioned seeing.

Chandler

Of course, I could also point out that you're not standing in the same spot in both pictures... lighting and all...

 

[Anonymous]

Not a really good comparison for fit as the original looks way to big (sorry, but looks like the jackets from the Pearl Harbor movie). Overall, the GW fits you much better. Not sure if it's the bad photo but most original 27752 contracts I've seen were more of a russet/ dark russet color. Also, I don't see the leather tabs under the collar in either jacket?

Grant

Agree with you on both points- although in real life the GW looks a lot more "russety" than the phots show,. In sunlight it looks lighter and browner if that makes sense. The little leather tabs are there ...

 

[greyhound52]

Grant,
I was the owner for a brief period of the original Jeff has. It was a huge jacket. The biggest 46 I have ever seen. Agree with the other comment the GS is just like the older GB jacket I had not the newer ones.

 

[better duck]

Rotenhahn,
Is it my imagination or bad eyesight that makes it seem to me that the left pocket on your GW is closer to the zip than on the original? (left from the wearers POV).
Good to hear the little tabs are there, I was getting worried...

 

[Anonymous]

Rotenhahn,
Is it my imagination or bad eyesight that makes it seem to me that the left pocket on your GW is closer to the zip than on the original? (left from the wearers POV).
Good to hear the little tabs are there, I was getting worried...

Good eye! The original is 3" from the windflap stitch- the GW is 2 7/8". For me- better closer than too far apart. I think normally Roughwears stayed around 3" from the windflap even as they got larger, as opposed to staying consistent with the underarm seam and having the pockets move apart.

 

[better duck]

as opposed to staying consistent with the underarm seam and having the pockets move apart.

Would you be able to name the makers that practiced the habit of staying consistent with the underarm seam?
I ask this, because I have an ELC Star in size 46, where, or so it seems to me, the pockets are quite far apart. Would that be consistent with the original Stars?

 

[Chandler]

Here's a view of an original Star: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1020

I think the pocket spacing will make you feel better.

Chandler

 

[Anonymous]

as opposed to staying consistent with the underarm seam and having the pockets move apart.

Would you be able to name the makers that practiced the habit of staying consistent with the underarm seam?
I ask this, because I have an ELC Star in size 46, where, or so it seems to me, the pockets are quite far apart. Would that be consistent with the original Stars?

The only WW2 contract I know for sure had pockets far apart relatively was the Spiewak. In very large size 48+ WW2 jackets the pockets do move away from the windflap more but typically there's still more space on the underarm side in large jackets I've seen. I'm not sure about the Star- Chandler's photo seems to show the typical 3" spacing as opposed to the 4" spacing typical in a 46 Eastman. On small WW2 jackets that 3" spacing is ggoing to look big realtive to the 1 1/2" or so on the underarm side.