The Collar/Windflap/Zipper intersection- various repros compared to original Aeros- 21996,18775 and 15142

[ZuZu]

The intersection of the collar, windfap and zipper is a detail which is distinct to each original A-2 maker. Aero had a distinct method of joining these three parts- careful observation will show it to be constant across these 3 contracts (21996,18775,15142) although depending on wear it can seem muddled.

 

[ZuZu]

The collar is sewn a bit into the windflap and the zipper tape at the top inevitably dives into the lining BEFORE intersecting the collar:

 

[ZuZu]

This is true for all original Aero jackets of these contracts:

 

[ZuZu]

GW gets it:

 

[ZuZu]

DD gets it:

 

[ZuZu]

BK gets it:

 

[ZuZu]

Sadly the bearer of the name- Aero of Scotland- does not:

 

[ZuZu]

 

[ZuZu]

Aero of Scotland has the zipper tape run all the way up following the lining and dying at the intersection of collar and windflap. This just is not correct. It adds nothing to the jacket and is easily rectified by a slight pattern/sewing order change. Overall changing this detail, the epaulette "X" and the blowout stitching and there would be a viable repro being made.

 

[DiamondDave]

Also of note here, the collars are longer than those used by Aero (Scotland) and jut out into the wind flap, notice in these same pics that the collars of the AS jackets tend to come up short and not into the flap as is correct.

And lastly, the final stitch up the wind flap on originals, is made from the inside with the lining facing up and curves slightly at the top, towards the shoulder seam. This allows for less sewing to all meet up at the same point. Smart design when you think about it.
DD

 

[ZuZu]

Even Buzz Rickson gets it:

 

[ZuZu]

Here you can see the zipper tape folded in under the lining on an original Aero Jacket:

 

[jeremiah]

Man you have a lot of pics of MY BK arco. Ha.

 

[dinomartino1]

Aero of Scotland has the zipper tape run all the way up following the lining and dying at the intersection of collar and windflap. This just is not correct. It adds nothing to the jacket and is easily rectified by a slight pattern/sewing order change. Overall changing this detail, the epaulette "X" and the blowout stitching and there would be a viable repro being made

Agree, but I beg to differ om the X, as I have already said photos have been posted with centred X so it is not historically inaccurate just because a lessor amount may have made that way.
That has no bearing whatsoever on it being historically accurate, they where so it is.

 

[DiamondDave]

Agree, but I beg to differ om the X, as I have already said photos have been posted with centred X so it is not historically inaccurate just because a lessor amount may have made that way.
That has no bearing whatsoever on it being historically accurate, they where so it is.

Haha! We didn’t say they didn’t exist, we said they are not made to the company spec that would have been the norm. This is not a terribly difficult concept really.

DD

 

[Silver Surfer]

whoa, serious angels on the head of a pin stuff here, and man, i like it. details, details, details....the devil is in the details.

 

[ZuZu]

Agree, but I beg to differ om the X, as I have already said photos have been posted with centred X so it is not historically inaccurate just because a lessor amount may have made that way.
That has no bearing whatsoever on it being historically accurate, they where so it is.

Neither of these examples of supposedly a full "X" really shows that unambiguously. The top photo shows the "X" ALMOST fully centered but one corner is not. The second example is taken at a weird angle but I don't see a centered "X"- again just one line of stitching that almost goes to the corner. A centered "X" was not the norm- accept it. The "X" was probably sewn before the sleeve was sewn in or something- with folding in of the sleeve/shoulder causing a non-centered "X" 99.9% of the time. Why would a repro maker (especially one SO concerned with "historically accurate" patterns) copy the one-off? Just as with the collar/windflap situation I think the reality is that "historically accurate" isn't really a concern...

 

[dinomartino1]

Haha! We didn’t say they didn’t exist, we said they are not made to the company spec that would have been the norm. This is not a terribly difficult concept really.

DD

Actually you did not say that from what I can find.
Historical accuracy is not a hard concept to understand either..
Changing the parameters of an argument because you don't like being presented with facts that refute your case is what makes me go Ha Ha
I saw no statements about a centred X existing until photographic evidence was posted they where made.
Mentioning jackets where made that way in the beginning would have been the obvious thing to do for "EXPERTS" or where the experts not expert enough to be aware of them.
I do see any statement on that thread about not made to company spec until a photo appeared to challenge that and then the reply

Zu ZU :What you have here is the anomaly- not the hundreds of other photos which show original jackets sewn the way I have illustrated. I want a repro which is typical of a contract- not a one off."
Hardly the same as "We didn’t say they didn’t exist, we said they are not made to the company spec that would have been the norm."
Not a one off either and are you saying no others where ever made.
Because somebody does not the like the centred X does not make it historically inaccurate, that is their personal optinion not fact.
If you want to criticise other makers I have no problem but you should not be blinded by your dislike of someone to the extent you will only see what you want to see.

 

[dinomartino1]

Neither of these examples of supposedly a full "X" really shows that unambiguously. The top photo shows the "X" ALMOST fully centered but one corner is not. The second example is taken at a weird angle but I don't see a centered "X"- again just one line of stitching that almost goes to the corner. A centered "X" was not the norm- accept it. The "X" was probably sewn before the sleeve was sewn in or something- with folding in of the sleeve/shoulder causing a non-centered "X" 99.9% of the time. Why would a repro maker (especially one SO concerned with "historically accurate" patterns) copy the one-off? Just as with the collar/windflap situation I think the reality is that "historically accurate" isn't really a concern...
[/QUOTE]


I never said the centred X was the norm please do not put words into my mouth to suit your argument

Please just answer yes or no

1. Is the centred X historically accurate of an original jacket the was made by aero.
2. You have proof that two photos posted of the centred X where the only examples ever produced.

I am only holding you and DD to the standards you are applying to others not defending Aero.

 

[DiamondDave]

Neither of these examples of supposedly a full "X" really shows that unambiguously. The top photo shows the "X" ALMOST fully centered but one corner is not. The second example is taken at a weird angle but I don't see a centered "X"- again just one line of stitching that almost goes to the corner. A centered "X" was not the norm- accept it. The "X" was probably sewn before the sleeve was sewn in or something- with folding in of the sleeve/shoulder causing a non-centered "X" 99.9% of the time. Why would a repro maker (especially one SO concerned with "historically accurate" patterns) copy the one-off? Just as with the collar/windflap situation I think the reality is that "historically accurate" isn't really a concern...

I never said the centred X was the norm please do not put words into my mouth to suit your argument

Please just answer yes or no

1. Is the centred X historically accurate of an original jacket the was made by aero.
2. You have proof that two photos posted of the centred X where the only examples ever produced.

I am only holding you and DD to the standards you are applying to others.
[/QUOTE]

Actually no, you’re not. All this is doing is muddying the information, but keep going. This is why nobody will ever read these posts, too much of this sort of semantics crap. You’re point is made, they exist. We will CHOOSE to do it better, will that suffice?

DD