The shape of these A2 collars

elfraty

Active Member
Which are right and which are wrong. I compared these collars from Doniger and Dubow and to my surprise it seems that the shapes differ a lot. Is it me or is there really a shape difference? Or has it to do with age of the jacket and has the reproduction manufacturer been misled by this age effect? Or has it to do with the type of leather and the age effect?
I'm confused?
Because when the shape of all the collars need to be the same and I look at the shape of my new David D. Doniger A2 FSL and I compare it to an old original war jacket of the same contractor, the shape seems correct. But other originals have totally different shapes. Can someone please explain where this difference comes from?
 

Attachments

B-Man2

Well-Known Member
Hi
I’d be happy to answer that question for you ... if ... you promise never to use thumbnails again;)
During the war every manufacturer had specs of what an A2 jacket should look like . Each maker took those specs and interpreted them with subtle differences in pocket shapes , collar shapes etc . Donigers were known for having pointed and shaped collars similar to a shirt style collar where as RoughWears were known for having larger and bigger collars . When we see photos of people wearing A2 jackets and you’ve gotten to know what some of these traits and details look like, you can immediately identify who made the jacket without ever seeing the label . :)
Cheers
 
Last edited:

Silver Surfer

Well-Known Member
burt is correct, and I might add that pocket shape and flaps were different from contract to contract. width of the wind flap,, color of knit elements, seam stitching technique, zippers bed, etc, all carried from one contract to another.....not to mention, variations within a given contract. for a simple contract designation for the a-2 in the 1930s, there were as many interpretations as there were companies that made them.
 

elfraty

Active Member
Hi
I’d be happy to answer that question for you ... if ... you promise never to use thumbnails again;)
During the war every manufacturer had specs of what an A2 jacket should look like . Each maker took those specs and interpreted them with subtle differences in pocket shapes , collar shapes etc . Donigers were known for having pointed and shaped collars similar to a shirt style collar where as RoughWears were known for having larger and bigger collars . When we see photos of people wearing A2 jackets and you’ve gotten to know what some of these traits and details look like, you can immediately identify who made the jacket without ever seeing the label . :)
Cheers


oh. I really thought they all were manufactured as uniform as possible. Well very nice to know that that was not the case and that the FSL Jacket is true to the original. Sorry, will never use thumb nails again....
 

Nickb123

Well-Known Member
I think it’s trickier than not, but this is from someone who still has a lot to learn. A Dubow collar I can understand, but Roughwears, some look large but few look as large or “clownish” as the repros. Original collars don’t seem to be as easily identifiable as repros, but that could just be me.
 

B-Man2

Well-Known Member
I think it’s trickier than not, but this is from someone who still has a lot to learn. A Dubow collar I can understand, but Roughwears, some look large but few look as large or “clownish” as the repros.
Agree with you Nick
I think what happens is that each repro maker does pretty much something similar to what the original makers did when they made their contract A2s with subtle differences from the issued specs. They make their repros based on their interpretation of what the original looked like . The repros that are more accurate are usually the ones that were made by dissecting an original, however as you know a lot of repros are simply made from photos or other repros , and that leaves a lot of room for mis interpretation and mistakes . Just my take on this.
Cheers
 

elfraty

Active Member
I do not know what clownish is? Is it outside the boundaries of acceptance of originality? Which one of the two photos #1 or #2 is clownish to your opinion or are they both within the boundaries of general acceptance?

#1.png
#2.png
 

stanier

Well-Known Member
I have a hunch a lot of the problem with the repro makers is they way they scale their patterns through sizes. And if they try to "modernise" the fit (so a wartime 40 becomes a modern 40 for example) the problems worsen. Roughwear collars need scaling a very particular way to avoid looking clownish. It can be done, but my personal experience I only know one maker who nails it consistently. Others are ok in smaller sizes but the bigger sizes get very Elizabethan.
 

elfraty

Active Member
I have a hunch a lot of the problem with the repro makers is they way they scale their patterns through sizes. And if they try to "modernise" the fit (so a wartime 40 becomes a modern 40 for example) the problems worsen. Roughwear collars need scaling a very particular way to avoid looking clownish. It can be done, but my personal experience I only know one maker who nails it consistently. Others are ok in smaller sizes but the bigger sizes get very Elizabethan.

I start to realise that my knowledge of the English language falls short Big Time. Elizabethan??? Sorry guys I lost you there completely.
 

elfraty

Active Member
Actually what I really would like to know is: Is the collar of the FSL A2 I bought two weeks ago looking rediculousy clownishly Elizabethan in the eyes of the "Real Mccoys"? Or should I say ridiculously clownish.
 
Top