The Weird Thing about Lost World's Dubows

[caddyd]

I here ya ~ And I got an original Bronco with pockets situated higher than the knit than usual and a Doniger with smaller pockets and mini flaps so looks like even the war-time original A-2's were all over the place with pocket size and placement.

 

[Smithy]

I've seen this exact same thing crazily poring over hundreds of photos of original A-2s. In fact with some makers it seems an almost inevitable- usually the windflap side pocket is higher- but as usual with these jackets there's no rule. One pocket's higher 1/8" to 1/4". The pocket flaps for sure on Rough Wears (my area of expertise) are often different most of the time. I've tried to get my favorite repro maker to replicate this and he will on a Combat Clone but not too radically. I definitely ask for this for my repros- in fact my goal is to someday have an exact copy made- mistakes and all- of an individual jacket. It would be very difficult...

I think one thing that gets forgotten by lots of folks Jeff is that an A-2 was the same as a piece of webbing, a boot gaiter, a Zeltbahn, etc, etc. This was a piece of operational kit. It was manufactured to perform a task, so it's primarily a case of function over form. Aesthetics play little to no part in combat clothing and gear (this isn't mess/service/full dress uniform). So long as it is manufactured to a standard which will allow its owner/wearer perform the function for which is was intended and over a reasonable timeframe under operational conditions before failure then it was good to be issued. Absolute preciseness in aesthetic considerations were the last on the list of importance.

 

[Skyhawk]

I've seen this exact same thing crazily poring over hundreds of photos of original A-2s. In fact with some makers it seems an almost inevitable- usually the windflap side pocket is higher- but as usual with these jackets there's no rule. One pocket's higher 1/8" to 1/4". The pocket flaps for sure on Rough Wears (my area of expertise) are often different most of the time. I've tried to get my favorite repro maker to replicate this and he will on a Combat Clone but not too radically. I definitely ask for this for my repros- in fact my goal is to someday have an exact copy made- mistakes and all- of an individual jacket. It would be very difficult...

Gimmie a chance Zhu, I will F up your jacket real good

Edit: We can sneak up behind out machinist an scare the B-Jesus out of them to get some impromptu wonkiness!

I would say the weirdest thing is that L.W could try so hard to make a decent repro, and then fumble on the label by adding the size tab on the Dubow. Leaving a simple detail to fix to wallow forever in disappointment. That's weird.

You would have to pay to have each label made for each size, but that's not that expensive in the long run.

 

[mulceber]

I think one thing that gets forgotten by lots of folks Jeff is that an A-2 was the same as a piece of webbing, a boot gaiter, a Zeltbahn, etc, etc. This was a piece of operational kit. It was manufactured to perform a task, so it's primarily a case of function over form. Aesthetics play little to no part in combat clothing and gear (this isn't mess/service/full dress uniform). So long as it is manufactured to a standard which will allow its owner/wearer perform the function for which is was intended and over a reasonable timeframe under operational conditions before failure then it was good to be issued. Absolute preciseness in aesthetic considerations were the last on the list of importance.

And getting the pockets precisely aligned likely took a fair bit of effort. So cutting that corner likely helped to speed up production.

 

[Smithy]

And getting the pockets precisely aligned likely took a fair bit of effort. So cutting that corner likely helped to speed up production.

You've probably hit the nail on the head Jan.

Aligning anything requires time because of repeated cross measuring and subsequent repositioning and remeasuring. I imagine a lot of A-2 machinists used the old Mk. I Eyeball approach either to both pockets' positioning or at the least measured one side and then eyeballed the other. Save time and onto the next thing/another jacket.

 

[ZuZu]

I think one thing that gets forgotten by lots of folks Jeff is that an A-2 was the same as a piece of webbing, a boot gaiter, a Zeltbahn, etc, etc. This was a piece of operational kit. It was manufactured to perform a task, so it's primarily a case of function over form. Aesthetics play little to no part in combat clothing and gear (this isn't mess/service/full dress uniform). So long as it is manufactured to a standard which will allow its owner/wearer perform the function for which is was intended and over a reasonable timeframe under operational conditions before failure then it was good to be issued. Absolute preciseness in aesthetic considerations were the last on the list of importance.

I respectfully have to disagree a bit with this. An A-2 wasn't the same as an M-41. Aesthetics did play a part in jacket design. Witness the difference between a Rough Wear and a Doniger or an Aero. Rough Wear jackets were the staid conservative design with a WW1 type raincoat collar. Doniger, Dubow, Spiewak and others used the hip for its time sharp deep collar points- very much a nod to what was cool then. Aero and others were closer to what you describe- very utilitarian looking- but even with those jackets the small seams and square looking design were definitely a "look" and showed pride in workmanship. The A-2 was probably a piece of operational kit when it was actually used in open cockpits but by WW2 it had taken on partially a morale and esprit de corps function.

I agree that industrial sewing isn't usually perfect looking and that strength and functionality are what counts. All those little mistakes we find on originals didn't matter at all. They don't even matter aesthetically unless they're very obvious. Part of the problem with all repros is that uncanny valley of perfection. That actually looks weird.

 

[Smithy]

I respectfully have to disagree a bit with this. An A-2 wasn't the same as an M-41. Aesthetics did play a part in jacket design. Witness the difference between a Rough Wear and a Doniger or an Aero. Rough Wear jackets were the staid conservative design with a WW1 type raincoat collar, Doniger, Dubow, Spiewak and others used the hip for its time sharp deep collar points- very much a nod to what was cool then. Aero and others were closer to what you describe- very utilitarian looking- but even with those jackets the small seams and square looking design were definitely a "look" and showed pride in workmanship. The A-2 was probably a piece of operational kit when it was actually used in open cockpits but by WW2 it had taken on partially a morale and esprit de corps function.

I agree that industrial sewing isn't usually perfect looking and that strength and functionality are what counts. All those little mistakes we find on originals didn't matter at all. They don't even matter aesthetically unless they're very obvious. Part of the problem with all repros is that uncanny valley of perfection. That actually looks weird.

Jeff, those considerations you bring up are about the design and who designed the pattern not in regards to the manufacture of the actual jackets. The girl sewing that jacket was sewing to a pattern, sorry but she didn't give a shit about what the shape of the collar was or whether the seams of this or that looked utterly lovely, nor if it was an homage to some earlier design like a WWI raincoat. She was paid to knock out jackets for the war effort.

I've never understood this whole A-2s were some mystical thing that were manufactured to standards higher aesthetically and better than other bits of flying or military kit and clothing. Personally I don't think they were.

 

[leper-colony]

I've never understood this whole A-2s were some mystical thing that were manufactured to standards higher aesthetically and better than other bits of flying or military kit and clothing. Personally I don't think they were.

How dare you, Sir.

Just kidding...

 

[ZuZu]

Jeff, those considerations you bring up are about the design and who designed the pattern not in regards to the manufacture of the actual jackets. The girl sewing that jacket was sewing to a pattern, sorry but she didn't give a shit about what the shape of the collar was or whether the seams of this or that looked utterly lovely, nor if it was an homage to some earlier design like a WWI raincoat. She was paid to knock out jackets for the war effort.

I've never understood this whole A-2s were some mystical thing that were manufactured to standards higher aesthetically and better than other bits of flying or military kit and clothing. Personally I don't think they were.

Again-respectfully- you misunderstand me. I get the industrial sewing "for the war effort" part. The little seamstresses busy making jackets had no feeling about them except "don't screw up the sewing"! I think that the Higher standards and all that in REPRO sewing are what give them the "uncanny valley"" something's not right here" look. I PREFER industrial sewing- strong and too the point- no fussin'.

But the A-2 was designed to an aesthetic standard- that's part of the reason people like them then and people like them now. Different companies did what they wanted- the newer ones like Doniger and Spiewak made them look contemporary. Dubow changed its collar in the later contracts- looks is the only reason I can think of- pointy and long. They were cool leather jackets- maybe not all who used them thought them special but I'm sure many really thought they were cool. I doubt there was any feeling like that for a M-41 or M-43.

The "mystical thing" part of it is our modern amazement at the materials used and the provenance and patching etc. etc. Aesthetics too. But no one thinks they were "manufactured to standards higher etc..."
A-2s were DESIGNED to a higher aesthetic for sure!

 

[mulceber]

I think you're both right and you're both talking past each other.

• Was it functional kit that was meant to fulfill a purpose? Yes.
• Did the people who designed the patterns and the founders of the company care about their contract looking its best? Also yes, definitely. They were doing government work and they were proud of it.
• Did the inspector who approved the finished garments care about anything besides the functionality of the garment? Probably not. He certainly didn't approve or reject them on that.
• The factory workers? Nah - at least not beyond being proud of the work they were doing.
• And the soldiers didn't give a rat's rear end - at least not after they'd flown their first mission.

I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been observed before. They're beautifully-designed garments, but that was probably lost on the overwhelming majority of people who encountered them those first few years; or at best noticed in passing.

 

[ZuZu]

I think you're both right and you're both talking past each other.

• Was it functional kit that was meant to fulfill a purpose? Yes.
• Did the people who designed the patterns and the founders of the company care about their contract looking its best? Also yes, definitely. They were doing government work and they were proud of it.
• Did the inspector who approved the finished garments care about anything besides the functionality of the garment? Probably not. He certainly didn't approve or reject them on that.
• The factory workers? Nah - at least not beyond being proud of the work they were doing.
• And the soldiers didn't give a rat's rear end - at least not after they'd flown their first mission.

I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been observed before. They're beautifully-designed garments, but that was probably lost on the overwhelming majority of people who encountered them those first few years; or at best noticed in passing.

The only sentence I disagree with here is "...soldiers didn't give a rat's rear end..." because I think many airmen loved A-2s and couldn't wait to get one. I think I've read that in books- although I can't cite which ones. They didn't care about the aesthetics of their particular A-2 but they certainly liked them I think...

You're right about talking past...

 

[mulceber]

That's fair. It probably varied from person to person. What role you were playing might have had something to do with it as well. I sort of imagine the fighter pilots retaining their bravado better than the bomber boys. Although even the Bloody Hundredth had guys like Cleven & Egan, who their fellow vets remember as being a bit puffed up.

 

[Pa12]

Was so much simpler as a kid in the 60’s with black and white tv. The jackets were all identical and they were all black

 

[ZuZu]

Was so much simpler as a kid in the 60’s with black and white tv. The jackets were all identical and they were all black

And thus the birth of dark seal. Hogan's Heroes for example.

 

[Pa12]

And thus the birth of dark seal. Hogan's Heroes for example.

Actually that’s the first jacket I saw in colour when we got our first colour tv. I remember being surprised it was brown

 

[caddyd]

Very interesting ~ I got hooked on the post war A-2 the way Hollywood dressed the rebels in them long before Indiana Jones.
That's why I prefer the heart and soul of an original.

 

[Smithy]

The only sentence I disagree with here is "...soldiers didn't give a rat's rear end..." because I think many airmen loved A-2s and couldn't wait to get one. I think I've read that in books- although I can't cite which ones. They didn't care about the aesthetics of their particular A-2 but they certainly liked them I think...

You're right about talking past...

Oh I do think a lot of airmen did like their A-2s as they were also a "badge" that you were a flyboy. In fact in one of my books on the 4th FG, someone actually says that - I'll have to find it.

I think Jan's right that were talking past one another. My point was that those seamstresses were only really worried about getting jackets made and made quickly so they could be used by the men who needed them. In the same way as someone making pants, boots, webbing, or any other piece of operational clothing or kit.

 

[Flightengineer]

Photo from a neighboring thread, focus on the guy from the top right

 

[Micawber]

I believe it is far too easy to overlay our own sentimentality, reverence for history, past achievements and design onto what as Tim rightly states was kit issued in vast numbers to do a job.

 

[ZuZu]

Photo from a neighboring thread, focus on the guy from the top right

The guy on the top right isn't wearing a Dubow. You can see the X-box of the epaulet is too small to be a Dubow thus the untethered part of the ep looks quite long. My guess from this and the pockets is that it's an Aero. The collar looks a bit Aerolike too- they range from almost rounded to pointy and sharp. Possibly also Poughkeepsie or Star but I don't see Dubow at all.

The SECOND guy from the right definitely is wearing a Dubow- pocket flap shape, pocket placement and collar confirm this. IMO