What's With ELC?

dmar836

Well-Known Member
So after Foster's great review of his new 2013 ELC 27752, I thought the pockets looked high. Foster mentioned the pockets on his size 46 are 2" from the waist band.
I checked my original 44 as well as a 42 pattern. 1" - 1 1/16" is what I came up with.
Why does ELC continue this? We all get that Gary knows A-2 jackets but a 1" difference here is fairly egregious among pattern makers.
I know it's been mentioned before but apparently there are no revisions towards accuracy at ELC?
Dave
 

Marv

Well-Known Member
dmar836 said:
So after Foster's great review of his new 2013 ELC 27752, I thought the pockets looked high. Foster mentioned the pockets on his size 46 are 2" from the waist band.
I checked my original 44 as well as a 42 pattern. 1" - 1 1/16" is what I came up with.
Why does ELC continue this? We all get that Gary knows A-2 jackets but a 1" difference here is fairly egregious among pattern makers.
I know it's been mentioned before but apparently there are no revisions towards accuracy at ELC?
Dave
I have just measured my GW RW 27752 (size 48) and the pockets are seated 1 1/4 " above the waist band, an yes my 2010 ELC RW 27752 does have the pockets seated higher at approx. 2 inches from the waist band.

Seems like this would be an easy fix for ELC and not sure why they don't rectify it to be honest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I guess the reason is aesthetics.
When you wear the jacket and the pockets are too low you get this ugly effect (look at the guy far left)



On the other hand when the pocket is not too close to the waistband it looks better.
(Look at the guy far right)



Bottom line, I think we better leave Gary do his job.
 

foster

Well-Known Member
Even in his A-2 book, the two photos of originals of this contact show the pockets only about 1" above that seam. One of those originals pictured is a size 40. It does seem really odd that this one would be different.

From a patterning perspective, the only reason for the difference would be if the pocket positioning on the pattern specified it to be placed a certain distance from some reference point higher on the garment. But it is far more practical to align it to the lower edge as that is what is closer.

I did notice when measuring the pocket placement, that it is not uniformly parallel with the waistband seam. Perhaps by increasing the distance, it makes it less noticeable when the pocket is slightly crooked.
 

ButteMT61

Well-Known Member
dmar836 said:
So after Foster's great review of his new 2013 ELC 27752, I thought the pockets looked high. Foster mentioned the pockets on his size 46 are 2" from the waist band.
I checked my original 44 as well as a 42 pattern. 1" - 1 1/16" is what I came up with.
Why does ELC continue this? We all get that Gary knows A-2 jackets but a 1" difference here is fairly egregious among pattern makers.
I know it's been mentioned before but apparently there are no revisions towards accuracy at ELC?
Dave
Just for fun, I measured the distance on my Aero Bronco. ≤1.2"
And here I thought they weren't accurate… :lol:
 

foster

Well-Known Member
I had another thought today, but this is speculation.

Eastman offers customizing of their jackets by adding squadron patches, name tapes, etc. Perhaps they shifted the pocket placement on the larger sizes to make it simpler to place said patches from the top of the pocket flap, instead of having to measure different lengths for different sizes?

This is purely an educated guess, and last I heard was only worth $0.02 (or perhaps £0.02 across the pond).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just to remind you that this is the section of the forum that repro makers present the new products, so only repro makers can start a thread.

This thread belongs to the Repros section.
 

a2jacketpatches

Active Member
PLATON said:
I guess the reason is aesthetics.
When you wear the jacket and the pockets are too low you get this ugly effect (look at the guy far left)

I have to agree with you Platon, I believe aesthetics has a lot to do with it, especially when we're talking larger sizes like the referenced 46. Guys are bigger and taller these days and have to deal with these little inaccuracieso. Was this size 46 a tall? If so, perhaps the pocket looked way too low. Just a thought as I'm one of the guys supplying patches to Gary. Being a reproduction manufacturer, I absolutely have to consider the size of a patch going on to a typical modern repro 46-50, and a lot of the times tall. The usual 5" patch can look tiny. I know there's a lot of opinion here concerning that, but I've heard "too small" straight from the customer many times and it's my job to remedy that. I increase the size a bit to a happy medium that is within range to accommodate the larger sizes and not look too big on the smaller sizes. Maybe this is the case with these pockets. I believe all repro manufacturers to be artists of a sort, and we are forced to consider aesthetics in the world of bigger guys wearing stuff originally designed for smaller guys. Artistic license is evident in most repros if you look close enough, Jackets, patches, boots, you name it.
 

foster

Well-Known Member
a2jacketpatches said:
Was this size 46 a tall?
Not to my knowledge, but I am 6'3" tall and it fits rather nicely. The tag in the pocket only mentions it as size 46.
 

a2jacketpatches

Active Member
foster said:
a2jacketpatches said:
Was this size 46 a tall?
Not to my knowledge, but I am 6'3" tall and it fits rather nicely. The tag in the pocket only mentions it as size 46.
At 6'3" and fitting nicely, the length is certainly a little longer than a period example. I can see the possibility of an enormous looking chest area if pocket placement wasn't compromised. Guess what I'm saying is that if the pockets were by the book, this thread could be criticizing in between the collar tip and top of the pocket chest area as being very long vertically. If you were to send a pic of yourself wearing the jacket comfortably, just a dead on front shot, I could probably whip up a tracing and drop the pockets a bit to illustrate my theory. Maybe it will look ok maybe it won't, I just know for sure that even an inch can throw something off big time.
 

Roughwear

Well-Known Member
The continued relatively higher pocket placement on most ELC A2 jackets compared with originals is surprising with Eastman's recent attempts to increase the accuracy of some of their original maker jackets. The 1937 HLB Corp appears to be an exception judging from the photos as is the Werber. This is a feature which GW gets right all the time.
 

Dr H

Well-Known Member
Yes, that ELC Werber is a peach (like it every time that I see it, especially the more worn example that was posted recently).
 

Silver Surfer

Well-Known Member
i understand that elc has a new hide for the werber. imho: the werber is the best contract that gary makes, and is as good, or better then any other werber repro.
 

Dr H

Well-Known Member
Silver Surfer said:
i understand that elc has a new hide for the werber. imho: the werber is the best contract that gary makes, and is as good, or better then any other werber repro.
I've not handled any of the Werbers (GW/ELC), but from the images this does look to be the best ELC A-2 to my eyes (on a par with the ELC A-1 for reproduction of pattern)
 

foster

Well-Known Member
I checked with a friend of mine in the UK, he and I are about the same size. He bought an Eastman Rough Wear 27752 in size 46, same as mine, back in 2004-2005. I asked him to measure the spacing between the waistband knit and the pockets. His measured at 1 3/4".
 
Top