Questions About the United States Navy Peacoat

[Caber]

If one is found but needs a new liner or a seam repair, Is there someone around the forum that can do this or is it just something a local tailor can do.

 

[spoonbelly1950]

I would assume a local tailor could handle a seam repair. I'm not so sure about a new liner.

 

[Peacoat]

I would assume a local tailor could handle a seam repair. I'm not so sure about a new liner.

And if he could handle a new liner, where would you find a new liner for him to install?

 

[WolfofStateSt]

Are you supposed to layer a peacoat over a CPO shirt?

I’ve heard conflicting opinions on whether a peacoat should be able to fit over a Chief Petty Officer (CPO) shirt. It’s also difficult to find clear historical references, since sailors typically wore their peacoats fully buttoned, making the underlying layers hard to see.

I’m trying to decide between a size 42 and 44 in a 1913 peacoat. The 42 has a 24.4” chest measurement, and the 44 is 25.6”. My chest is about 43”, and I want enough room to layer a sweater underneath. I’m unsure whether I should also expect it to comfortably fit over both a sweater and a CPO shirt, or if that’s beyond how the garment was intended to be worn.

 

[Peacoat]

One comment and two questions.

First to define terms. A "chest measurement" only properly refers to the circumference of one's chest–such as 43". Coat measurements are made pit to pit, such as 24.4" or 25.6". The distinction may sound pedantic, but it isn't. It keeps us from becoming confused when discussing chest size, versus peacoat size.

Where did you find a 1913 peacoat, and are you sure it is an issue coat? I have never seen a 1913 coat.

And finally, what is a CPO shirt? Is it thicker than a standard navy shirt?

 

[WolfofStateSt]

One comment and two questions.

First to define terms. A "chest measurement" only properly refers to the circumference of one's chest–such as 43". Coat measurements are made pit to pit, such as 24.4" or 25.6". The distinction may sound pedantic, but it isn't. It keeps us from becoming confused when discussing chest size, versus peacoat size.

Where did you find a 1913 peacoat, and are you sure it is an issue coat? I have never seen a 1913 coat.

And finally, what is a CPO shirt? Is it thicker than a standard navy shirt?

Both are Real McCoys repros… the CPO is their reproduction CPO and the Peacoat is their 1913 as well. I have seen original 1913s floating around online for like $4000 which isn’t worth it imo not to mention finding the right size.

But given that I would say this is as close to Navy issue as you can find without going the surplus route, they are meticulously with their reproductions. The CPO is boxy, but not thick at all, I would say the wool twill is thinner than my Pendleton board shirts though it is still quite sturdy.

You are correct when comes to the coat measurements and chest measurement distinction. I should have clarified.

 

[Peacoat]

This coat has much to recommend it, but it has one major problem: It doesn't have a Kersey shell. It probably has some form of the Melton wool that was substituted for the Kersey in 1980.

Real McCoys will probably tell you it has the same material throughout that the original had, but it doesn't.

 

[WolfofStateSt]

This coat has much to recommend it, but it has one major problem: It doesn't have a Kersey shell. It probably has some form of the Melton wool that was substituted for the Kersey in 1980.

Real McCoys will probably tell you it has the same material throughout that the original had, but it doesn't.

I know, it’s a bummer. But where am I going to find an original 1913 Peacoat that fits someone who is 6’4” and 200 lbs?

I have tried WWII Kersey Peacoats… they are nice and excellent value but getting one to fit my body is hard I think… most of them run small imo.

 

[lmatteis]

Hi everyone. I recently found this peacoat at a local market with an interesting weave pattern that I haven't found before on these vintage US navy peacoats. It has no tags inside.

Now I'm usually pretty good at identifying original ones based on tags and/or stitching (thanks to the PEACOAT thread on this site). But this one got me a bit off guard.

Notice (i) the weave pattern is quite visible, (ii) it has a corduroy lining pocket, but (iii) a single line of stitching on sleeves (instead of 2).

Thoughts on this? Imitation or real?

 

[WolfofStateSt]

Hi everyone. I recently found this peacoat at a local market with an interesting weave pattern that I haven't found before on these vintage US navy peacoats. It has no tags inside.

Now I'm usually pretty good at identifying original ones based on tags and/or stitching (thanks to the PEACOAT thread on this site). But this one got me a bit off guard.

Notice (i) the weave pattern is quite visible, (ii) it has a corduroy lining pocket, but (iii) a single line of stitching on sleeves (instead of 2).

Thoughts on this? Imitation or real?

Imitation? If it fits still a keeper.

 

[lmatteis]

Imitation? If it fits still a keeper.

I'm mainly curious on the weird weave pattern. Can wool actually do that? It looks more like cotton.

 

[WolfofStateSt]

I'm mainly curious on the weird weave pattern. Can wool actually do that? It looks more like cotton.

You can do a twill weave with wool. Does it feel smooth and silky or more like a slight Velcro/static feel. If it itches slightly… it’s wool. Unlikely to be wool.

 

[WolfofStateSt]

Keep in mind they have been making commercial Peacoats for the civilian market since like the 1960s if not earlier, so there have probably been a million variations over the years and from retailers that went out of business decades ago.

 

[lmatteis]

You can do a twill weave with wool. Does it feel smooth and silky or more like a slight Velcro/static feel. If it itches slightly… it’s wool. Unlikely to be wool.

Apparently I did a wool test. Cut a tiny piece of fabric and dipped it in bleach for 2 hours. It dissolved completely so it's 100% wool. My thinking is that it was washed incorrectly hence the weave became more visible from shrinkage.

I'm starting to think it's from ww2 given the slightly more cropped and single-line stitching on the cuffs. Also the 8 buttons showing (instead of 6). The inner lining stitching also looks identical to ww2 pictures I have found.

 

[WolfofStateSt]

Could be honestly

Apparently I did a wool test. Cut a tiny piece of fabric and dipped it in bleach for 2 hours. It dissolved completely so it's 100% wool. My thinking is that it was washed incorrectly hence the weave became more visible from shrinkage.

I'm starting to think it's from ww2 given the slightly more cropped and single-line stitching on the cuffs. Also the 8 buttons showing (instead of 6). The inner lining stitching also looks identical to ww2 pictures I have found.

 

[WolfofStateSt]

Apparently Real McCoys treats their wool with resin to mimic the water repellency of Kersey wool. I wonder why no one does Kersey wool repros?

 

[Peacoat]

Apparently Real McCoys treats their wool with resin to mimic the water repellency of Kersey wool. I wonder why no one does Kersey wool repros?

I think it is because the Kersey is no longer available.

 

[One Drop]

I think it is because the Kersey is no longer available.

I became interested in the fabric and did some looking around, the only currently available Kersey wool products I found were up to around 500 g/m2, about the same weight as heavy canvas.

There are reproductions of historical cloths used for reenactment military uniforms, and for general uses, but I never found anything in the weights used for the Peacoats.

I can guarantee that if there was a viable source of quality Kersey that resembled the kind used in the real Navy Peacoat, there would be many brands already using it for their versions.

 

[Peacoat]

There are reproductions of historical cloths used for reenactment military uniforms, and for general uses, but I never found anything in the weights used for the Peacoats.

I can guarantee that if there was a viable source of quality Kersey that resembled the kind used in the real Navy Peacoat, there would be many brands already using it for their versions.

And I think you are exactly right.

I'm afraid the Kersey wool as we knew it, is gone for good. It got too expensive for the Navy. When they dropped it, that spelled the death knell for Kersey.

As an aside, I have run across internet commandos who argued with me that Melton was the superior fabric over Kersey. They argued with me? Evidently their references were touting Melton as being the ultimate in jacket and coat shells. They weren't actually comparing the two fabrics.

I'm not sure I totally convinced them as ignorance is a high bar to overcome, but I explained that I have had numerous Kersey peacoats, as well as numerous Melton jackets and peacoats. There just is no comparison in the two fabrics. Kersey is the nicer fabric by a factor of about 3. Unfortunately, it is currently too expensive to be commercially viable in today's market.

Plus, I pointed out that the sources on which they relied weren't comparing the two shells; they were just praising the merits of Melton.

So, if any of you need a source to counter a similar claim, here it is.

 

[Doctor Damage]

Hi everyone. I recently found this peacoat at a local market with an interesting weave pattern that I haven't found before on these vintage US navy peacoats. It has no tags inside.

Now I'm usually pretty good at identifying original ones based on tags and/or stitching (thanks to the PEACOAT thread on this site). But this one got me a bit off guard.

Notice (i) the weave pattern is quite visible, (ii) it has a corduroy lining pocket, but (iii) a single line of stitching on sleeves (instead of 2).

Thoughts on this? Imitation or real?

I've seen that weave pattern on wool that has had the knap* worn off, but only in small patches of maximum wear like around cuffs etc. It looks like this entire coat is like that, which is weird. As someone else said, if it fits keep it and wear it, it looks like a well-made coat regardless of "authenticity."

* Is it knap or knapp or nap...? Now that the internet search engines are totally useless I guess I have to dig out actual physical books to look this up. Anyways, what I mean is the finish on the wool, which is brushed after manufacture to artificially make it fuzzy. Useless trivia: a fuzzy finish on wool makes it more flammable since the fuzz catches fire easily; wool which has a hard, smooth finish is much less prone to ignition.