A-2 colors

[Big J]

Interesting! I wonder if people today, just equate quality with heavy weight? I am sure, back in the depression and WWII, men were just glad to have a jacket.

I do. Heavy=good, for me!

 

[Juanito]

I have an original Cable A-2 that's been stripped of the majority of its original colour, apart from under the collar and other protected areas, and it's very similar to a modern mid-brown, certainly not russet or what I would describe as seal.

Odd coincidence...I had a Cable about 20 years ago that is identical to your description, the finish was almost completely gone aside from the "protected" areas under the collar, in the pockets, etc., and it too, was a very light brown with no hint of a red/russet and nothing like a seal brown.

Yours wouldn't happen to be a size 42 that has had the zipper, cuffs, waistband and liner replaced would it? I traded it to Jim Garcia for a Roughwear 1401 in about 1996 or so.

 

[Jim B.]

The observation you've made with respect to the A-2s of the period being less heavy than repros today is something I've taken issue with very vocally. Suppleness of hides, to an extent, did vary, especially in wartime production, so I wouldn't say all vintage A-2s when new didn't have some level of stiffness and didn't experience a break-in period, but I would say that many, perhaps even most vintage A-2s were more supple than what is offered today by top makers and that vintage A-2s weighed less, often considerably less, than what is offered by top makers today.

I don't know fully why we have this type of disparity between vintage A-2s and current repro jackets, because even when the hide thickness is very accurately matched by the repro maker, the weight is still greater than most vintage A-2s. The horsehide Eastman used before going to the current WarHorse in 2011 had extremely well-matched weight to that found on vintage A-2s but it lacked the character of grain structure found on many vintage A-2s; I have a 2007 ELC A-2 that is my fave to wear for the very reason that it feels so much like I'm wearing a vintage A-2. The WarHorse was improved following 2011 and the weight remains much closer to vintage jackets (and the thickness) now, but it's still about 3 ounces heavier than what is typical, while the stiffness is minimal and break-in periods greatly reduced. There is always a batch of skins that come in that are at the far end of the scale, but those are exceptions and not the rule.

But I haven't seen any high-end maker capture the weight and overall suppleness of a typical wartime A-2 with full precision, and some new makers are running close to a pound more on their A-2s above the weight of a vintage counterpart. Since a repro is just that, it may be one of those things we must accept that will only ever get so close to being like a vintage example; repros may never be clones! Clearly, the dye types used today will never match vintage examples precisely due to environmental laws banning chemicals employed back in the day, and much the same applies to tanning leather.

I make no bones about it that vintage jackets were never aniline dyed. Vintage A-2s may appear to be aniline dyed to some but appearances are not just deceiving, they defy logic and close scrutiny. Aniline is a process that would never have been used because of the expense involved, plus it offers none of properties that the dyes were specified to provide - protection from moisture, grease, oil, etc. Aniline is used today both because some makers think it was and, the main reason it's used is because it does offer a product that when worn will yield a look closer than the pigment dyes will provide vis-à-vis the appearance of vintage jackets, so the primary reason it's used today is because it looks the most authentic, and because it looks more correct, some also think it was used in original production.

I fully support the use of aniline dyes today because they do make for a more authentic-looking leather; the pigment dying today just cannot compare to what was employed 70 years ago, thus leathers so dyed today just look too artificial. Some things that can be found in the archival repositories still are documents that describe what the leather being supplied was with respect to weight, thickness, tanning, dyeing, etc., plus there are a good number of cases where the actual sample cuttings of the leather are still attached to related correspondence - there's nothing anywhere that describes aniline dye and/or the related process, but processes consistent with pigment dyeing and the requirement for the dye on the leather are expressly discussed between tanneries and the USAC, and the sample cuttings are definitely not aniline dyed. This is the result of my years of research.

This is very interesting to me because I could not understand why ELC discontinued the pigment dye on their horsehide military jackets. They seemed very close to originals. When they were brand new they were smooth but with use developed pronounced grain and wrinkles that looked just like originals. It did not look painted, the colors were very good and after some wear it looked very natural and could be easily wiped clean and worn in the rain with no problem. Where the finish would wear it looked just like my vintage baseball glove from the 1930's. When I saw their aniline horse in the late 90's it was obvious that something was very wrong. It soaked up water and dirt like a sponge. At one time they had it figured out, I wish they would go back to pigment dyes.

 

[Sloan1874]

Odd coincidence...I had a Cable about 20 years ago that is identical to your description, the finish was almost completely gone aside from the "protected" areas under the collar, in the pockets, etc., and it too, was a very light brown with no hint of a red/russet and nothing like a seal brown.

Yours wouldn't happen to be a size 42 that has had the zipper, cuffs, waistband and liner replaced would it? I traded it to Jim Garcia for a Roughwear 1401 in about 1996 or so.

It was a size 38, but a pretty baggy one, which is why I renovated the thing, then moved it on. Interestingly, I found the cut of the sleeves interesting, almost tapered. Not my favourite A-2 fit, that's for sure and production was ropy as well: whomever attached the zip must have run out of the correct length of zipper, so rather than find the right one, they got 36 length and physically stretched it to fit. This of course was fine at the time, but inevitably the thing reverted reverted to shape, giving the whole zip area a wavy look. Collar shape was quite rough and the left panel had an odd 'pull' to it. In other words, this is a perfect example of a war time jacket, and kind of explains why not every one of them was a treasured possession.

 

[Skyhawk]

The original government specification stated that the A2 was to be made from seal brown horsehide. The actual colour was open to broad interpretation. Apart from the October 1941 Aero 21996 all pre-War A2s were made predominantly of russet leather, which passed AN inspections . Most of the leather was chrome tanned. A range of tanneries were used to fulfil contracts during the War and of course within a contract there are significant variations in the colour of the leather and the type of leather used. For example the jackets 50,000 jackets made by Dubow under their 27798 contract appear in shades from russet to a darker seal brown made with horse hide, goatskin and cowhide.

It may have been easier to dye all leather used to make A2s black to establish conformity, but I suspect that this wold have incurred more expense even in the early 1930s in producing what was essentially an aviator's work garment!

This is very interesting. If most A-2s were chrome tanned, then why are so many repros made from Vegetable tanned hides? It makes sense to use chrome tanning for the military flight jackets because of the toughness and resilience it offers. I know the USN was using many chrome tanned hides during that period for jackets.
As far as the browns go, I think it was like a lot of others are saying. Loose interpretations of "Dark Brown" and a more lax specification requirement on the shade of color. The current specs on the G-1's and the CWU nomex gear are much more specific and site color pallet numbers for the colors.

 

[Jim B.]

I have wondered that myself, maybe a rep can answer . Veg tanning is a time consuming, now expensive process that yields a stiff leather (which could explain the stiffness of most repros) that I always associated with shoe soles, boots, saddles, holsters, luggage, belting leather etc. Garment leather is usually chrome tanned being more supple and also water resistant. Some chrome processes result in a blueish white product. It is drum dyed after tanning to get a natural base color then can be pigment coated or the aniline dye and acrylic or urethane clear coat (which is completely unsuitable for a military jacket). I have had beautiful G-1's that were chrome tanned per Navy specs that had a nice lighter brown base color under the pigmented finish. Using veg tanned leather could be just a marketing ploy to charge more.
As for the color, I admire the skill needed by leather experts to make new leather look like 70 year old leather that the pigment has worn and oxidized by using aniline dyes and artificial wear methods but it makes for a very fragile finish. Fine for a fashion jacket but many of us want a true reproduction that looks like what a vintage jacket looked like when it was new and will have a durable finish that you do not have to worry about, like an original.

 

[thor]

Some will say it's not 100% accurate, but the Lost Worlds horsehide A-2 is definitely chrome tanned with a very durable russet finish. They take a long, long time to break in and are as tough as nails.

 

[HPA Rep]

Regarding chrome tanning and Eastman and Buzz Rickson's, they largely do not use this process because the hand of chrome-tanned leather typically found today doesn't favorably compare with vintage leather, which is due to the chemicals no longer permitted (for environmental and toxicity concerns) in tanning that once yielded the chrome-tanned hides found on vintage garments. I can only make the educated guess that this also applies to others utilizing veg. tanning; it's not at all about being able to charge more for the brands we represent and I doubt it applies to any others.

I would disagree that veg. tanning yields a stiff leather. It can, but it need not. Veg. tanning yields a more plump, firmer leather, but stiffness can be controlled by how long the hides tumble in the drum. This can vary by consignment, individual hides, and how some makers request their hides to be processed, but we have some very supple-yet-firm hides pass through our doors from both brands making leather jackets that we represent. In fact, some of the most supple leather that is veg. tanned we have seen is the latest ELC goatskin and horsehide, as well as BR's shrunken buffalo hide, which will be offered again this fall on their William Gibson G-1 jacket.

Aside from tanning, the pigment dying is also largely different today than from the good old days, and for the same reasons, hence most makers eschew pigment dyes and favor aniline dyes because the aniline yields a better (more authentic) look. Some makers argue that aniline dye was employed on vintage A-2's, but there is no explicit evidence to support this, though I acknowledge that it is possible and that some vintage A-2's can appear as if they were aniline dyed.

The hand, look, and finish right now on what we are seeing from the brands we represent all looks superb and very vintage, being the best these brands have offered ever when defining best as authentic. Creating repro A-2's that emulate as closely as possible those cherished vintage A-2's we love is not so easy and requires a balancing of needs and desires vs. that found in original production; this is a challenge all repro makers face and address in a fashion they deem best. I believe firmly that if any top maker could offer both chrome tanning and pigment dying that equalled or surpassed the authenticity they are deriving from veg. tanning and aniline dying, they would, and maybe some have already struck that balance.

Further regarding hide stiffness, I have in my collection of A-2's some that have panels that are as board-like as you will ever find on vintage A-2's, surpassing stiffness found on most repro A-2's I've handled. While many original A-2's lack this board-like hand, there is indeed a recognizable number that do have it on some panels, further reflecting the conservation of wartime materials and also indicating the lax standards in place at the time.

 

[regius]

Any USAF expert here can explain why the US army standardized two colors for their airforce uniforms? Is it to following the tradition of tan and olive/green? representing dirt/sand and the forest?

 

[Michael Russell]

I wanted to mention that the Pinks and Greens is still very much alive as the Class A uniform for the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets - about 2,500 strong at present. This is my son yesterday at his "Rudders Rangers" formal. This is a source of contemporary sizes (as they are made for modern young men) and some degree of surplus, as only top grade uniforms are issued to Cadets and seconds are sold off somehow.

 

[Gromulus]

Your son (and his date) are looking sharp Michael!

 

[HPA Rep]

Any USAF expert here can explain why the US army standardized two colors for their airforce uniforms? Is it to following the tradition of tan and olive/green? representing dirt/sand and the forest?

Please keep in mind that the Air Corps and, ultimately, the AAF, were part of the U. S. Army, so it's the USA that set the colors. The colors were indeed intended to camouflage with the temperate outdoors because when the uniform was initially established the armies of the world back then, including the USA, all wore the wool dress uniform for field/combat attire.

The USA was the first of the major powers to break from this practice when the Field Jacket was introduced in 1940, which was a field/combat-specific item intended to replace the wool blouse. It could be argued that the German Waffen SS were the first to adopt a field/combat-specific garment with their tarnjacke (camouflage smocks worn by the SS VT), though the smock was worn over the wool blouse and did not replace the blouse. And the British Army adopted the Battledress in 1939, but this was still a wool uniform that very quickly evolved into use for both dress and field/combat.

Armies of the major powers other than the USA continued to wear the wool dress blouse for field/combat use throughout WWII, while the USA fully broke from this tradition, yet the USA's dress uniform didn't change in color to match its mission until 1957, and it's only in the last 5 years that one can really argue that the dress uniform of the USA changed to a color (adoption of dress blues for the Class A uniform) that is clearly unrelated to a field/combat role.

 

[HPA Rep]

I wanted to mention that the Pinks and Greens is still very much alive as the Class A uniform for the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets - about 2,500 strong at present. This is my son yesterday at his "Rudders Rangers" formal. This is a source of contemporary sizes (as they are made for modern young men) and some degree of surplus, as only top grade uniforms are issued to Cadets and seconds are sold off somehow. View attachment 71465

Absolutely awesome to see what I believe is the finest-looking uniform employed by the U. S. Army still soldiering on. I was aware A & M cadets wore the togs of the brown-shoe Army and your son displays this wonderfully. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Michael Russell]

Please keep in mind that the Air Corps and, ultimately, the AAF, were part of the U. S. Army, so it's the USA that set the colors. The colors were indeed intended to camouflage with the temperate outdoors because when the uniform was initially established the armies of the world back then, including the USA, all wore the wool dress uniform for field/combat attire.

The USA was the first of the major powers to break from this practice when the Field Jacket was introduced in 1940, which was a field/combat-specific item intended to replace the wool blouse. It could be argued that the German Waffen SS was the first to adopt a field/combat-specific garment with their tarnjacke (camouflage smocks worn by the SS VT), though the smock was worn over the wool blouse and did not replace the blouse. And the British Army adopted the Battledress in 1939, but this was still a wool uniform that very quickly evolved into use for both dress and field/combat.

Armies of the major powers other than the USA continued to wear the wool dress blouse for field/combat use throughout WWII, while the USA fully broke from this tradition, yet the USA's dress uniform didn't change in color to match its mission until 1957, and it's only in the last 5 years that one can really argue that the dress uniform of the USA changed to a color (adoption of dress blues for the Class A uniform) that is clearly unrelated to a field/combat role.

The whole idea of "camouflage" is relatively recent--20th century. Prior you wanted your troops a distinctive color on the field for Command and Control Reasons, and also to avoid "friendly fire" from your own Artillery Batteries. That was considered much more important than blending in. But further, DRESS uniforms have always drifted from the utilitarian in color and style. I was recently at Fort Davis and was impressed by the Uniform Kit a typical enlisted soldier used in 1880. Left over civil war uniforms for sure, but Pith Helmets, German Style helmets with spikes, straw hats, all different colors and style depending on the assignment.

 

[Michael Russell]

Please keep in mind that the Air Corps and, ultimately, the AAF, were part of the U. S. Army, so it's the USA that set the colors. The colors were indeed intended to camouflage with the temperate outdoors because when the uniform was initially established the armies of the world back then, including the USA, all wore the wool dress uniform for field/combat attire.

The USA was the first of the major powers to break from this practice when the Field Jacket was introduced in 1940, which was a field/combat-specific item intended to replace the wool blouse. It could be argued that the German Waffen SS was the first to adopt a field/combat-specific garment with their tarnjacke (camouflage smocks worn by the SS VT), though the smock was worn over the wool blouse and did not replace the blouse. And the British Army adopted the Battledress in 1939, but this was still a wool uniform that very quickly evolved into use for both dress and field/combat.

Armies of the major powers other than the USA continued to wear the wool dress blouse for field/combat use throughout WWII, while the USA fully broke from this tradition, yet the USA's dress uniform didn't change in color to match its mission until 1957, and it's only in the last 5 years that one can really argue that the dress uniform of the USA changed to a color (adoption of dress blues for the Class A uniform) that is clearly unrelated to a field/combat role.

Lest you think color variations are a thing of the past: I was an army officer until 2010 and there was a basic uniform from DFAS available to officers and a deluxe uniform at about twice the price which featured a different fabric blend, and a visibly different color -- it was a brighter, shinier green. Side by side, very clearly the deluxe uniform looked better. And that was at clothing sales. Right now you can go to Marlow White and get "basic" blues for $385, and Professional Blues for $529, and you can bet the $529 uniform looks sharper, with golder gold trim and bluer blues. Poor officers and Rich officers always had a difference in look, and they still do. I am sure an off the rack WW2 uniform and a Marlowe White WW2 uniform had the same color differences.

 

[regius]

Highly recommend the At The Front wool shirts!! Well made, label is nice, packaging and the product is top notch!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sloan1874]

Primitive camouflage was first developed by the British around the time of the Boer War, when soldiers started to *dye* their uniforms with mulberry juice, coffee and mud, to obtain a khaki colour. It was only by 1900 that a permanent dye was developed and khakis adopted officially.

 

[aswatland]