A better horse A-2 than a Cockpit ?

[ButteMT61]

So correct details do not include the leather itself? A-2 historians have posted on this site that original Army jackets were chrome tanned and were never aniline dyed. I don't really care what people like, just don't say they are more accurate than what others are making because they are not.
I have never critiqued jackets that members have posted pics of themselves wearing but since Sloan has posted on my thread I will ask what is going on with that collar? It looks 10" tall.

Give it up. You're already this week's joke. Enjoy. But please just go already.
Wear your cockpit and rent Top Gun. Make some Motorcycle sounds and put on some sunscreen.

 

[devilish]

I will gladly accept the lack of chrome tanning. That process is extremely toxic to both the workers doing it and the environment around where it's done. I know in some cases, especially with goat leather, it is more accurate but somethings are best left to die in the past. Chrome tanning should be one of those things.

 

[Monitor]

Is map lining considered to be a correct, period authentic detail?

 

[Sloan1874]

The 1756 contract comes with a collar stand, something I bet Cockpit would run a mile from as an unnecessary expense, giving it extra height. Having given it some HWT and moulded it into shape, it sits beautifully, but that pic was of the jacket straight out of the box.
As I said earlier, Aero's standard mid-weight is chrome-tanned, you must be very disappointed by this fact, as you keep ignoring it...

 

[AdeeC]

I w

Is map lining considered to be a correct, period authentic detail?

I wonder what their knits are made of? Every other decent maker never forgets to state that they are 100% wool. Cockpit forgets to mention this detail. Are they pure wool, wool blend or something else?

 

[Sloan1874]

This is angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, stuff, really. It does sound from the OP's posts that he's doing his damndest to persuade himself that the jacket he owns is superior (or at least more noble in its antecedents) to any other available, purely on the basis of a set of arbitrary standards. Fair play to him, he makes an aggressive, if rubbish case for himself, but I don't feel my world has been rocked by it.

 

[Fanch]

Think the OP might have more traction opening his same thread on the VLJ forum?

 

[Fanch]

Cockpit made this rendition of a G-1 goatskin leather jacket for Bill's Khakis awhile back. It had a removable collar and maybe took a few more liberties here and there from the original USN G-1 but was a decent jacket. Maybe a bit overpriced though at $1575.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd reckon.....

 

[nick123]

I think the OP brings up some good points about the merits of brands like Cockpit who keep it simple. It's been discussed here on past threads with respectful tone... There's a lot to be said for unfussy simplicity in the spectrum of the jacket world. The joys of this hobby are the options presented by the various makers. That said, totally unnecessary hostility, and it's mostly subjective anyway at the end of the day, so take a quaalude.

 

[Sloan1874]

Couldn't agree more. Cockpit keep it simple, and there's nothing wrong with that, though the prices do seem to wander off into 'dowhatnow?' territory. But claiming anything extra special for them over all others is daft.
There's probably an argument that almost every A-2 maker could claim to hold the torch for the Spirit of the Original Jacket in one way or another, it's that subjective.

 

[ButteMT61]

We're back to the same arguments/points all over again.
If anyone thought that the post was to genuinely discuss the merits of a "lesser" jacket, it would be fine. IMHO, this was meant to start and continue certain P'sOV from certain types to come in and crap on the members and our passion for better jackets, etc.
Nobody has ever crapped on the likes of Cockpit for being a decent jacket. Taken out of context, they are indeed a nice jacket. I've owned some. However, here, this topic is bound to rile up those that appreciate the bespoke models/makers when someone comes in claiming that the lineup is as good as or better or more accurate than the usual respected vendors.

Just watch a film like Top Gun, then go and watch (sorry, the movie is bad but the gear is great) Red Tails.
Go to a couple of the big prop houses in Hollywood and they have racks of WWII era military jackets for films. Anyone caught wearing a Cockpit or a Schott in a serious military movie would be LOL'd off the lot.

Again, are the jackets good? Sure. Well made and nice materials back that up. Are they remotely legit repops of the old designs? Heck no.

So if your passion lies with Cockpit or USWings, etc for your military-inspired jackets, enjoy them. If you're going to come in here and start trolling about them being as good as our jackets we discuss here, your'e either looking for a fight or you just haven't learned enough yet to make a proper comparison.

 

[BuzzTheTower]

Oddly enough, I use chrome tanned Horween horsehide, and though I'm not swimming in that leather, I think it does look great. Here are examples of both regular chrome tanned horsehide, and chromexcel horsehide...

http://www.goodwearleather.com/pages/sale_hlb_0001.html

http://www.goodwearleather.com/photos/Combat_Clone_No10/

http://www.goodwearleather.com/horween_hh_werber/

The great mistake that most people interested in A-2s make is that they think any vintage jacket not made with horsehide is goatskin. We now have proof that cowhide was both tested and approved for A-2 jackets, **before** 93% of the A-2 were made, starting in 1940. We can scream all we want that any A-2 that's not goatskin is horsehide, but in reality, it is very possibly cowhide. I think whole contracts were done in cowhide. It's nearly impossible to tell without DNA testing, or knowing certain traits of the leather, if one is cowhide or horsehide.

The tanning method, especially in the period of 1930-1945, is extremely difficult to note as either chrome or veg tanned. It's just not visually obvious. So, complaining that a modern leather is veg-tanned isn't anywhere near as big a deal as the pattern. That's like complaining that a modern-made fender applied to a 1912 Ford Model T has 22% less iron in the metal than a vintage one...especially after the black paint is applied. Who could tell, anyway?

On gov't contracts, though, the leather is expected to be chrome tanned.

Finding good chrome tanned horsehide is difficult today. Most tanneries that make high-end horsehide will only offer veg-tanning. Most. Not all. Just most.

Aniline, or finishes like aniline, were absolutely used on some jackets. Many of the original A-2s that I've handled were first dyed in a base color that is similar to aniline (tanneries back then had all kinds of methods of coloring leather), and then an extremely thin pigment or some other format of coloring was applied over the top. I've seen some that do not have pigment. The modern methods of coloring leather are different than what was OK to use back during the 1930s-1940s.

The Japanese and Italian horsehides that are available today are quite similar to what was used back during WWII. The more heavily pigmented skins during that period appear on the last of the big contracts made in 1942. I've seen Aero A-2s of the 18775 contract that look like they were painted with acrylic paint, and quite heavy, but the jackets made earlier don't look like that at all - they look like the high-end reproductions made today. I saw one Dubow 27798 that looked like grey base leather (yes, literally grey base leather) with a thin coating of pigment grey-brown paint applied to it, and it was one of the ugliest forms of leather I've ever seen. I could copy that, say that it's 100% accurate, and then sit back and watch the orders pile in. Or, maybe they wouldn't.

John
Good Wear Leather Coat Co.

 

[Fanch]

John, that was an incredibly informative post and appreciate your input as, I suspect, virtually everyone else here as well!!

 

[Smithy]

Oddly enough, I use chrome tanned Horween horsehide, and though I'm not swimming in that leather, I think it does look great. Here are examples of both regular chrome tanned horsehide, and chromexcel horsehide...

http://www.goodwearleather.com/pages/sale_hlb_0001.html

http://www.goodwearleather.com/photos/Combat_Clone_No10/

http://www.goodwearleather.com/horween_hh_werber/

The great mistake that most people interested in A-2s make is that they think any vintage jacket not made with horsehide is goatskin. We now have proof that cowhide was both tested and approved for A-2 jackets, **before** 93% of the A-2 were made, starting in 1940. We can scream all we want that any A-2 that's not goatskin is horsehide, but in reality, it is very possibly cowhide. I think whole contracts were done in cowhide. It's nearly impossible to tell without DNA testing, or knowing certain traits of the leather, if one is cowhide or horsehide.

The tanning method, especially in the period of 1930-1945, is extremely difficult to note as either chrome or veg tanned. It's just not visually obvious. So, complaining that a modern leather is veg-tanned isn't anywhere near as big a deal as the pattern. That's like complaining that a modern-made fender applied to a 1912 Ford Model T has 22% less iron in the metal than a vintage one...especially after the black paint is applied. Who could tell, anyway?

On gov't contracts, though, the leather is expected to be chrome tanned.

Finding good chrome tanned horsehide is difficult today. Most tanneries that make high-end horsehide will only offer veg-tanning. Most. Not all. Just most.

Aniline, or finishes like aniline, were absolutely used on some jackets. Many of the original A-2s that I've handled were first dyed in a base color that is similar to aniline (tanneries back then had all kinds of methods of coloring leather), and then an extremely thin pigment or some other format of coloring was applied over the top. I've seen some that do not have pigment. The modern methods of coloring leather are different than what was OK to use back during the 1930s-1940s.

The Japanese and Italian horsehides that are available today are quite similar to what was used back during WWII. The more heavily pigmented skins during that period appear on the last of the big contracts made in 1942. I've seen Aero A-2s of the 18775 contract that look like they were painted with acrylic paint, and quite heavy, but the jackets made earlier don't look like that at all - they look like the high-end reproductions made today. I saw one Dubow 27798 that looked like grey base leather (yes, literally grey base leather) with a thin coating of pigment grey-brown paint applied to it, and it was one of the ugliest forms of leather I've ever seen. I could copy that, say that it's 100% accurate, and then sit back and watch the orders pile in. Or, maybe they wouldn't.

John
Good Wear Leather Coat Co.

Straight from the horse's mouth, or should that be cow's?

Great post John, absolutely nailed it!

 

[tropicalbob]

I think the OP brings up some good points about the merits of brands like Cockpit who keep it simple. It's been discussed here on past threads with respectful tone... There's a lot to be said for unfussy simplicity in the spectrum of the jacket world. The joys of this hobby are the options presented by the various makers. That said, totally unnecessary hostility, and it's mostly subjective anyway at the end of the day, so take a quaalude.

Dilaudid, actually.

 

[Sloan1874]

John's post is by far the single most useful one on this thread.

 

[AdeeC]

I wonder how much mule got into A-2s? Was it acceptable to be considered as horse or slipped through surreptitiously?

 

[Benny Holiday]

John's post is by far the single most useful one on this thread.

The voice of real authority and experience on this subject.

 

[Fanch]

John's post is by far the single most useful one on this thread.

Bears repeating again and again. In fact his comments deserve a thread of its own as a sticky!