Help authenticating unusual USN N-1 — Contract N5SX 1489

[Phaeded]

I recently acquired this jacket represented as an original WWII USN N-1 and am having trouble authenticating it. The label reads Navy Department / Contract N5SX 1489 / Size 42.

It’s substantially different from the original jungle cloth N-1s I’ve handled. The shell is much lighter and feels like cotton back sateen, there are no underarm eyelets, no visible USN stencil, and it has a small brass Talon zipper (my previous have been Serval Grippers). The pile lining is exceptionally well preserved. Left pocket bag is two tone--half dark green brown, half tan brown.

Measurements are 19” shoulder, 22” chest and 25” back length.

Does anyone recognize N5SX 1489 as an original Navy contract, or have another period example for comparison? I’m particularly interested in dating the contract and determining whether these construction differences are correct for it.

I’m also aware that high-quality Japanese reproductions of this exact contract exist and claim that some rare variant of the N-1 with similar characteristics is their muse, so I’d appreciate opinions on whether the construction, label, hardware and materials are consistent with a period example. I see no evidence of a modern tag, or its removal.

If anyone owns an original N5SX 1489, could you post photographs of the label, zipper, underarms, pocket bags and cuff construction?

Thanks for any help that you can provide!

 

[Phaeded]

Additional photographs:

 

[Peacoat]

This is probably a modern reproduction of this classic contract number. Perhaps a Real McCoy's.

If I could handle it, I could tell you if it is an original in about 2 seconds. But you can do the same by answering a few questions. Does it look, feel and smell old, as in 80+ years old? If not, it is a reproduction. There should be wear on the lining, especially around the armpits. There should be wear around the collar, and the collar tag should be worn. The hidden elastic cuffs should be loose and not tight. There should be some corrosion on the zipper. This isn't an exhaustive list, but it should give you an idea of what to look for.

Does the jacket look new, feel new and smell new? If so, it is a reproduction.

 

[Phaeded]

This is probably a modern reproduction of this classic contract number. Perhaps a Real McCoy's.

If I could handle it, I could tell you if it is an original in about 2 seconds. But you can do the same by answering a few questions. Does it look, feel and smell old, as in 80+ years old? If not, it is a reproduction. There should be wear on the lining, especially around the armpits. There should be wear around the collar, and the collar tag should be worn. The hidden elastic cuffs should be loose and not tight. There should be some corrosion on the zipper. This isn't an exhaustive list, but it should give you an idea of what to look for.

Does the jacket look new, feel new and smell new? If so, it is a reproduction.

I'm a antique/vintage dealer and have had a few of these pass through my hands.

It has all the appropriate hallmarks of an 80 year old jacket. Nothing about it screams new or modern, thus my confusion and this post.

In April 1945, the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts ran through its NXsx contract numbering and rolled the "X" into a "5" through the end of WWII denoting 1945.

The anomalous outer shell material change is consistent with other 1945 jackets found on this contract tag.

I'm beginning to believe that this is a very late-war contract and as such, procurement documentation may have been amended to reflect more limited budgets and material shortages or an experimental late-war push towards back sateen.

The original owner's daughter is supposedly going to provide some provenance (hopefully with documentation) as to their father's service and rough years when he might've acquired this jacket.

TBD.

 

[Peacoat]

The last photograph seals the deal. You should have posted that one in the first batch of images.

 

[Phaeded]

I thought that photo was part of the batches. Oh well.

I'm still not 100% convinced it's authentic 40s, though all signs are pointing that way.

Assuming it is legitimate, my remaining concern is value.

With the right provenance and documentation, this rare, late-war contract with back sateen shell might be very special to the right collector.

At large, I think the style-forward buyer might be attached to the infamous rugged Jungle Cloth of earlier variants.

Without good provenance and documentation, it could be quite difficult to convince a non-discerning buyer that this is special and/or as (or more) valuable than the commonly known variant.

After wearing both versions now, I do quite like the fit and feel of this variant. Very forgiving compared to the rigid old jungle cloth and still exceptionally warm and weather-resistant. From a foot away, they look identical.