Master Supply Co

[ton312]

It never ceases to amaze me. The lengths people will go to in order to convince themselves. I mean I’ve owned, handled and bought/sold at least 1,000 jackets spanning 3 decades. Not a boast by any means and I’m no expert….but I would say that at the very, very least it has taught me that there is a massive material difference between these:

And something like this:

Perhaps you’d benefit from some purchases in the used market to help you better gauge what you are getting from Master supply.

 

[Canuck Panda]

I would like to see photos once you get your jacket. Please post them.

^^^ Me too. This thread has too many words for me. A couple of pics would be nice. The vendor's marketing photos doesn't work for me either I can just go to Instagram for that.

 

[TartuWolf]

I will take it on the chin if I'm proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure you folks are arguing with a bot.

 

[bigmanbigtruck]

I came to this thread seeking meaningful insight into a leather jacket brand. As someone who values craftsmanship and thoughtful critique, I expected to find a discussion that would help me make an informed decision about Master Supply Co. Instead, I found a conversation that made me question the reliability and authority of the expertise on display.

What immediately stood out was that none of the responses were based on actual engagement with Master Supply Co.—not with their products, not with their materials, and not with their customer service. Despite this, strong opinions were asserted with certainty, dismissing the brand outright without firsthand evaluation. Rather than discussions informed by experience, the thread quickly became an exercise in reinforcing an in-group consensus: a brand outside of the usual heritage-approved names was presumed unworthy of consideration.

Skepticism about a new brand is reasonable, even valuable. But what unfolded here was something different: a reflexive rejection, where dismissals were made not on the basis of quality but on the basis of assumption. Instead of an informed assessment, the discussion read like a performance of expertise—one where the goal was not to evaluate the product but to assert authority.

Rather than firsthand assessments or substantive reviews, the thread quickly devolved into signaling—who was "in the know," who could dismiss the brand in the fewest words, and who could most effectively undermine any attempt at genuine discussion. Sarcasm, mockery, and outright dismissal took the place of detailed evaluation. Instead of a space for expertise, this thread became a space for reinforcing status.

The irony is that this thread presents itself as an informed critique of Master Supply Co., yet not a single comment reflected firsthand experience with the brand. The most revealing responses were not those offering substantive critiques but those relying on broad dismissals.

Many seasoned members delivered their opinions with a dismissive, condescending flair that undermined the informative value of their expertise. For example, when a new user posted positive comments about a Master Supply jacket, responses ranged from sarcasm—“Salesman of the year.”—to outright scorn. One veteran member responded, “I’m sorry, but you couldn’t be more wrong,” and proceeded to lecture on stitching techniques. While he may have had technical knowledge, the tone (essentially “how dare you call that pure quality”) was dripping with condescension.

Such dismissive language and unsubstantiated assumptions erode the professional atmosphere of a forum purportedly about craftsmanship. Instead of simply ending with an explanation of why a detail like zigzag stitching might indicate cost-cutting, the member framed it as obvious folly, implying anyone (especially the newcomer) who thought otherwise had "never handled a quality jacket"—the kind of pronouncement that drips with the self-satisfied snobbery of someone holding court at a country club bar. This combative approach turns a potentially educational moment into a gatekeeping exercise. It diminishes the credibility of the forum because it suggests that discussions aren’t open exchanges of knowledge but rather posturing arenas for a few voices to assert dominance. Also, my research since first reading this post has answered any concerns they raised about the use of zigzag stitching, which is incorporated for aesthetic reasons in areas not integral to the structure of the jacket.

Moreover, some critiques were stated as foregone conclusions without evidence. For instance, one comment flatly declared that because the jackets are made in Pakistan, there was nothing more to discuss: “Hasn’t it been established that these are made in Pakistan? What else is there to talk about?” A claim like “you could do far better for far less” was thrown out without any specific comparisons or data. Sweeping statements delivered with a sarcastic or smug tone made it difficult to trust that the so-called experts were being fair. In a truly professional discussion, expertise would be demonstrated with substantive reasoning, examples, or data—not just a snarky one-liner that shuts down conversation. When forum members resort to quips and put-downs, it reflects poorly on the forum’s credibility as a serious venue for discussing craftsmanship. No matter how experienced a commenter might be, condescension and derision weaken their argument and, by extension, the trust readers place in the community’s collective expertise.

Ironically, the hostile tone of the thread made me more curious about Master Supply Co. instead of deterring me. With so many members almost performatively trashing the brand, I wondered what might be on the other side of that vehemence. Was this company truly terrible, or were they an upstart challenging the status quo in a way that ruffled purist feathers? The more I read the snarky put-downs, the more I felt compelled to investigate Master Supply Co. on my own—almost as if to fact-check the claims presented here. In an unintended way, the discussion’s tone signaled that there might be more to the story, since the responses felt disproportionate. It wouldn’t be the first time a newcomer brand faced pushback in a community of established aficionados.

The irony is that the very narrative imposed on Master Supply Co. by Fedora Lounge positions it within a classic heritage archetype—the outsider, the independent craftsman, the proletarian figure excluded by institutions of established power, prestige, and wealth. This is the very figure romanticized in countless heritage discussions: the lone artisan, the underdog craftsman, the worker whose value is dismissed by elitist gatekeepers. Yet, when presented with a business that genuinely seeks to embody this narrative—not in myth, but in its approach to production and customer engagement—the response is not admiration, but rejection.

In the interest of transparency, I should acknowledge that I have not yet received my jacket. That is entirely the point of this post. The timing of my post here is purposeful because it highlights what this discussion is actually about: these evaluations are not based on product quality but on narrative positioning. They exist in the terrain of branding, where legitimacy is negotiated through symbolic and exchange value rather than through any direct engagement with the utility value of the product itself. The conversation here is not about craftsmanship—it is about gatekeeping the meanings of craftsmanship.

This approach does not reinforce the credibility of the forum—it undermines it. If knowledge is primarily used to exclude, then what happens when that exclusion appears arbitrary? If the goal is to uphold standards, shouldn’t those standards be applied consistently? If the concern is quality, shouldn’t the discussion actually be about quality?

I ultimately decided to purchase Master Supply Co.’s veg-tanned natural leather field jacket based on the style, my own research, and the direct conversations I had with the company. They provided detailed explanations of their design choices and assured me that they use French seams in structurally significant areas to maintain integrity. For me, this evidence-based dialogue—rather than unsubstantiated forum opinions—was a key factor in my decision to invest in their product. In short, my experience with Master Supply Co. has been defined by direct engagement, transparency, and a commitment to service—qualities that should be valued in any serious heritage discussion. I will, of course, verify all of these claims and follow up here when I receive the jacket--as any responsible evaluation should.

Now, I understand that some might misinterpret my perspective here as an attempt to promote Master Supply Co. If there’s a way to prove otherwise, I’m happy to provide it. If I have a negative experience with the brand, I will report it here. But so far, my experiences with them have been unusually positive—they have set a customer service standard I haven’t seen in many markets. And if I see a brand being unfairly dismissed, I feel an ethical obligation to say so.

If heritage communities want to champion quality over marketing and craftsmanship over exclusivity, then they should engage in fair, experience-based assessments rather than relying on cultural gatekeeping. Otherwise, heritage stops being about craftsmanship and becomes just another elitist performance.

It seems you really appreciate the way Master Supply Co have sold you the jacket, answered your questions, discuss their materials, construction, etc...

That being said, all your musings don't mean anything till you have the jacket in hand...

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

By the way, I couldn’t help but notice your signature quote from Gatsby—a novel that, among other things, is deeply concerned with status, exclusion, the constructed nature of authenticity, and the cultural negotiation of legitimacy.

Holy cow. Never mind the jacket, this statement really makes Fitzgerald sound boring as hell. I feel nauseous even...

"The cultural negotiation of legitimacy" Well, you haven't negotiated yours yet - not on this site. And all these words aren't doing you any favors.

Some of the models this company offers don't look that bad to me either if they were 1/3 the price. I certainly wouldn't die on the hill you're trying to defend, but I truly hope you get a lot of good wear out of their product.

But wow, so many words....

 

[ton312]

Holy cow. Never mind the jacket, this statement really makes Fitzgerald sound boring as hell. I feel nauseous even...

"The cultural negotiation of legitimacy" Well, you haven't negotiated yours yet - not on this site. And all these words aren't doing you any favors.

Some of the models this company offers don't look that bad to me either if they were 1/3 the price. I certainly wouldn't die on the hill you're trying to defend, but I truly hope you get a lot of good wear out of their product.

But wow, so many words....

This happens when noobs view a single thread and don’t bother looking around. A simple page turn of WJAYWT would help.
I agree the chore coat probably looks the best. A lot of the jackets look similar to what you could find on Amazon. But to classify these as heritage pieces is truly absurd. And I have zero interest in that heritage bullshit anyway. Keep the jackets in the lane in which they belong, with 5 Star, Cidu, etc.

There’s no code being cracked here.

 

[wearever]

I would like to see photos once you get your jacket. Please post them.

Of course--cool profile pic.

 

[Will Zach]

Of course--cool profile pic.

I think the chore jacket in natural cow looks quite nice, and the price is about right, if the hide is good. Did the manufacturer list the hide thickness anywhere in the specs? I did not see it.

 

[AbbaDatDeHat]

I came to this thread seeking meaningful insight into a leather jacket brand. As someone who values craftsmanship and thoughtful critique, I expected to find a discussion that would help me make an informed decision about Master Supply Co. Instead, I found a conversation that made me question the reliability and authority of the expertise on display.

What immediately stood out was that none of the responses were based on actual engagement with Master Supply Co.—not with their products, not with their materials, and not with their customer service. Despite this, strong opinions were asserted with certainty, dismissing the brand outright without firsthand evaluation. Rather than discussions informed by experience, the thread quickly became an exercise in reinforcing an in-group consensus: a brand outside of the usual heritage-approved names was presumed unworthy of consideration.

Skepticism about a new brand is reasonable, even valuable. But what unfolded here was something different: a reflexive rejection, where dismissals were made not on the basis of quality but on the basis of assumption. Instead of an informed assessment, the discussion read like a performance of expertise—one where the goal was not to evaluate the product but to assert authority.

Rather than firsthand assessments or substantive reviews, the thread quickly devolved into signaling—who was "in the know," who could dismiss the brand in the fewest words, and who could most effectively undermine any attempt at genuine discussion. Sarcasm, mockery, and outright dismissal took the place of detailed evaluation. Instead of a space for expertise, this thread became a space for reinforcing status.

The irony is that this thread presents itself as an informed critique of Master Supply Co., yet not a single comment reflected firsthand experience with the brand. The most revealing responses were not those offering substantive critiques but those relying on broad dismissals.

Many seasoned members delivered their opinions with a dismissive, condescending flair that undermined the informative value of their expertise. For example, when a new user posted positive comments about a Master Supply jacket, responses ranged from sarcasm—“Salesman of the year.”—to outright scorn. One veteran member responded, “I’m sorry, but you couldn’t be more wrong,” and proceeded to lecture on stitching techniques. While he may have had technical knowledge, the tone (essentially “how dare you call that pure quality”) was dripping with condescension.

Such dismissive language and unsubstantiated assumptions erode the professional atmosphere of a forum purportedly about craftsmanship. Instead of simply ending with an explanation of why a detail like zigzag stitching might indicate cost-cutting, the member framed it as obvious folly, implying anyone (especially the newcomer) who thought otherwise had "never handled a quality jacket"—the kind of pronouncement that drips with the self-satisfied snobbery of someone holding court at a country club bar. This combative approach turns a potentially educational moment into a gatekeeping exercise. It diminishes the credibility of the forum because it suggests that discussions aren’t open exchanges of knowledge but rather posturing arenas for a few voices to assert dominance. Also, my research since first reading this post has answered any concerns they raised about the use of zigzag stitching, which is incorporated for aesthetic reasons in areas not integral to the structure of the jacket.

Moreover, some critiques were stated as foregone conclusions without evidence. For instance, one comment flatly declared that because the jackets are made in Pakistan, there was nothing more to discuss: “Hasn’t it been established that these are made in Pakistan? What else is there to talk about?” A claim like “you could do far better for far less” was thrown out without any specific comparisons or data. Sweeping statements delivered with a sarcastic or smug tone made it difficult to trust that the so-called experts were being fair. In a truly professional discussion, expertise would be demonstrated with substantive reasoning, examples, or data—not just a snarky one-liner that shuts down conversation. When forum members resort to quips and put-downs, it reflects poorly on the forum’s credibility as a serious venue for discussing craftsmanship. No matter how experienced a commenter might be, condescension and derision weaken their argument and, by extension, the trust readers place in the community’s collective expertise.

Ironically, the hostile tone of the thread made me more curious about Master Supply Co. instead of deterring me. With so many members almost performatively trashing the brand, I wondered what might be on the other side of that vehemence. Was this company truly terrible, or were they an upstart challenging the status quo in a way that ruffled purist feathers? The more I read the snarky put-downs, the more I felt compelled to investigate Master Supply Co. on my own—almost as if to fact-check the claims presented here. In an unintended way, the discussion’s tone signaled that there might be more to the story, since the responses felt disproportionate. It wouldn’t be the first time a newcomer brand faced pushback in a community of established aficionados.

The irony is that the very narrative imposed on Master Supply Co. by Fedora Lounge positions it within a classic heritage archetype—the outsider, the independent craftsman, the proletarian figure excluded by institutions of established power, prestige, and wealth. This is the very figure romanticized in countless heritage discussions: the lone artisan, the underdog craftsman, the worker whose value is dismissed by elitist gatekeepers. Yet, when presented with a business that genuinely seeks to embody this narrative—not in myth, but in its approach to production and customer engagement—the response is not admiration, but rejection.

In the interest of transparency, I should acknowledge that I have not yet received my jacket. That is entirely the point of this post. The timing of my post here is purposeful because it highlights what this discussion is actually about: these evaluations are not based on product quality but on narrative positioning. They exist in the terrain of branding, where legitimacy is negotiated through symbolic and exchange value rather than through any direct engagement with the utility value of the product itself. The conversation here is not about craftsmanship—it is about gatekeeping the meanings of craftsmanship.

This approach does not reinforce the credibility of the forum—it undermines it. If knowledge is primarily used to exclude, then what happens when that exclusion appears arbitrary? If the goal is to uphold standards, shouldn’t those standards be applied consistently? If the concern is quality, shouldn’t the discussion actually be about quality?

I ultimately decided to purchase Master Supply Co.’s veg-tanned natural leather field jacket based on the style, my own research, and the direct conversations I had with the company. They provided detailed explanations of their design choices and assured me that they use French seams in structurally significant areas to maintain integrity. For me, this evidence-based dialogue—rather than unsubstantiated forum opinions—was a key factor in my decision to invest in their product. In short, my experience with Master Supply Co. has been defined by direct engagement, transparency, and a commitment to service—qualities that should be valued in any serious heritage discussion. I will, of course, verify all of these claims and follow up here when I receive the jacket--as any responsible evaluation should.

Now, I understand that some might misinterpret my perspective here as an attempt to promote Master Supply Co. If there’s a way to prove otherwise, I’m happy to provide it. If I have a negative experience with the brand, I will report it here. But so far, my experiences with them have been unusually positive—they have set a customer service standard I haven’t seen in many markets. And if I see a brand being unfairly dismissed, I feel an ethical obligation to say so.

If heritage communities want to champion quality over marketing and craftsmanship over exclusivity, then they should engage in fair, experience-based assessments rather than relying on cultural gatekeeping. Otherwise, heritage stops being about craftsmanship and becomes just another elitist performance.

Well, wow…welcome to the lounge.
Deepest, longest intro in it’s history i believe.
I feel like i just sat through a psychology/sociology/english literature symposium at the University and got spanked throughout.
Please do do a review of your jacket so your thesis abstract of the lounge behavior can be substantiated.
Should be an epic read.
Popcorn
B

 

[wearever]

Holy cow. Never mind the jacket, this statement really makes Fitzgerald sound boring as hell. I feel nauseous even...

"The cultural negotiation of legitimacy" Well, you haven't negotiated yours yet - not on this site. And all these words aren't doing you any favors.

Some of the models this company offers don't look that bad to me either if they were 1/3 the price. I certainly wouldn't die on the hill you're trying to defend, but I truly hope you get a lot of good wear out of their product.

But wow, so many words....

Holy cow. Never mind the jacket, this statement really makes Fitzgerald sound boring as hell. I feel nauseous even...

"The cultural negotiation of legitimacy" Well, you haven't negotiated yours yet - not on this site. And all these words aren't doing you any favors.

Some of the models this company offers don't look that bad to me either if they were 1/3 the price. I certainly wouldn't die on the hill you're trying to defend, but I truly hope you get a lot of good wear out of their product.

But wow, so many words....

Well, I wouldn’t want to make Fitzgerald boring, but if he were here, I suspect he’d recognize the irony in dismissing an argument outright while admitting you haven’t actually engaged with it. If engaging with literature and its relevance to discussions like this makes Gatsby "boring," I’d argue that’s on the reader, not the novel. Personally, I find that literature becomes more interesting when it illuminates the dynamics at play in real-world debates—like, say, the negotiation of legitimacy and status hierarchies in a niche community.

You, of course, are free to disagree. But I’d argue that reducing literature to entertainment while simultaneously posturing through a Whitman quote in your signature is a bit of a contradiction. Whitman, of all people—the poet of democracy, of the working man, of inclusion—would have bristled at the kind of elitism demonstrated in this thread. I find it fascinating that, on the one hand, there’s a dismissal of "too many words" when discussing the complexity of a topic, but on the other, there’s an implicit claim to cultural authority by invoking 19th-century literature as a badge of taste. You can’t play this game and then complain when others play it.

As for the jacket: if the price doesn’t work for you, fair enough. $1,000+ for a leather jacket causes me some dissonance too—that’s part of why I didn’t buy one a decade ago. But the jacket I purchased from Master Supply Co. was less than $500—still an investment, but significantly lower than the price points commonly endorsed on this forum. That tension—between the working-class ethos these jackets invoke and the high-end pricing that often contradicts it—was a core issue in my own deliberations.

I initially gave up on the idea of buying a leather jacket altogether. The cost didn’t feel justifiable. I redirected my attention elsewhere—into selvedge denim, work boots, even suede shirt jackets. But when I came across Master Supply Co., the aesthetics of their field jacket pulled me back in. It wasn’t a rational process. It was subjective, style-driven. I simply liked it more than anything else I had seen. But as I did more research, the broader discourse around the brand—particularly the way it was dismissed here—made me see it as something more than just an object of personal preference.

The tone of this thread—its overwhelming refusal to even consider Master Supply Co. as a legitimate player—didn’t turn me away. It made me more curious. What does it say when an upstart brand is met not with critique based on firsthand experience but with a collective effort to shut down discussion entirely? That kind of reflexive rejection tells its own story. And in that sense, this very thread played a role in shaping my investment in Master Supply Co. The brand was being positioned as an outsider, and that was precisely what made it interesting.

Which brings me to the marketing imagery that some here have ridiculed. The long-bearded, rugged, rural aesthetic—common enough in heritage branding—was framed in this thread as laughable, a transparent attempt at posturing. But there’s an irony here. If the same visual language is acceptable when associated with legacy brands, why is it a joke when adopted by Master Supply? More to the point: those aren’t hired models. Those are the owners of the company.

That’s not to say marketing isn’t performative. Of course it is. But so is the way legitimacy is conferred (or denied) in this space. If Master Supply’s imagery is seen as affectation, why isn’t the entire heritage aesthetic? This space is built on iconography—the American worker, the tough-guy outsider, the blue-collar craftsman—Gatsby, Whitman, profiles with the name “cowboy.” And yet, when a new brand embraces that imagery, the response is derision. Why? Because they haven’t yet been accepted into the preordained pantheon of authenticity. In the context of this thread, the images of guys left out in the cold for doing something they believe in—y’all are making that narrative ring true.

These contradictions only reinforce my broader argument. Heritage, authenticity, and legitimacy in this space are not fixed qualities. They are constructed, negotiated, and policed. And Master Supply, for all its supposed sins, is actively engaging in that negotiation—while much of this thread is engaged in the performance of shutting it down.

That’s why I found it ironic that a style and heritage deeply tied to the mythology of the individual against the system—the rebellious outsider, the frontier craftsman, the blue-collar icon—was now being policed with an almost institutional level of gatekeeping.

Now, again, I know that saying these words will make me sound to many here like some kind of proxy ambassador. I have no interest in that role. I take no compensation from Master Supply Co., nor would I accept any. Not that I’m above taking compensation (because, let’s be real). But given the current conversation, it would completely undermine my argument. I stuck my neck out, knowing all too well where it might lead in this little sewing circle. And now I’ll roll with the bluster.

Besides, I doubt the people at Master Supply Co. would see my nerdy intellectualism as a benefit to their brand—except for the fact that it apparently risks rendering me an outsider in this closed circle.

Speaking of which—back to the issue of my writing style: if the main critique is the number of words I’ve used rather than the points I’ve made, that says something about the conversation we’re having. I’ve seen plenty of long, detailed discussions on this forum that weren’t met with the same resistance—so maybe it’s not just the length that’s the issue. There’s no shortage of what could be read as intellectual posturing on this site. So my strategy here was also purposeful.

This is also the same high-fiving groupthink—the "we" versus "you" positioning—that does no favors for a forum supposedly dedicated to serious discussion. And if you’re suggesting the forum can’t handle a deeper conversation, well, that doesn’t exactly do it any favors either.

I can make my follow-up more hardboiled… would that work? Or perhaps I can quote some Fitzgerald or Whitman. They’re two of my favorites.

I knew my language could be read against me. But to engage in this discussion meaningfully requires... um... words.

 

[wearever]

I think the chore jacket in natural cow looks quite nice, and the price is about right, if the hide is good. Did the manufacturer list the hide thickness anywhere in the specs? I did not see it.

Yes--good question. It's 1.5 mm.

 

[wearever]

Well, wow…welcome to the lounge.
Deepest, longest intro in it’s history i believe.
I feel like i just sat through a psychology/sociology/english literature symposium at the University and got spanked throughout.
Please do do a review of your jacket so your thesis abstract of the lounge behavior can be substantiated.
Should be an epic read.
Popcorn
B

Well, I’d hate to let the lounge down after such a grand introduction. I’ll be sure to write up a detailed review—perhaps with a lit review and some footnotes so we can really lean into the symposium vibe. But, hey, at least we’ve established that discussing cultural meaning in a forum dedicated to heritage, aesthetics, and craftsmanship is somehow out of bounds. That’s an interesting stance, but okay. Anyway, I'll be back with a jacket review—should be fun to see whether anyone actually engages with the substance of it. Or maybe we’ll just keep workshopping punchlines instead. That works for me.

Y'all really aren't doing yourselves any favors with this tired line.

 

[wearever]

Well, I wouldn’t want to make Fitzgerald boring, but if he were here, I suspect he’d recognize the irony in dismissing an argument outright while admitting you haven’t actually engaged with it. If engaging with literature and its relevance to discussions like this makes Gatsby "boring," I’d argue that’s on the reader, not the novel. Personally, I find that literature becomes more interesting when it illuminates the dynamics at play in real-world debates—like, say, the negotiation of legitimacy and status hierarchies in a niche community.

You, of course, are free to disagree. But I’d argue that reducing literature to entertainment while simultaneously posturing through a Whitman quote in your signature is a bit of a contradiction. Whitman, of all people—the poet of democracy, of the working man, of inclusion—would have bristled at the kind of elitism demonstrated in this thread. I find it fascinating that, on the one hand, there’s a dismissal of "too many words" when discussing the complexity of a topic, but on the other, there’s an implicit claim to cultural authority by invoking 19th-century literature as a badge of taste. You can’t play this game and then complain when others play it.

As for the jacket: if the price doesn’t work for you, fair enough. $1,000+ for a leather jacket causes me some dissonance too—that’s part of why I didn’t buy one a decade ago. But the jacket I purchased from Master Supply Co. was less than $500—still an investment, but significantly lower than the price points commonly endorsed on this forum. That tension—between the working-class ethos these jackets invoke and the high-end pricing that often contradicts it—was a core issue in my own deliberations.

I initially gave up on the idea of buying a leather jacket altogether. The cost didn’t feel justifiable. I redirected my attention elsewhere—into selvedge denim, work boots, even suede shirt jackets. But when I came across Master Supply Co., the aesthetics of their field jacket pulled me back in. It wasn’t a rational process. It was subjective, style-driven. I simply liked it more than anything else I had seen. But as I did more research, the broader discourse around the brand—particularly the way it was dismissed here—made me see it as something more than just an object of personal preference.

The tone of this thread—its overwhelming refusal to even consider Master Supply Co. as a legitimate player—didn’t turn me away. It made me more curious. What does it say when an upstart brand is met not with critique based on firsthand experience but with a collective effort to shut down discussion entirely? That kind of reflexive rejection tells its own story. And in that sense, this very thread played a role in shaping my investment in Master Supply Co. The brand was being positioned as an outsider, and that was precisely what made it interesting.

Which brings me to the marketing imagery that some here have ridiculed. The long-bearded, rugged, rural aesthetic—common enough in heritage branding—was framed in this thread as laughable, a transparent attempt at posturing. But there’s an irony here. If the same visual language is acceptable when associated with legacy brands, why is it a joke when adopted by Master Supply? More to the point: those aren’t hired models. Those are the owners of the company.

That’s not to say marketing isn’t performative. Of course it is. But so is the way legitimacy is conferred (or denied) in this space. If Master Supply’s imagery is seen as affectation, why isn’t the entire heritage aesthetic? This space is built on iconography—the American worker, the tough-guy outsider, the blue-collar craftsman—Gatsby, Whitman, profiles with the name “cowboy.” And yet, when a new brand embraces that imagery, the response is derision. Why? Because they haven’t yet been accepted into the preordained pantheon of authenticity. In the context of this thread, the images of guys left out in the cold for doing something they believe in—y’all are making that narrative ring true.

These contradictions only reinforce my broader argument. Heritage, authenticity, and legitimacy in this space are not fixed qualities. They are constructed, negotiated, and policed. And Master Supply, for all its supposed sins, is actively engaging in that negotiation—while much of this thread is engaged in the performance of shutting it down.

That’s why I found it ironic that a style and heritage deeply tied to the mythology of the individual against the system—the rebellious outsider, the frontier craftsman, the blue-collar icon—was now being policed with an almost institutional level of gatekeeping.

Now, again, I know that saying these words will make me sound to many here like some kind of proxy ambassador. I have no interest in that role. I take no compensation from Master Supply Co., nor would I accept any. Not that I’m above taking compensation (because, let’s be real). But given the current conversation, it would completely undermine my argument. I stuck my neck out, knowing all too well where it might lead in this little sewing circle. And now I’ll roll with the bluster.

Besides, I doubt the people at Master Supply Co. would see my nerdy intellectualism as a benefit to their brand—except for the fact that it apparently risks rendering me an outsider in this closed circle.

Speaking of which—back to the issue of my writing style: if the main critique is the number of words I’ve used rather than the points I’ve made, that says something about the conversation we’re having. I’ve seen plenty of long, detailed discussions on this forum that weren’t met with the same resistance—so maybe it’s not just the length that’s the issue. There’s no shortage of what could be read as intellectual posturing on this site. So my strategy here was also purposeful.

This is also the same high-fiving groupthink—the "we" versus "you" positioning—that does no favors for a forum supposedly dedicated to serious discussion. And if you’re suggesting the forum can’t handle a deeper conversation, well, that doesn’t exactly do it any favors either.

I can make my follow-up more hardboiled… would that work? Or perhaps I can quote some Fitzgerald or Whitman. They’re two of my favorites.

I knew my language could be read against me. But to engage in this discussion meaningfully requires... um... words.

Ah, 'The Lost Cowboy'—a man of the open range, untamed by convention, guided only by his own rugged individualism… except, of course, when it comes to breaking ranks with groupthink in a leather jacket forum. Then, suddenly, it’s all about protecting the herd.

And let’s not forget that Whitman line in your signature: 'I wear my hat as I please, indoors or out.' Beautiful sentiment—one that celebrates self-expression, defiance of arbitrary rules, and an embrace of working-class democracy. Seems like a fitting reminder for this conversation… just maybe not in the way you intended.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

Well, I wouldn’t want to make Fitzgerald boring, but if he were here, I suspect he’d recognize the irony in dismissing an argument outright while admitting you haven’t actually engaged with it. If engaging with literature and its relevance to discussions like this makes Gatsby "boring," I’d argue that’s on the reader, not the novel. Personally, I find that literature becomes more interesting when it illuminates the dynamics at play in real-world debates—like, say, the negotiation of legitimacy and status hierarchies in a niche community.

You, of course, are free to disagree. But I’d argue that reducing literature to entertainment while simultaneously posturing through a Whitman quote in your signature is a bit of a contradiction. Whitman, of all people—the poet of democracy, of the working man, of inclusion—would have bristled at the kind of elitism demonstrated in this thread. I find it fascinating that, on the one hand, there’s a dismissal of "too many words" when discussing the complexity of a topic, but on the other, there’s an implicit claim to cultural authority by invoking 19th-century literature as a badge of taste. You can’t play this game and then complain when others play it.

As for the jacket: if the price doesn’t work for you, fair enough. $1,000+ for a leather jacket causes me some dissonance too—that’s part of why I didn’t buy one a decade ago. But the jacket I purchased from Master Supply Co. was less than $500—still an investment, but significantly lower than the price points commonly endorsed on this forum. That tension—between the working-class ethos these jackets invoke and the high-end pricing that often contradicts it—was a core issue in my own deliberations.

I initially gave up on the idea of buying a leather jacket altogether. The cost didn’t feel justifiable. I redirected my attention elsewhere—into selvedge denim, work boots, even suede shirt jackets. But when I came across Master Supply Co., the aesthetics of their field jacket pulled me back in. It wasn’t a rational process. It was subjective, style-driven. I simply liked it more than anything else I had seen. But as I did more research, the broader discourse around the brand—particularly the way it was dismissed here—made me see it as something more than just an object of personal preference.

The tone of this thread—its overwhelming refusal to even consider Master Supply Co. as a legitimate player—didn’t turn me away. It made me more curious. What does it say when an upstart brand is met not with critique based on firsthand experience but with a collective effort to shut down discussion entirely? That kind of reflexive rejection tells its own story. And in that sense, this very thread played a role in shaping my investment in Master Supply Co. The brand was being positioned as an outsider, and that was precisely what made it interesting.

Which brings me to the marketing imagery that some here have ridiculed. The long-bearded, rugged, rural aesthetic—common enough in heritage branding—was framed in this thread as laughable, a transparent attempt at posturing. But there’s an irony here. If the same visual language is acceptable when associated with legacy brands, why is it a joke when adopted by Master Supply? More to the point: those aren’t hired models. Those are the owners of the company.

That’s not to say marketing isn’t performative. Of course it is. But so is the way legitimacy is conferred (or denied) in this space. If Master Supply’s imagery is seen as affectation, why isn’t the entire heritage aesthetic? This space is built on iconography—the American worker, the tough-guy outsider, the blue-collar craftsman—Gatsby, Whitman, profiles with the name “cowboy.” And yet, when a new brand embraces that imagery, the response is derision. Why? Because they haven’t yet been accepted into the preordained pantheon of authenticity. In the context of this thread, the images of guys left out in the cold for doing something they believe in—y’all are making that narrative ring true.

These contradictions only reinforce my broader argument. Heritage, authenticity, and legitimacy in this space are not fixed qualities. They are constructed, negotiated, and policed. And Master Supply, for all its supposed sins, is actively engaging in that negotiation—while much of this thread is engaged in the performance of shutting it down.

That’s why I found it ironic that a style and heritage deeply tied to the mythology of the individual against the system—the rebellious outsider, the frontier craftsman, the blue-collar icon—was now being policed with an almost institutional level of gatekeeping.

Now, again, I know that saying these words will make me sound to many here like some kind of proxy ambassador. I have no interest in that role. I take no compensation from Master Supply Co., nor would I accept any. Not that I’m above taking compensation (because, let’s be real). But given the current conversation, it would completely undermine my argument. I stuck my neck out, knowing all too well where it might lead in this little sewing circle. And now I’ll roll with the bluster.

Besides, I doubt the people at Master Supply Co. would see my nerdy intellectualism as a benefit to their brand—except for the fact that it apparently risks rendering me an outsider in this closed circle.

Speaking of which—back to the issue of my writing style: if the main critique is the number of words I’ve used rather than the points I’ve made, that says something about the conversation we’re having. I’ve seen plenty of long, detailed discussions on this forum that weren’t met with the same resistance—so maybe it’s not just the length that’s the issue. There’s no shortage of what could be read as intellectual posturing on this site. So my strategy here was also purposeful.

This is also the same high-fiving groupthink—the "we" versus "you" positioning—that does no favors for a forum supposedly dedicated to serious discussion. And if you’re suggesting the forum can’t handle a deeper conversation, well, that doesn’t exactly do it any favors either.

I can make my follow-up more hardboiled… would that work? Or perhaps I can quote some Fitzgerald or Whitman. They’re two of my favorites.

I knew my language could be read against me. But to engage in this discussion meaningfully requires... um... words.

Admittedly, I am a little curious what you have to say.

But I just don't have the time for even a quarter of that.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Bkcmart]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Master Supply Co. and Rugged West?

Honest question, and not a dig at Rugged west, but on the surface they seem to be very similar companies, but one seems to be embraced here and the other is looked down on…

Again definitely not a jab at RW, I’ve never handled either companies products so maybe the difference is obvious.

 

[ton312]

Well, I wouldn’t want to make Fitzgerald boring, but if he were here, I suspect he’d recognize the irony in dismissing an argument outright while admitting you haven’t actually engaged with it. If engaging with literature and its relevance to discussions like this makes Gatsby "boring," I’d argue that’s on the reader, not the novel. Personally, I find that literature becomes more interesting when it illuminates the dynamics at play in real-world debates—like, say, the negotiation of legitimacy and status hierarchies in a niche community.

You, of course, are free to disagree. But I’d argue that reducing literature to entertainment while simultaneously posturing through a Whitman quote in your signature is a bit of a contradiction. Whitman, of all people—the poet of democracy, of the working man, of inclusion—would have bristled at the kind of elitism demonstrated in this thread. I find it fascinating that, on the one hand, there’s a dismissal of "too many words" when discussing the complexity of a topic, but on the other, there’s an implicit claim to cultural authority by invoking 19th-century literature as a badge of taste. You can’t play this game and then complain when others play it.

As for the jacket: if the price doesn’t work for you, fair enough. $1,000+ for a leather jacket causes me some dissonance too—that’s part of why I didn’t buy one a decade ago. But the jacket I purchased from Master Supply Co. was less than $500—still an investment, but significantly lower than the price points commonly endorsed on this forum. That tension—between the working-class ethos these jackets invoke and the high-end pricing that often contradicts it—was a core issue in my own deliberations.

I initially gave up on the idea of buying a leather jacket altogether. The cost didn’t feel justifiable. I redirected my attention elsewhere—into selvedge denim, work boots, even suede shirt jackets. But when I came across Master Supply Co., the aesthetics of their field jacket pulled me back in. It wasn’t a rational process. It was subjective, style-driven. I simply liked it more than anything else I had seen. But as I did more research, the broader discourse around the brand—particularly the way it was dismissed here—made me see it as something more than just an object of personal preference.

The tone of this thread—its overwhelming refusal to even consider Master Supply Co. as a legitimate player—didn’t turn me away. It made me more curious. What does it say when an upstart brand is met not with critique based on firsthand experience but with a collective effort to shut down discussion entirely? That kind of reflexive rejection tells its own story. And in that sense, this very thread played a role in shaping my investment in Master Supply Co. The brand was being positioned as an outsider, and that was precisely what made it interesting.

Which brings me to the marketing imagery that some here have ridiculed. The long-bearded, rugged, rural aesthetic—common enough in heritage branding—was framed in this thread as laughable, a transparent attempt at posturing. But there’s an irony here. If the same visual language is acceptable when associated with legacy brands, why is it a joke when adopted by Master Supply? More to the point: those aren’t hired models. Those are the owners of the company.

That’s not to say marketing isn’t performative. Of course it is. But so is the way legitimacy is conferred (or denied) in this space. If Master Supply’s imagery is seen as affectation, why isn’t the entire heritage aesthetic? This space is built on iconography—the American worker, the tough-guy outsider, the blue-collar craftsman—Gatsby, Whitman, profiles with the name “cowboy.” And yet, when a new brand embraces that imagery, the response is derision. Why? Because they haven’t yet been accepted into the preordained pantheon of authenticity. In the context of this thread, the images of guys left out in the cold for doing something they believe in—y’all are making that narrative ring true.

These contradictions only reinforce my broader argument. Heritage, authenticity, and legitimacy in this space are not fixed qualities. They are constructed, negotiated, and policed. And Master Supply, for all its supposed sins, is actively engaging in that negotiation—while much of this thread is engaged in the performance of shutting it down.

That’s why I found it ironic that a style and heritage deeply tied to the mythology of the individual against the system—the rebellious outsider, the frontier craftsman, the blue-collar icon—was now being policed with an almost institutional level of gatekeeping.

Now, again, I know that saying these words will make me sound to many here like some kind of proxy ambassador. I have no interest in that role. I take no compensation from Master Supply Co., nor would I accept any. Not that I’m above taking compensation (because, let’s be real). But given the current conversation, it would completely undermine my argument. I stuck my neck out, knowing all too well where it might lead in this little sewing circle. And now I’ll roll with the bluster.

Besides, I doubt the people at Master Supply Co. would see my nerdy intellectualism as a benefit to their brand—except for the fact that it apparently risks rendering me an outsider in this closed circle.

Speaking of which—back to the issue of my writing style: if the main critique is the number of words I’ve used rather than the points I’ve made, that says something about the conversation we’re having. I’ve seen plenty of long, detailed discussions on this forum that weren’t met with the same resistance—so maybe it’s not just the length that’s the issue. There’s no shortage of what could be read as intellectual posturing on this site. So my strategy here was also purposeful.

This is also the same high-fiving groupthink—the "we" versus "you" positioning—that does no favors for a forum supposedly dedicated to serious discussion. And if you’re suggesting the forum can’t handle a deeper conversation, well, that doesn’t exactly do it any favors either.

I can make my follow-up more hardboiled… would that work? Or perhaps I can quote some Fitzgerald or Whitman. They’re two of my favorites.

I knew my language could be read against me. But to engage in this discussion meaningfully requires... um... words.

Since your vocabulistics are on another plain, just so you know, so you know, that you know…. Heritage, rugged, workwear is the new north face. It’s a uniform of conformity peddled on instagram to alleviate the ennui of middle aged men staring down the reality of suddenly becoming powerfully uncool. There is absolutely zero originality in it at all. It is completely lacking any individual style. It’s boring, it’s best to death, and it’s the height of vanilla and beige. So if your hoping for some sort of originality in that “space” you’re about 10 years too late.

 

[wearever]

This happens when noobs view a single thread and don’t bother looking around. A simple page turn of WJAYWT would help.
I agree the chore coat probably looks the best. A lot of the jackets look similar to what you could find on Amazon. But to classify these as heritage pieces is truly absurd. And I have zero interest in that heritage bullshit anyway. Keep the jackets in the lane in which they belong, with 5 Star, Cidu, etc.

There’s no code being cracked here.

Ah, 'heritage bullshit'—a bold stance from The Lost Cowboy, a name is steeped in the iconography of a bygone era. A cowboy without heritage is just… lost, I suppose?

But let’s put that aside. If you have ‘zero interest’ in heritage, why are you so invested in this conversation and in dictating which jackets are allowed to claim it? Seems like a lot of energy spent keeping things ‘in their lane’ for someone who doesn’t care.

And as for ‘cracking the code’—I never claimed there was one. The real trick is just reading what’s actually being said instead of rushing to reinforce a hierarchy that, by your own admission, you don’t even believe in.

 

[wearever]

Since your vocabulistics are on another plain, just so you know, so you know, that you know…. Heritage, rugged, workwear is the new north face. It’s a uniform of conformity peddled on instagram to alleviate the ennui of middle aged men staring down the reality of suddenly becoming powerfully uncool. There is absolutely zero originality in it at all. It is completely lacking any individual style. It’s boring, it’s best to death, and it’s the height of vanilla and beige. So if your hoping for some sort of originality in that “space” you’re about 10 years too late.

Oh, I love this! So now we’ve moved from gatekeeping ‘heritage’ to declaring it culturally dead. Rugged workwear is the new North Face? Maybe in some corners of the internet, sure. But the funny thing about subcultures is that they don’t exist in a vacuum—they ebb and flow, sometimes codifying into trends, sometimes evolving into something unexpected. That’s kind of the point of cultural production, isn’t it?

But more importantly, if heritage workwear is so utterly boring, why are we all here? Why spend your time in a forum dedicated to discussing it in exacting detail? If this whole aesthetic is just an empty performance for aging men afraid of irrelevance, then… what are you doing?

Seems like a lot of words to tell us you’re over it

 

[ton312]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Master Supply Co. and Rugged West?

Honest question, and not a dig at Rugged west, but on the surface they seem to be very similar companies, but one seems to be embraced here and the other is looked down on…

Again definitely not a jab at RW, I’ve never handled either companies products so maybe the difference is obvious.

I think the difference is rugged west doesn’t use hokey, faux dirt distressing and the jackets and patterns aren’t cheesy looking. They appear more refined over all. Much more like a repro brand, better hides. A tier or two above MSC for the most part, which to me looks like 4 Star or Cidu from China.

 

[wearever]

Admittedly, I am a little curious what you have to say.

But I just don't have the time for even a quarter of that.

Best of luck to you.

Oh, I get it. It’s the too long; didn’t read defense, but with a polite handshake. Respect.

That said, I do think it’s funny how often ‘not having time’ is selectively deployed. People here will happily spend days debating the stitch density on a 1940s repro, but a discussion about the broader meaning of heritage craft? Whoa, whoa, whoa—too much!

But hey, if you ever do find the time, I’d be curious to hear your take. Sincerely.