New Eastman Leather Clothing "Escape" A-2

[a2jacketpatches]

Looks as if a VLJ member spotted another flaw in the decal, On the McCoys and Eastman from what I can see appear to be a standard decal with all details. The original Hilts jacket was either painted over or painted on or..........another decal variation with less detail

 

[aswatland]

IMO there is no proof that the original Hilts A2 is a 16159 jacket. I believe it is a RW 27752 which was subjected to a depot re-paint later in the War or even post War for Korea. The collar looks like that found on a 27752 and the zip is a Talon with a bell puller, which was precisely the zip used on all jackets from this contract. Talon M39 zips were used on the 16159 contract, with the long bar puller. Of course the puller could have been changed, but these early Talon zip sliders were quite robust and I can see no reason why it should have been changed unless the zip failed in the War.

 

[HPA Rep]

Looks as if a VLJ member spotted another flaw in the decal, On the McCoys and Eastman from what I can see appear to be a standard decal with all details. The original Hilts jacket was either painted over or painted on or..........another decal variation with less detail

Absolutely correct on the decal. I suspect it was painted over since the decals didn't hold up well and the filmmakers likely wanted the insignia to be visible, so painting over made sense. I did this exact same thing to a decal on a re-dyed Aero 16160 (the second A-2 I ever bought) wayyyy back in time.

I further suspect that the larger-size name strip was purposely made this size to hide marks where another had been, seeing as how this was a re-issue A-2.

 

[aswatland]

Here is an update with the assistance of John Chapman. Mr. Okamoto of Toys McCoy bought the original. Here's a detail photo from the Perfect Book in October of 2007 that supposedly shows the original:

http://auction.thumbnail.image.raku...image3/990/10785990/1129/img2300577123213.jpg


If it is the original jacket I would say this after enlarging the scans. It looks as if the zipper was replaced. The label does indeed look like one from the 23380 contract. It seems to have the same number of lines of text as this contract and is the same shape. The labels on the other contracts were more rectangular. Verdict: If this is the movie jacket then it was from the 23380 contract.

 

[HPA Rep]

IMO there is no proof that the original Hilts A2 is a 16159 jacket. I believe it is a RW 27752 which was subjected to a depot re-paint later in the War or even post War for Korea. The collar looks like that found on a 27752 and the zip is a Talon with a bell puller, which was precisely the zip used on all jackets from this contract. Talon M39 zips were used on the 16159 contract, with the long bar puller. Of course the puller could have been changed, but these early Talon zip sliders were quite robust and I can see no reason why it should have been changed unless the zip failed in the War.

The only proof positive would be locating the A-2; absent that, we can only make educated guesses, and some see one thing and others see another. I stand with Gary Eastman and think it's 16159, finding the pocket flaps more consistent with that contract than 27752: the one flap, in particular, on left side is very scalloped, which is unlike any other RW contract but 16159. Regarding Gary's 16159 copy, the pocket flaps are more pointed than anything I've seen on a vintage example of this contract, but that has no bearing on the identity of the actual jacket worn in the film.

Agreed that the zipper pull is bell shaped on the film jacket, but finding a replacement zipper on a re-issued A-2 some 20 years after it was made and after serving at least two owners in the military wouldn't surprise me at all. That cotton zipper tape was fragile and easily frayed at the box at the base or on the feeder side, so I don't suspect a slider replacement but I do suspect a zipper replacement, which is what my Aero 16160 re-issue had from my youth, as well as numerous other re-issue A-2's and B-3's I've seen over the years.

This is a lively, intelligent dialogue that's enjoyable, and I'll be the first to admit any flawed reasoning in the ID of the A-2 if better info./evidence is forthcoming.

 

[kojax]

wow my hilts a-2 is getting alot of attention lol

 

[HPA Rep]

Here is an update with the assistance of John Chapman. Mr. Okamoto of Toys McCoy bought the original. Here's a detail photo from the Perfect Book in October of 2007 that supposedly shows the original:

http://auction.thumbnail.image.raku...image3/990/10785990/1129/img2300577123213.jpg


If it is the original jacket I would say this after enlarging the scans. It looks as if the zipper was replaced. The label does indeed look like one from the 23380 contract. It seems to have the same number of lines of text as this contract and is the same shape. The labels on the other contracts were more rectangular. Verdict: If this is the movie jacket then it was from the 23380 contract.

That's really interesting! Thanks for posting and for JC in finding!!! This could well be the real thing as it does have some visible features that seem consistent with the film A-2. This could be the smoking gun we've been seeking and I hope more is to come.

 

[Carlos840]

That's really interesting! Thanks for posting and for JC in finding!!! This could well be the real thing as it does have some visible features that seem consistent with the film A-2. This could be the smoking gun we've been seeking, and I hope more is to come.

It does create one more question, why are the knits of reissues always rust or some sort of light brown when the movies jacket clearly has dark brown knits?

 

[HPA Rep]

Here is an update with the assistance of John Chapman. Mr. Okamoto of Toys McCoy bought the original. Here's a detail photo from the Perfect Book in October of 2007 that supposedly shows the original:

http://auction.thumbnail.image.raku...image3/990/10785990/1129/img2300577123213.jpg


If it is the original jacket I would say this after enlarging the scans. It looks as if the zipper was replaced. The label does indeed look like one from the 23380 contract. It seems to have the same number of lines of text as this contract and is the same shape. The labels on the other contracts were more rectangular. Verdict: If this is the movie jacket then it was from the 23380 contract.

I've blown up the scan and have been studying it for a while, and one thing is clear: the label is not from RW 23380 or any other RW contract. You correctly pointed out that RW labels are rectangular, which is long on the horizontal axis, so in 23380 contracts that have had the AAF property label added below the main label, these full labels may be more square in shape than other RW labels due to the addition of the extra label, but they are still wider in length than many other A-2 labels, thus leaving very little distance between the box stitching of the leather neck hanger and the label upper edges. The label in this purported McQueen A-2 is not at all in this shape configuration but truly quite near square, with space from its upper edges to the box stitching on the neck hanger that exceeds what is seen in RW A-2's.

Additionally, zoom in on the label and look at the middle area of text. This seems to be just one word that is centered and evenly spaced on the label, and it seems it ends in the letter "Y." Looking further, the line of text directly below this is lengthy and ends in a word with what I see as the first letter being a large, uppercase letter "A" followed by just a few letters in small font size, as in the word "Army." No RW contract label is laid out in this fashion. And if the last word is indeed "Army," then the line this word is part of would read "Air Force U. S. Army," and that line above this with just one word perfectly centered would have to read as "Property," which matches with that faint "Y" I see at the end of this line.

RW 23380 labels would have at the middle area two rows of text, all uppercase:

CONTRACT NO. W535AC-23380
ROUGH WEAR CLOTHING CO.

The above RW text is longer/wider than what appears on this label (though what appears is indeed sketchy), and it does require a wider label than what we see here.

There is also at least one line of text below the line on this label that I think ends in "Army," which would be the contractor info. Very few A-2 labels meet all of the criteria I've laid out, and, really, only one does, which is not RW.

If my interpretation of the label is correct, it doesn't mean the jacket isn't a RW or that it isn't RW 16159, it would just mean the label was replaced, most likely when it was refurbished by Air Service Command. I have seen exactly this on two re-dyed A-2's in my life, whereby the labels of incorrect contracts were installed in the A-2's by the depot, which I believe simply served the main purpose of identifying still the jacket type (contractor data would no longer have had any meaning) on an A-2 that had a threadbare label from prior use; it's likely that another A-2 was in unserviceable condition and the label from it simply removed from it solely for ID of the jacket type on the serviceable garment within the stock of the AAF/USAF.

Obviously, the label in this scan is very hard to see and much is obscured, but using the shape and size as a gauge as you suggested, Andrew, it seems to be at odds with 23380 and any other RW contract.

Anyone wish to opine further?

 

[Stand By]

I could only opine enough to say that any discrepancy in pocket shape wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me as I think this particular A2 has enough else going on to make it look very appealing - and I found the info on the decal to be most enlightening!
I must say that, at my next opportunity to get to RAF Duxford (perhaps this Summer or next Summer for definite), I think that this jacket is the one I'm most interested in seeing in the ELC QM Depot!

 

[ButteMT61]

It's kinda funny this jacket...I remember in the 80's how huge an impact Top Gun had, and how many guys bought G-1's after that.
Since I was a kid, I have no idea if this movie/jacket had that sort of impact, but if we started this thread and replaced it with the above, it would have taken at least a few different turns LOL

 

[a2jacketpatches]

Anyone know what model Baseball glove?

 

[aswatland]

I've blown up the scan and have been studying it for a while, and one thing is clear: the label is not from RW 23380 or any other RW contract. You correctly pointed out that RW labels are rectangular, which is long on the horizontal axis, so in 23380 contracts that have had the AAF property label added below the main label, these full labels may be more square in shape than other RW labels due to the addition of the extra label, but they are still wider in length than many other A-2 labels, thus leaving very little distance between the box stitching of the leather neck hanger and the label upper edges. The label in this purported McQueen A-2 is not at all in this shape configuration but truly quite near square, with space from its upper edges to the box stitching on the neck hanger that exceeds what is seen in RW A-2's.

Additionally, zoom in on the label and look at the middle area of text. This seems to be just one word that is centered and evenly spaced on the label, and it seems it ends in the letter "Y." Looking further, the line of text directly below this is lengthy and ends in a word with what I see as the first letter being a large, uppercase letter "A" followed by just a few letters in small font size, as in the word "Army." No RW contract label is laid out in this fashion. And if the last word is indeed "Army," then the line this word is part of would read "Air Force U. S. Army," and that line above this with just one word perfectly centered would have to read as "Property," which matches with that faint "Y" I see at the end of this line.

RW 23380 labels would have at the middle area two rows of text, all uppercase:

CONTRACT NO. W535AC-23380
ROUGH WEAR CLOTHING CO.

The above RW text is longer/wider than what appears on this label (though what appears is indeed sketchy), and it does require a wider label than what we see here.

There is also at least one line of text below the line on this label that I think ends in "Army," which would be the contractor info. Very few A-2 labels meet all of the criteria I've laid out, and really only one does, which is not RW.

If my interpretation of the label is correct, it doesn't mean the jacket isn't a RW or that it isn't RW 16159, it would just mean the label was replaced, most likely when it was refurbished by Air Service Command. I have seen exactly this on two re-dyed A-2's in my life, whereby the labels of incorrect contracts were installed in the A-2's by the depot, which I believe simply served the main purpose of identifying still the jacket type (contractor data would no longer have had any meaning) on an A-2 that had a threadbare label from prior use; it's likely that another A-2 was in unserviceable condition and the label from it simply removed from it solely for ID of the jacket type on the serviceable garment within the stock of the AAF/USAF.

Obviously, the label in this scan is very hard to see and much is obscured, but using the shape and size as a gauge as you suggested, Andrew, it seems to be at odds with 23380 and any other RW contract.

Anyone wish to opine further?

Charles, I am amazed you managed to read all this on the label, which when magnified becomes blurred to say the least. It also appears as if some of the writing is badly worn. I am well aware that sometimes the wrong labels were placed on jackets that had been through an air depot. A decent photo of the label would be very useful. Even accepting the view that it is not a RW label, it does not mean it is a 16159 contract jacket, unless of course convincing evidence is produced. I

 

[Stand By]

Anyone know what model Baseball glove?

Hey, I'm not sure if you're joking here, A2 - I saw on a militaria website one time that there was a leather baseball glove just like that one in the ELC photo and it was marked USAAF! It was designated AAF property! And it wasn't that expensive either. It was something like $80 and in great condition and it sat there for months.
Only later did I watch Ken Burns' amazing documentary "Baseball" and it totally turned me around and on to the game (and I've been to see the Blue Jays a few times last season and really enjoyed it - all thanks to the documentary!) and I went back to the website with new interest - and the glove was gone. Sold.

 

[nick123]

Anyone know what model Baseball glove?

Dubow? Didn't Dubow make baseball gloves too?

 

[Biggles88a]

 

[a2jacketpatches]

Hey, I'm not sure if you're joking here, A2 - I saw on a militaria website one time that there was a leather baseball glove just like that one in the ELC photo and it was marked USAAF! It was designated AAF property! And it wasn't that expensive either. It was something like $80 and in great condition and it sat there for months.
Only later did I watch Ken Burns' amazing documentary "Baseball" and it totally turned me around and on to the game (and I've been to see the Blue Jays a few times last season and really enjoyed it - all thanks to the documentary!) and I went back to the website with new interest - and the glove was gone. Sold.

Not joking at all, and I've seen WW2 sports equipment marked by service as well. I've got USN sparring gloves around here somewhere. Just asking because in my endless search fo military stuff I always run across old gloves. Could probably do well flipping the same model V.HILTS used.

 

[HPA Rep]

Charles, I am amazed you managed to read all this on the label, which when magnified becomes blurred to say the least. It also appears as if some of the writing is badly worn. I am well aware that sometimes the wrong labels were placed on jackets that had been through an air depot. A decent photo of the label would be very useful. Even accepting the view that it is not a RW label, it does not mean it is a 16159 contract jacket, unless of course convincing evidence is produced. I

It looks as if you were cutoff at the beginning of a new sentence, Andrew???

I did indeed acknowledge that a replaced label doesn't make the A-2 a RW 16159, so no arguments there. But I'll go much further now after spending a good deal of time comparing the Okamoto A-2 to what McQueen wore in the film, and state in unequivocal terms that the Okiamoto A-2 isn't the McQueen film jacket. It might be a backup for McQueen in the event something happened to the one he wore, which would be typical for "hero" items in films, but no way is it the one he wears throughout the film.

Please take some seriously hard looks at the two jackets and you'll note that the film A-2 has wrinkling and grain on the collar and chest that is not found on the Okamtoto A-2, plus there is absent the bubbling along the wind flap found on the film A-2. Additionally, the name tag is totally different, being thicker and larger on the film A-2, and it's stitched differently. The pocket flaps and collar aren't the same, and the Okamoto A-2 doesn't appear to be a re-dyed A-2 as the color is totally different (lighter), and the AAF decal is not the right color. I've seen high-res. stills from the film and the list of little details could go on, but I'll end by asking this: If Okamota had the real thing, why would he have not patterned his "Escape A-2" after it and proudly displayed it in the purchase packaging as a value-added item?

And you aren't alone in your amazement with my eyesight and powers of observation: I can still do things with iron sights others need scopes and a Bible full of prayers to accomplish, and I've been spotting bogus militaria since I first got stung at age 12 and swore it would never happen again.

 

[ButteMT61]

Well, good news - there is going to be a Top Gun 2! So now this might not be such a bad idea...

 

[HPA Rep]

wow my hilts a-2 is getting alot of attention lol

You have a Real McCoy's or Toy's McCoy Hilts A-2, which is in my mind, a toy. The Eastman re-dyed, re-issued A-2, whether "Escape" style or plain, is as close to a genuine, re-dyed, re-issued A-2 as has ever been offered, and what the McQueen A-2 would have been from the film, sans over-hyping with McQueen dolls and erroneous assertions to ownership of the film jacket.