Pocket Dimensions and Location vs. Jacket Size

[Superfluous]

In the DD Buco J-21 thread, there is a lively discussion regarding whether the dimensions of pockets are different depending on the size of the jacket. Stated another way, are the pockets on a size 36 jacket the same dimensions as the pockets on a size 46 jacket?

I communicated privately with John Chapman, David Himel and Ken Calder regarding this issue and, interestingly, they disagree.

Chapman and Himel are both adamant that pocket dimensions do NOT change based on the size of the jacket. Chapman provided me with a detailed explanation, and separately addressed A2s, navy jackets and civilian jackets, but the ultimate answer was the same – the pockets are always the same dimensions, regardless of jacket size. Per Chapman:

“Most people have misconceptions about pockets. They never change in size from a size 34 to 54, the smallest to largest A-2 jackets. . . . The Navy jackets are the same idea, with only one pocket size. . . . My experience with civilian jackets is the same. Only one pocket size. . . . Main pockets, chest pockets, sleeve ends, side adjustments - they're all just one pattern piece, not scaled for different sizes.”

Himel agrees with Chapman.

According to A-1, Diamond Dave also agrees that pocket dimensions do not change with jacket sizing. Per DD (as quoted by A-1):

"Military or civilian; pocket sizes NEVER change. . . . This is due to the fact that though a human beings size may change drastically from one to another, the size of their hands and neck rarely change as much. Pattern drafters sorted that out years ago, and that is why all Buco jackets have the same sized D pocket as well as length of the other pockets. . . . This is very apparent when you see a size 36 next to say a size 46. Same size pockets but look very different. This holds true also on military jackets.”

The foregoing makes sense to me. The pockets on vintage jackets were designed and sized for specific purposes, including to hold a map, gun or cigarettes. The size of the map, gun or cigarettes to be stored in the pocket does not change based on the size of the jacket. Therefore, if one increases or decreases the size of the pocket based on the size of the jacket, the pocket would become too large or too small for its intended purpose. In other words, changing the size of the pocket could/would alter the functionality of the pocket.

I also communicated with Ken Calder and he strongly disagrees with Chapman, Himel and DD. Per Ken, “pockets are always or should always be graded in size directly related to the jacket size.” While Ken is clearly stating Aero’s particular approach, I am not sure whether Ken is also stating that this is the way vintage jackets were made (varying pocket sizes). Given that the pockets on modern repros are rarely used for the originally intended purpose (e.g., people are not carrying guns or maps in their jackets), there is little concern about undermining the functionality of the pocket by changing the dimensions of the pocket. Therefore, if aesthetics trump functionality and unwavering accuracy, it arguably makes sense to change the pocket dimensions in relationship to the jacket size in order to maintain proportionality, notwithstanding the resulting deviation from the original/vintage jacket.

Based on the foregoing, I don’t think anyone is absolutely right or wrong. Rather, there are legitimate arguments supporting both camps.

Pocket location in relationship to jacket sizing is an entirely different issue. Per Chapman, the location of the pockets on certain vintage jackets remained fixed regardless of the size, but the location of pockets on other vintage jackets definitely changed based on the size of the jacket. As with pocket dimensions, Ken states that pocket location should change as the size changes.

IMHO, pocket location should change in relationship to jacket sizing. This is more important to me than changing the dimensions of a pocket. An oddly placed pocket is more unsettling to me than a pocket that has not been enlarged a quarter inch to account for a larger chest size.

.

 

[pawineguy]

Great thread and very interesting information. What would be helpful is if we had multiple members with the same jacket on opposite sides of the "size" spectrum so we can look at the pocket proportions.

 

[Monitor]

Great info & exactly the answer I expecting to hear. Well, at least what Chapman and Himel have said. Even ignoring the fact that messing with the dimensions of the D-pocket would've seriously compromise its functionality, there are two other important things that should be mentioned, provided we're talking about the Buco's here, of course; these jackets were mass produced so machinists didn't really have the freedom to worry about the visual balance of the jacket as they were working from a strict set of patters - and second, from what I've seen, the length of these jackets hasn't really been changing that much in regards to the size number, thus there was neither a need nor a possibility to mess with the size of D-pocket.
I've always thought that the D-pocket was designed to carry a specific set of items, be that a pack of cigarettes, a map, whatever, which is why changing the size of the thing wouldn't make much sense as these items would fit right no more.

So, there aren't really any camps here as the pocket simpy didn't change with size.

Sure, you can change the size of the pocket in relation to the size no. of the jacket now, if you want to - and nothing wrong with that, IMO, especially since people want their jackets to be much longer than they used to be - but if you're making a straight repro, leave it as it is.

 

[IXL]

Take, for example, the cigarette pocket. If the jacket manufacturers are supplying one, it's dimensions will not change just because the jacket's real estate bumps up. Of course it will seem to occupy more of the front panel on a size 36, as opposed to a size 56, but if the manufacturers are concerned only with holding cigarettes, and not some idea of aesthetics, many of them will simply allow the pocket to gain or lose prominence depending on jacket size.
Obviously, some of the repro makers are very concerned with looks in this regard, probably much more so than the original makers were.

 

[navetsea]

I personally think details like these should be flexible can be communicated with the client individually at that price point. Who cares about what the maker's personal belief, if the client wants slightly bigger or smaller pockets they should get what they want, it is just pockets, not problem at all resizing them... geez this is not war time and your $1000+ jacket is not a mass produced item.

 

[HPA Rep]

I fully agree with those who say the pocket size remains constant on military jackets from WWII - they do! And it is true that pocket placement can vary vis-à-vis size depending on the vintage contractor. But in the past, Eastman employed three different pocket sizes that corresponded to the jacket size, with slightly smaller pockets used on smaller sizes and slightly bigger pockets used on bigger sizes to balance the aesthetics. Now Eastman's pocket sizes are just one size to maintain as much authenticity as possible.

 

[Edward]

Customer spec is a nice idea, but bespoke options will always push the price upwards A fully bespoke jacket by the likes of Goodwear or Aero would have tobe orders of magnitude more expensive than one M2M. A lot will depend on wht you want; as has been said, if you're looking for an exact repro of a very specific jacke, then you'd want to be following what that did originally. If not, in theory for a civilian style I like Ken's approach: vary it so as to keep it in the same proportion across the size range. That said, I don't know how much it will need to vary in practice before the human eye actually notices it. To some extent the measurements won't be an issue if it still looks right. Working from set patterns, though, presumably the real work is done at the patterning stage anyhow.

 

[eugenesque]

It definitely makes sense for pocket sizes to vary unless the jacket is mass produced. Can't imagine that a 36 A2 would have the same pocket size as a 44 A2. I think it would look a bit weird and out of proportion.

 

[Monitor]

Just as long as you don't make it smaller.

 

[Edward]

It definitely makes sense for pocket sizes to vary unless the jacket is mass produced. Can't imagine that a 36 A2 would have the same pocket size as a 44 A2. I think it would look a bit weird and out of proportion.

What we have to remember, of course, is that backwhen the like of an A2 was first made, there wasn't much variation in siz, as the intended wearers were all young kids, with far from the sort of size variation you get in today's enthusiast market.

 

[A-1]

It's funny how we all want a customized jacket. However, the originals that we want are a repro from mass produced jackets. So what we're getting is a customized remake of a mass produced jacket.

 

[Guppy]

It's funny how we all want a customized jacket. However, the originals that we want a repro from are mass produced jackets. So what we're getting is a customized remake of a mass produced jacket.

Mass production varied over the years. It varied from maker to maker, and from contract to contract. These variations add up to hundreds if not thousands of variations, many of which didn't coexist in the same jacket, but could be combined into someone's dream jacket.

The mass production argument doesn't make much sense to me. They certainly were mass produced, but surely they were mass produced in quantity in all sizes. So it shouldn't have been any problem to mass produce pockets in various sizes, any more than to produce the other parts that vary with size.

What does make sense to me is that if the pocket was intended to hold a specific thing, like a pack of cigarettes, or a pocket watch, the size would remain constant. But pockets for hands or to fill a space in the jacket would vary with the size of the jacket.

What was actually done, I don't know. But that's what makes sense to me.

 

[Superfluous]

It's funny how we all want a customized jacket. However, the originals that we want a repro from are mass produced jackets. So what we're getting is a customized remake of a mass produced jacket.

So true. And, there is an ever-present tension between historical accuracy and aesthetic preferences. When, and to what extent, is it permissible to deviate from the original for aesthetic reasons, while still creating a legitimate "reproduction" of the original jacket? At what point are the deviations from the original so great that the new jacket is no longer a "reproduction" of the original, but rather, a unique contemporary jacket that merely borrows certain design elements from a vintage jacket?

Certain jacket manufacturers emphasize aesthetic considerations over historical accuracy, and will freely abandon or revise original design elements that are perceived as undesirable. Other jacket manufacturers exalt historical accuracy over aesthetics, and will retain design elements that are arguably aesthetically undesirable. Of course, there is a continuum, and most manufacturers fall somewhere in the middle. It is a delicate and subjective balance.

 

[Superfluous]

Ken made a really good point in an e-mail to me. The decision regarding whether to alter the pocket dimensions may also depend on the size of the original sample jacket created by the manufacturer. If the original sample jacket was a middle size -- e.g., 40 -- the pocket dimensions would translate easier to a size 36 or 44 without looking odd/disproportionate. Conversely, if the original sample jacket was a size 36, the pocket dimensions would not translate as well to a size 46 jacket because there is a greater disparity in the overall dimensions of the jacket. Aero creates all of its sample jackets in a size 38 -- because all of their design team wear a 38 -- and, therefore, according to Ken, the pocket dimensions of the sample jackets do not translate well to a size 46 jacket.

 

[Fanch]

It's funny how we all want a customized jacket. However, the originals that we want are a repro from mass produced jackets. So what we're getting is a customized remake of a mass produced jacket.

Craig, this has been a great thread, and I think A-1 hit the nail squarely in just a few choice words. I have found that I'm looking for something that is aesthetically pleasing that is not necessarily an exact duplication of an original that most likely would never have fit my stick like frame in the first place. Hence, my tendency is to support Kan Calder's point of view that “pockets are always or should always be graded in size directly related to the jacket size.” I suspect this would also pertain to location/placement too. I cannot comment on D pockets on a J-21 as my personal tastes veer in the direction of designs that are less busy and more basic and plain.

 

[Justhandguns]

When you think about it, it makes sense for tailors to cut the parts of the pockets with the same measurements, especially in mass manufacturing where you do not need to match your fabric (leathers). It at least saves time. It is also more relevant with pockets with zippers I guess. But, in the end, if it is a custom job and if altering the standard size would improve the look of the jacket, why not? I remember there are people complaining about the belt loop being sewed onto the D-pocket on the ELC Roadster with smaller sizes, it would probably look more pleasing if they do adjust the size to avoid that.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

What are the dimensions of an A-2 pocket?

 

[Big J]

It makes sense that military and police jackets have standard sized pockets since they are made for putting standard sized things in, not hands.
OTOH, civilian jackets might just as well have random pocket sizes since people have different size hands and civilians do put them in pockets.
Never worked out what the pockets on the MA-1 are for though. Nice and soft for hands though.

 

[zebedee]

I got my highwayman's pockets deepened and widened so I could carry an average paperback in them. They'll also fit an iPad. From the outside, it isn't obvious that anything is in the internal pockets.

J.

 

[navetsea]

some bigger size CR type jacket with a pair of breast pockets look weird with the pockets so far apart too close to the armpit, I think longer zip and centering the position so they keep the same look throughout different sizes would be better.