The Flat Head vs The Real McCoy's: which jacket to choose?

[racepunter]

Hello, guys.

I am a new member here and so do not know enough about HH jackets. Now I would like to buy my 1st HH jacket and I am faced with a choice of which jacket to buy from the two below:

1. Joe McCoy Nelson 30’s Sport Jacket.

2. The Flat Head Single Rider's Jacket.

Please do not recommend other jackets to me, as I only want to choose from these two ones. The price for such jacket is not important for me as well.

As I already know, the both jackets are made from Shinki. The only difference that I see is in finishing: the jacket from RMC has pigment finishing but the jacket form TFH has semi-aniline. Each finishing method has its + and -. Or am I mistaken?

I am sure that most of you know much more differences between these jackets and can advice me the right one.

I am not a biker and would like to use such jacket for city ware only.

I will appreciate all your suggestions. Just tell me what you would choose if you have to buy one of the above jackets.

 

[BloodEagle]

Out of the two I would be inclined to go for the RmC 30's Sport Jacket - I dont know whether this is still the case but Flat Head stuff I have had in the past all seemed to be out of proportion wide in the shoulders for the actual jacket size, if that makes any sense - I dont know whether this has changed since their relaunch of whatever you want to call it. The examples of the 30s Sports Jackets I have seen look fantastic - if I was going to spend yet more money on jackets this would be the one I would go for next

 

[Monitor]

Simple; Buy one that you like more. There aren't any cons and pros at this level.

 

[Bfd70]

Depending on your location I’d consider ordering both and returning 1. Numbers don’t always tell the story and that’s some pretty deep $ water.

 

[Jin431]

The flat head jacket seem to have a longer body length for this type of jacket and the RMC jacket looks just right

 

[racepunter]

Depending on your location I’d consider ordering both and returning 1. Numbers don’t always tell the story and that’s some pretty deep $ water.

I am now in the EU, so I cannot order the both from UK. If I have to return one of the jacket, I will loose the money that I should pay for Custom Duties.

 

[racepunter]

Flat Head stuff I have had in the past all seemed to be out of proportion wide in the shoulders for the actual jacket size

The shoulders for 40-L size is 19.25. I asked the guy from London shop to check it. He confirmed that the actual shoulders size was the same.

 

[racepunter]

Simple; Buy one that you like more. There aren't any cons and pros at this level.

I think that the leather on TFH is better because it is additionally oiled. And semi-aniline finishing is more attaractive than pigment one.

 

[racepunter]

The flat head jacket seem to have a longer body length for this type of jacket and the RMC jacket looks just right

If we look here, the jacket does not looks long.

 

[BloodEagle]

The shoulders for 40-L size is 19.25. I asked the guy from London shop to check it. He confirmed that the actual shoulders size was the same.

19.25" shoulders on a size 40 jacket of this type is pretty big

 

[Monitor]

I think that the leather on TFH is better because it is additionally oiled. And semi-aniline finishing is more attaractive than pigment one.

There you have it. All you're going to hear is a truckload of subjective - Though nonetheless valid - preferences. Those are both top shelf jacket, you can't go wrong, one way or the other.

To put my two cents in, 25.75" back seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[racepunter]

19.25" shoulders on a size 40 jacket of this type is pretty big

I think you're right because Joe McCoy's Nelson has 18.50 for size 40.

 

[ton312]

I like the RMC better. The collar alone looks better balanced. I also think TFH main zip looks cheap, don't care for the branding. Not to poo poo the Japanese repros (or any repro for that matter) but I just have to laugh at the price point for these jackets. They cost 10 times an original vintage piece but look 10 times worse.

 

[TREEMAN]

Honestly I don't really see anything great or special about either one of them.....

 

[Marc mndt]

I also think TFH main zip looks cheap, don't care for the branding.

I just have to laugh at the price point for these jackets.

Zipper pull looks very cheap indeed. I also see an empty stitch hole and a wonky collar. And look at those stitch holes in general, looks like they used a thick needle. What makes this a €2450 jacket? I don't see it. At this price point I'd expect nothing but perfection.

 

[racepunter]

Here TFH jacket was sold and it looked very well in used condition.

 

[Marc mndt]

Here TFH jacket was sold and it looked very well in used condition.

From the same listing. Sloppy French seam. This might not be important for most people. But if it's not construction quality, what exactly are you paying for then?

 

[Monitor]

Yeah, I too saw some lousily made Flat Heads but I didn't know it's such a common occurrence. Then again, RMC has been known to do shoddy work, too.

 

[Rgcards]

I own both. I like TFH better because of the fit, I am al ittle broader and I think it looks better on me. The leather is a little grainier, but they both have nice leather. Honestly I dont look at stitch lines that carefully , the construction is fine on both to me. I would say it depends on your body type. The more tapered you are the more you will like the flat head. If you are a thinner guy the RMC is probably more your cup of tea . They are both nice, and both over priced, If you want the best bargain get a vanson or a higher level schott. People don't consider jackets like this based on value, if you think there is a justification for the price other than exclusivity an rareness you are wrong. You pay because you like the way it makes you feel.

 

[racepunter]

Maybe it really isn't worth paying that much money for one of these jackets, but buying something like this?

Although as far as I already know, SB is not respected by most of the users of this forum.