The Type A2 Flight Jacket Identification Manual

[aswatland]

Don't forget this cost was only for production, not for the cost of the leather, hardwear, knits and lining which was paid for separately by the War Dept..

 

[Aerojoe]

What collection is bigger, Andrew? Yours or Gary's?

 

[aswatland]

Gary's without a doubt.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

In 1943, the fixed price of gold was $33.85. Today's price is 50X greater. In gold-adjusted terms, therefore, the wholesale price to produce an A-2 was $400, which is probably more in line with reality and goes to show just how much government statistics understate inflation. Add in the materials, you get a price close to what is charged today for a horsehide jacket.

 

[Dr H]

Andrew, presumably the book contains a SAT? If so, does it belong to Gary?

 

[pilot error]

Does anyone know what percentage of original A-2's were goatskin?

 

[2jakes]

Pict. Hist.of Flying Tigers- Larry M.Pistole (excerpt)

'' Sold Jack Croft my leather jacket & a pair of flight gloves.
Wish I had brought along several jackets and pairs of gloves.
Nobody seems to have any, and it's impossible to secure them."
Robert B. Keaton
Flt. Ldr., 2nd Sq.
Diary, 11/22/'41

" A leather jacket costs about $360.00 over here."
Francis Doran
Clerk, H.Q.
Letter, 11/1941


This excerpt from the crew of the "Flying Tigers".
I'm not to keen on the math here…but based on this information
that these men provided…isn't this a bit too high for the times &
how much money would it amount to today ? Thanks.

 

[Dr H]

Perhaps they were charging VAT... ;-)

 

[deluxestyling]

An interesting Eastman write up in the Gent's Gazette...

http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/eastman-leather-clothing-type-a-2-flight-jacket-review/

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes indeed. Can you say "war profiteering"? Everyone was at it, of course, and still are … Government contracts are very, very lucrative.

Given that a civilian version at the time was retailing at around the $7.50-$12.50 mark, maximum, it is impossible that it cost these numbers to produce a jacket (I'd say approximately half of the numbers quoted by Andrew above would be accurate). Otherwise the manufacturer would be making a loss, which is impossible. Now, of course, the manufacturers would have to add an amount to cover the losses of turning their factories over to wartime production and the consequent loss of civilian trade, but the numbers seem awfully high (i.e. profiteering).

In 1943, the fixed price of gold was $33.85. Today's price is 50X greater. In gold-adjusted terms, therefore, the wholesale price to produce an A-2 was $400]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Ha! Do you really believe the opinions of those recalcitrant collectors will be swayed by conclusive empirical evidence? I suspect not …

I'm always amazed that DNA survives the tanning processes. I work with the stuff every day, so I know it's very robust, but I didn't think it was that[/] robust.

I hope to afford one of these in the New Year. Interesting the steerhide rumour has now been confirmed.

Steer was used extensively by several Wartime contractors, which is what I had suspected for years. With this book we now have the proof.

 

[majormajor]

Ordered mine this morning!

 

[Aerojoe]

In 1943, the fixed price of gold was $33.85. Today's price is 50X greater. In gold-adjusted terms, therefore, the wholesale price to produce an A-2 was $400

This is a common wrong assumption here on TFL. There is no way you can compare *in gold* the monetary system before 1946 and the current one. These are two different things. The former was a gold standard monetary system, the latter is a confidence international monetary system and in between, there was the Bretton-Woods system.

Right now, gold is not a currency any longer. It is treated like a commodity and it happens to be a refuge against currency debasement. Current gold is a commodity on steroids that can't be used to explain the value of goods in a pre-1946 environment.

 

[majormajor]

The former was a gold standard monetary system, the latter is a confidence international monetary system and in between, there was the Bretton-Woods system.

Bretton Woods??

I only ever bought one of his records........:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

[video=youtube;K9vrb27Bdeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9vrb27Bdeo[/video]

 

[Dr H]

Baron, if you apply PCR to amplify the sequences then you don't that much DNA (assuming tanning degrades it significantly).

 

[aswatland]

Andrew, presumably the book contains a SAT? If so, does it belong to Gary?

Yes it does. He bought it in around 1983. It was been relined and re-dyed in seal brown in a USAAF depot.

 

[aswatland]

Yes indeed. Can you say "war profiteering"? Everyone was at it, of course, and still are … Government contracts are very, very lucrative.

Given that a civilian version at the time was retailing at around the $7.50-$12.50 mark, maximum, it is impossible that it cost these numbers to produce a jacket (I'd say approximately half of the numbers quoted by Andrew above would be accurate). Otherwise the manufacturer would be making a loss, which is impossible. Now, of course, the manufacturers would have to add an amount to cover the losses of turning their factories over to wartime production and the consequent loss of civilian trade, but the numbers seem awfully high (i.e. profiteering).

Pete the figures quoted from Gary's book are only for making the jacket. The leather, lining, knits and hardware were procured by government agents on behalf of the War Department and if you factor in the costs here a jacket would have cost much more than around $8 to manufacture.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes (that's what I do!), but you still need enough for the polymerase to amplify anything in a reasonable number of cycles (i.e. to have confidence you're amplifying what you think you are) - in my experience, once DNA's started to degrade, it's toast. I had always imagined some of the nasties they use in tanning would destroy any DNA present.

Baron, if you apply PCR to amplify the sequences then you don't that much DNA (assuming tanning degrades it significantly).

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It certainly would have cost the government much more than that, yes. But clearly the manufacturers could do it - and did do it for the civilian market - much, much cheaper. If a jacket cost $12.50 for the consumer (a typical price), and the retailer's gotta have his profit and the manufacturer's gotta have his profit (there's probably a wholesaler taking some profit, too), and the government takes his cut of taxes, then the total cost of manufacture - including all the material and trimmings - is much less than the $12.50 cost to the consumer. Therefore the government (the consumer) was being ripped off royally paying $8 or so, just for making the jacket up. I assume they would also be getting scalped by the tanners, the makers of trimmings, etc.

Pete the figures quoted from Gary's book are only for making the jacket. The leather, lining, knits and hardware were procured by government agents on behalf of the War Department and if you factor in the costs here a jacket would have cost much more than around $8 to manufacture.

 

[aswatland]

Hefty profits were made by all the parties who supplied materials to make the jackets as well as the makers themselves. No wonder so many firms were eager to bid for A2 contracts and many were disappointed.