Vicenza leather in new Aero is inconsistent

[Big J]

@ the OP, I still really want to know if you contacted Aero about this, and what their reply was. I think that's kind of important.

@HPA Rep, since Buzz Rickson's Superior Togs B-10 repro comes with rust knits, and we know that Superior Togs only got one contract, do you think that putting rust knits on some of their B-10s might have been the reason that their contract wasn't renewed? Because they deviated from the contract specs? I could understand that the USAAF would accept jackets with non-spec color knits because there was a war on, and then not renew the contract. What do you think (and I appreciate that this is pure speculation).

 

[Worf]

Don't know from BR, don't own one. Don't think they make em in my size. As to the original posting, I've several jackets with slightly mismatched grain. I love it. Most of this is on the sleeves or interior so it's no biggy da. I do think I'd have a problem if the leather was inconsistent in its thickness however, particularly if it were a custom jobby at a custom price. Anything used or off the Bay, you get what you get.

Worf

 

[domaineminent]

@ the OP, I still really want to know if you contacted Aero about this, and what their reply was. I think that's kind of important.

I'm still debating whether to bother Aero about it. The more I think about it, the less I like that idea. My thoughts are that even the thinnest parts of the leather are still significantly thicker than any other leather jacket I've owned, the thin parts aren't thin to the point where it feels noticeably fragile. I've worn the jacket a lot since I got it several months ago, it's got some scratches on it and isn't really "like new" at this point. If I did contact them the only way they would really be able to determine if it's "too thin" is if I ship it off to them, and then I'd be stuck waiting on a replacement if that's the route they decided on and would possibly have to pay more since this jacket is already somewhat beat up, plus the whole waiting on it to be shipped back across the planet if they determine it's acceptable and won't replace it. It's just a lot of hassle, and the jacket fits me great and looks great even with the slight visual differences in the leather. I'm leaning towards a wait and see approach, if it starts showing a more noticeable difference as it breaks in further maybe I will just try to sell it and order a new jacket. I do think it's possible the thinner parts will thicken up as the jacket breaks in, and possibly the visual differences will become less apparent as the leather gets more beat up. I guess I found the input from people here more reassuring than anything else, I'm much less concerned than when I originally posted.

 

[tropicalbob]

I'm still debating whether to bother Aero about it. The more I think about it, the less I like that idea. My thoughts are that even the thinnest parts of the leather are still significantly thicker than any other leather jacket I've owned, the thin parts aren't thin to the point where it feels noticeably fragile. I've worn the jacket a lot since I got it several months ago, it's got some scratches on it and isn't really "like new" at this point. If I did contact them the only way they would really be able to determine if it's "too thin" is if I ship it off to them, and then I'd be stuck waiting on a replacement if that's the route they decided on and would possibly have to pay more since this jacket is already somewhat beat up, plus the whole waiting on it to be shipped back across the planet if they determine it's acceptable and won't replace it. It's just a lot of hassle, and the jacket fits me great and looks great even with the slight visual differences in the leather. I'm leaning towards a wait and see approach, if it starts showing a more noticeable difference as it breaks in further maybe I will just try to sell it and order a new jacket. I do think it's possible the thinner parts will thicken up as the jacket breaks in, and possibly the visual differences will become less apparent as the leather gets more beat up. I guess I found the input from people here more reassuring than anything else, I'm much less concerned than when I originally posted.

It sounds to me like you're dealing with the same thing I did when I first got my jacket (see earlier post). The larger piece on the back of ny LHB is grainier at the top than at the bottom, and at the time I thought it felt thinner and might rip. Seven years later I haven't had a problem. I think now that the piece at the top that I was concerned about might very well have been the skin on the beast's stomach. As I was just reading your comment above, it struck me that it sounded like the concerns I had. Like I say, though, seven years later and no problems.

 

[Monsoon]

@HPA Rep, since Buzz Rickson's Superior Togs B-10 repro comes with rust knits, and we know that Superior Togs only got one contract, do you think that putting rust knits on some of their B-10s might have been the reason that their contract wasn't renewed? Because they deviated from the contract specs? I could understand that the USAAF would accept jackets with non-spec color knits because there was a war on, and then not renew the contract. What do you think (and I appreciate that this is pure speculation).

I think I read it here or at VLJ (or maybe even somewhere else) that the Aero contract specified that a size tag was needed in the right hand pocket. So what did Aero do to make sure none were kicked back for a missing size tag? They put them in both pockets.

That's the one fact that makes me question mixed knits. Tho I have a BR with red knits that rocks.

 

[nick123]

I'm still debating whether to bother Aero about it. The more I think about it, the less I like that idea. My thoughts are that even the thinnest parts of the leather are still significantly thicker than any other leather jacket I've owned, the thin parts aren't thin to the point where it feels noticeably fragile. I've worn the jacket a lot since I got it several months ago, it's got some scratches on it and isn't really "like new" at this point. If I did contact them the only way they would really be able to determine if it's "too thin" is if I ship it off to them, and then I'd be stuck waiting on a replacement if that's the route they decided on and would possibly have to pay more since this jacket is already somewhat beat up, plus the whole waiting on it to be shipped back across the planet if they determine it's acceptable and won't replace it. It's just a lot of hassle, and the jacket fits me great and looks great even with the slight visual differences in the leather. I'm leaning towards a wait and see approach, if it starts showing a more noticeable difference as it breaks in further maybe I will just try to sell it and order a new jacket. I do think it's possible the thinner parts will thicken up as the jacket breaks in, and possibly the visual differences will become less apparent as the leather gets more beat up. I guess I found the input from people here more reassuring than anything else, I'm much less concerned than when I originally posted.

Truly I wouldn’t worry. Your leather is tough. If you want more reassurance, I had a nearly new goatskin jacket via Johnson leathers. Thin to the touch, 2.5oz goat, A-2 weight. What did I do? Took what appeared to be a chunk out of it with lit ash from a careless cigarette. I actually drove about an hour north at the time to see Alan in San Francisco. When I showed him, he kind of chuckled at my worry. Put some resin stuff to heal the wound but it was probably to heal my anxiety. I was a nervous wreck. Alan couldn’t help me with my underlying anxiety...that was for my shrink(s) and whatever licensed pharmaceutical company to snuff out.

It was my entrance into the mantra that good or even decent leather is pretty darn durable. Years later, I don’t think the resin is still there, but the jacket has yet to fall apart! I know it was goatskin, but I highly doubt you have anything to worry about with good Aero leather. Even if the top surface is completely gone in places, which yours isn’t, there is still a good deal of strength left. The likelihood of some tribal warrior aiming his poison arrow at your underarm seams are slim to none.

 

[Big J]

@domaineminent, thanks for your reply (^_^)b
I think you're right. I agree with nick123. I've got this really beat up 60's G-1 with huge areas of top surface missing on the shoulders, elbows and places, but still totally strong enough for every day wear. Looks rough though, but cool.

@nick123, I don't know dude. Those hill tribes in Laos looked like they could have chopped me up and eaten me (°_°)

 

[nick123]

@domaineminent, thanks for your reply (^_^)b
I think you're right. I agree with nick123. I've got this really beat up 60's G-1 with huge areas of top surface missing on the shoulders, elbows and places, but still totally strong enough for every day wear. Looks rough though, but cool.

@nick123, I don't know dude. Those hill tribes in Laos looked like they could have chopped me up and eaten me (°_°)

Didn’t mean to go there.

 

[TREEMAN]

Didn’t mean to go there.

We all know that.............no worries

 

[Brunel]

I'm still debating whether to bother Aero about it. The more I think about it, the less I like that idea. My thoughts are that even the thinnest parts of the leather are still significantly thicker than any other leather jacket I've owned, the thin parts aren't thin to the point where it feels noticeably fragile. I've worn the jacket a lot since I got it several months ago, it's got some scratches on it and isn't really "like new" at this point. If I did contact them the only way they would really be able to determine if it's "too thin" is if I ship it off to them, and then I'd be stuck waiting on a replacement if that's the route they decided on and would possibly have to pay more since this jacket is already somewhat beat up, plus the whole waiting on it to be shipped back across the planet if they determine it's acceptable and won't replace it. It's just a lot of hassle, and the jacket fits me great and looks great even with the slight visual differences in the leather. I'm leaning towards a wait and see approach, if it starts showing a more noticeable difference as it breaks in further maybe I will just try to sell it and order a new jacket. I do think it's possible the thinner parts will thicken up as the jacket breaks in, and possibly the visual differences will become less apparent as the leather gets more beat up. I guess I found the input from people here more reassuring than anything else, I'm much less concerned than when I originally posted.

It’s a shame that, 6 pages in, this thread (with the title, that implies fault) is still running without you having contacted the manufacturer. I’d say that’s bad form on your part

 

[HPA Rep]

@ the OP, I still really want to know if you contacted Aero about this, and what their reply was. I think that's kind of important.

@HPA Rep, since Buzz Rickson's Superior Togs B-10 repro comes with rust knits, and we know that Superior Togs only got one contract, do you think that putting rust knits on some of their B-10s might have been the reason that their contract wasn't renewed? Because they deviated from the contract specs? I could understand that the USAAF would accept jackets with non-spec color knits because there was a war on, and then not renew the contract. What do you think (and I appreciate that this is pure speculation).

Hey, Big J! Sorry to be so slow to reply, but my right hand has been splinted up from carpal tunnel syndrome for nearly 3 weeks (no surgery, let's hope) and I'm now typing with just my left, which is in addition to working on a new feature film as the key military apparel technical advisor to the costume designer, thus my time must be managed more than ever since I'm moving like motor oil at Stalingrad.

While a contract could not be awarded for any number of valid or petty or political reasons that includes poor workmanship, interminable delays, not playing nicely with others or failing to make a bribery payment, the knit was supplied by separate contract award made by the AC Materiel Command and the civilian contractor.

Please think of this old "arsenal" system as one where all parts are purchased by the AC in separate contracts, most destined toward production of a finished item by another contractor. The AC could have possession of the parts and ship to the contractor making the jacket or, more often than not, direct the varied contractors making the parts to ship, say, 10, 000 knit sets to Superior Togs, 20, 000 to Metro, 50, 000 to Rough Wear, and so on.

I have seen enough of these directives for shipping in my life to believe all of the shipments were luck of the draw as to where they ended up. There's correspondence among AC bureaucrats where we see them talking about 10, 000 skins just completed from Greenbaum Tannery and that X number should be sent to J. A. Dubow and another amount to Perry Sportswear, or Fox Chase Knitting Mills should send some number of knit sets to Stagg Coat Co. and another amount to Eddie Bauer (most likely for the B-9 Hooded Jacket).

Clearly, if the AC was livid over odd-colored knit parts, their wrath would have been taken out on the maker of the parts, and maybe those inspecting and approving the parts, though it's not very plausible that the inspectors wouldn't have brought such an anomaly to the attention of superiors for their feedback and approval. It's my educated opinion that the odd-colored knit and natural-colored sheepskin collars for B-10's were both known to the AC and sanctioned for production, though I find the natural-colored sheepskin to be far less of an issue.

I should also note that I have some substantial question about just how odd in color the reddish knit really was at the time of production. Over my lifetime of being a collector nerd par excellance, I've seen knit parts removed from A-2's and indeed the reddish color was present even inside the lining where this knit had not seen the light of day since it was made; this tends to be the red knit that is more orange-red or carrot-like, as some call it. But I have also seen reddish knit that was dark brown inside the lining and even on the inside that would be next to your body, while the outer area exposed to more sunlight was just starting to become the darker red, with some lesser amount of dye shift on the lower inside area of the cuffs and waistband. This knit was absolutely dark brown where little or no sunlight had been in contact, though it was not a true brown and displayed some mild burgundy characteristics, but absolutely brown by any reasonable measure.

While sourcing rayon lining fabric for Eastman in 1994 for their M-422A released in 1995, I visited a now-defunct supplier in my area that had bolts and bolts of fabric in their warehouse and I found what was a real gem of a match to the sort of salmon-red used on some M-422A linings. I inquired about this fabric, only to be told it wasn't for me because it was actually blue and had changed color due to sunlight via the large window next to the shelf it was on; sure enough, only about a foot of the roll was the right color and the bulk of it was indeed blue.

Based on the above anecdote and what I have witnessed on so many vintage garments, it definitely seems exposure to sunlight has altered the original color on some of the knit in a significant way. One vintage Aero A-2 I own is the one I reference that shows just the early beginning of the knit being turned a darker red and this A-2 is in near-new condition and was pulled out of the same trunk it lived in for over 50 years, so whatever dye shift took place had to have happened in its original life during or immediately after the war, and there also exists color photos taken in WWII where we clearly can see the reddish knit.

It is with all of this in mind that I wonder if the knit that seemingly was reddish at the time of jacket assembly may have indeed not been a true brown when made, having some amount of red tones, and then enough sunlight found this knit, say, in a warehouse with large windows or skylights, and, subsequently, the knit's color was altered prior to assembly as a completed jacket.

I can only report what I have seen and I am not an expert on vintage textile dyes and attendant reactions to sunlight, but there is enough evidence that allows logic and reason to follow that at least some reddish knit was not reddish when it began life because this is precisely what I have seen. It would be great to find some archival references to the knit color changing, but that has not yet been seen by me, unlike direct references to poor-quality sheepskin being a problem, criminal profiteering by contractors, and cotton zipper tape rotting in humid storage conditions.

Food for thought ...

 

[tropicalbob]

I hope you don't have a problem with your left hand now.

 

[Big J]

Hi Charles.
No need to apologize. I hope you recover, and always glad to hear that business is keeping you busy.
Thank you for your interesting and informative reply. It certainly seems entirely plausible and reasonable. I did some research into the kimono industry about 15 years ago, and one of the main themes that came out was that younger generations actually have very little appreciation of textile manufacture nor care. It used to be the case that they were all spun, woven, dyed cut and stitched by hand using vegetable derived dyes.
When the 'bubble-era' ended there was a sudden drive to reduce costs that led to the use of cheaper chemical synthetic dyes, machine weaving, etc, eventually ending with kimono manufacturer being largely hollowed-out to other Asian countries.
This has not only led to almost the total loss of the domestic manufacturing industry and associated skill sets (as many other industries back home have seen in recent decades), but (and I feel more crucially) a loss of the genuine understanding and appreciation for the kimono here in Japan. People under the age of 40 have probably never owned a real domestic kimono produced to traditional standards, and wouldn't know how to care for it and store it correctly; how to protect it from damp, mold and UV damage.
The point I'm trying to make it that it's a situation analogous to WWII flight jacket technology. A lot of that technological know-how is gone now, replaced by cheaper and faster techniques, and with its passing, appreciation and understanding of it is a mystery to today's generation, leaving them only to speculate and make false assumptions based on their limited experiences.
I was reading the other day about how a set of blueprints for a steam train were found in a dumpster in London, and it took enthusiasts something like 20 years to learn the lost skills required to reproduce the steam locomotive by traditional methods. It kind of reminded me how 70 years ago there were thousands of teenagers who know how to rebuild a Spitfire engine, but these days it's the specialty of a handful of old artisans. Lost technology.

 

[HPA Rep]

I hope you don't have a problem with your left hand now.

Thank you, tropicalbob. I try to not even think about that possibility. I would like to check out some speech-to-type software just to lighten the load on my wrists.

Anyone have any experience with speech software that's good?

 

[HPA Rep]

Hi Charles.
No need to apologize. I hope you recover, and always glad to hear that business is keeping you busy.
Thank you for your interesting and informative reply. It certainly seems entirely plausible and reasonable. I did some research into the kimono industry about 15 years ago, and one of the main themes that came out was that younger generations actually have very little appreciation of textile manufacture nor care. It used to be the case that they were all spun, woven, dyed cut and stitched by hand using vegetable derived dyes.
When the 'bubble-era' ended there was a sudden drive to reduce costs that led to the use of cheaper chemical synthetic dyes, machine weaving, etc, eventually ending with kimono manufacturer being largely hollowed-out to other Asian countries.
This has not only led to almost the total loss of the domestic manufacturing industry and associated skill sets (as many other industries back home have seen in recent decades), but (and I feel more crucially) a loss of the genuine understanding and appreciation for the kimono here in Japan. People under the age of 40 have probably never owned a real domestic kimono produced to traditional standards, and wouldn't know how to care for it and store it correctly; how to protect it from damp, mold and UV damage.
The point I'm trying to make it that it's a situation analogous to WWII flight jacket technology. A lot of that technological know-how is gone now, replaced by cheaper and faster techniques, and with its passing, appreciation and understanding of it is a mystery to today's generation, leaving them only to speculate and make false assumptions based on their limited experiences.
I was reading the other day about how a set of blueprints for a steam train were found in a dumpster in London, and it took enthusiasts something like 20 years to learn the lost skills required to reproduce the steam locomotive by traditional methods. It kind of reminded me how 70 years ago there were thousands of teenagers who know how to rebuild a Spitfire engine, but these days it's the specialty of a handful of old artisans. Lost technology.

Thank you, Big J. I fully relate to what you have said. Toyo Enterprises had the same problem with the learning curve when it came to making denim for their Sugar Cane brand. It's one thing to have the correct looms and sewing machines and dyes, and yet another to know how to bring it all together to craft a product that is frighteningly close to the vintage examples. Sugar Cane spent 12 years in R&D and learning how to use their vintage shuttle looms before they had denim that was worthy in the Japanese obsessive sense of being worthy. That's a whole lot of time and money not making money invested in making goods before you get to sell one denim article. Most or all western companies just lack that sort of passion and drive and simply cannot justify it in both short an longterm investment.

And what you said about generational losses in understanding and appreciation and making false assumptions is something I again see, with false assumptions leading the way daily.

I have an extremely large collection of WWII artifacts. Spawned by the many souvenirs my dad brought home, my collection includes a significant amount of German WWII items and German WWII items are the single-most forged of any WWII collector category, dating back to shortly after the Third Reich surrendered in 1945. If you want to swim in these shark-infested waters and collect this sort of stuff, you'd better have an extremely good eye for the slightest nuances in detail, be able to think logically, have some understanding of production and engineering, and be willing and open to learning all of the time. And with all the years in that I have now, I must say that the intellectual challenge is very often as fulfilling as any acquisition.

When it comes to textile manufacturing for these items in their forged form today, many, many collectors fail to grasp that, say, the looms used to weave a cap badge are totally different from 1945 and that these new looms just cannot successfully handle rayon and cotton. Today, technology has, of course, gone the course of what is fastest and cheapest, and speedy plastic fibers readily slipping through the mechanisms at high speed do not yield the same results as natural fibers will when chugging along on old looms. Furthermore, since the forged insignia is not starting out necessarily as a forgery by the manufacturer today (even though it is the desire of the buyer and probably known by the manufacturer), the project is about as much accuracy as possible while still being really cheap to justify cranking out a large quantity.

Insignia made on new looms from plastic fibers just does not look and feel the same as the vintage insignia no matter how much collectors think it does. If you don't have the previously mentioned requisite experience and skills, then one likely will not detect differences between vintage and fake. The same is true for cotton or woolen fabrics to make uniforms. And if you just want to make false assumptions that there is no telling the difference, then you'll spook yourself and many fellow collectors into a "boogey man" myth much as the Allied troops did in WWII fighting the Germans, where every gun was an Eighty-Eight and every tank a Tiger.

Even when using old shuttle looms and natural fibers, there's still a difference between what was mass produced in 1944 and made in small quantities today. And if one cannot see or feel the difference with the naked eye and fingers, there is one detecting tool that I have never seen fail when studying vintage and forged fibers and that is magnification; when fibers are seen under magnification, the differences speak for themselves.

You can getter a better gist of the entire subject from a response piece I wrote for a page on Facebook dedicated to German WWII collectibles below:

There are vintage looms today still operating, though these are scarce, require large production runs, and also great knowledge in the correct way to calibrate the machinery. However, even when using the correct looms and raw fibers, there is still a difference between what was commonly available in 1944 and today. Things evolve over time, even short spans of time, and we see differences even in the sheep's wool found today vs. 1944: what was commonly found respective of wool density in 1944 is very uncommon today.

It is not enough to use vintage machinery and 100% wool because many variables present in 1944 are not present today, which is especially true for Germany due to the various blended fibers added to wool at the time and the dye processes, and even what errant particles (horse hair, saw dust, etc.) happened to get drawn into the milling process. Just as we see differences in German goods from 1939 vs. 1944, such differences will be even more pronounced 70 years later even when the same machinery and fibers are sourced: these elements all exist just for a brief period of time, then there is evolution that cannot be repeated. Where was Germany getting wool from in 1944? Was the wool the same at Dachau's work camp vs. some factory in Stuttgart? What types of sheep were used? How was the wool harvested? What did those sheep eat and drink? What was the oxygen like and what minerals were in the soil? If you drink a bottle of the same type and brand of Chardonnay produced in identical form from 1995 and 2000, does it taste the same? NO!

I spend a lot of time looking and working with textiles in my business, where we do employ vintage looms trying to get as precise as possible to vintage fabrics, and the results are excellent, but they are also detectable if you know what to look for. I have seen gabardine wool produced that would fool 95% or more of collectors, but the most observant will not be fooled, and observation under magnification always yields telltale results. There is also tactile observation, whereby I maintain I can detect original fabric by touch with my fingertips or, even better, my lips; lips are extremely sensitive to the slightest nuances. And dyes are very different today vs. 1944 and the fabrics will react differently in the laundry and in the sun.

Textiles from any era exist only in a time capsule relative to that era and then they are gone forever. Learn the slightest nuances in the extreme from known original examples and use every tool at your disposal and you will be able to detect any repro fabrics.