Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,425 profile views
  1. The forum admins put in an autocorrect feature since so many people were incorrectly saying “p r o v i d e n c e” when they were meaning “provenance”.
  2. It wasn't uncommon for soldiers to be issued new sets of uniforms while deployed. Consequently, a fresh set wouldn't show the signs of a flag being moved down to make room for the FWTS patch. Not all uniforms were set up with theatre-made patches/badges. There is nothing incorrect about this uniform. I had an 82nd Airborne jacket almost exactly like this one from a different soldier (the exact same badges even!). I actually found a picture of the vet wearing the jacket in Iraq taken during a Christmas dinner. At the time he didn't have a CIB on the jacket, but the jacket did end up with a US made CIB and FTWS patch by the time it got to me. Exactly like yours. I always like it when the FWTS and combat-related badges (CIB/CAB/CMB) on DCUs are theatre-made, but realistically that is not always the case.
  3. Yes, by the late 70s the DSA became the DLA, so the reference to DSA On the tag dates this to 1977 or before. Here is another DPSC manufactured jacket (the “mosquito resistant” variant), referenced in another thread here at USMF and with solid provenance that it was a test garment. It is also discussed at this website: http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=687
  4. DPSC had it's own clothing factory and was able to produce small runs of uniforms as required. As a member mentioned above, this is why these don't have the typical contract numbers with the fiscal year as part of the contract number, as they were not procured by the DPSC, but were actually manufactured by the DPSC. The "Defense Industry Bulletin" from August, 1969 states: "DPSC also operates a clothing factory which manufactures orders normally too small for industry contractors, pilot models for research and development, and special measurement garments." The DPSC's clothing factory appears to have been closed in 1993 after it was used to produce desert uniforms to fill the shortage that occurred during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. It's very possible that these 50/50 rayon/cotton uniforms are experimental/test garments produced so the military could evaluate different fabrics for the jungle uniforms.
  5. There had to have been a reason for the change to 50/50 cotton/rayon. Also, why produce a jungle uniform from non-ripstop fabric in 1971, several years after the ripstop material was the standard? Weird uniform. I wonder how many were produced like this under this DPSC contract?
  6. Mild soap, water, and a soft bristle brush. Clean gently and afterwards store properly. It has lasted almost 80 years even with the neglect. It will last much much longer. No need to use chemical cleaners that may damage the artifact. The worst thing that could be done is aggressive mechanical or chemical removal of the oxidation/corrosion, which could damage the tags themselves.
  7. Watching it now. Just crazy...
  8. They've used names stamped onto the backs for much more than just WW2:
  9. Found the pics of the P44 camo set I used to have with the stamped laundry marks. Again, judging by other items from the same vet, he likely served during the 1950s. Collar of P44 jacket:
  10. Heres a pic from the collar of a 1960s USN flight suit used by a USMC vet that served in Vietnam circa 1964. Laundry number was verified to be from the vet. I also had several sets of P44 camo from another USMC vet that were likely used during the 1950s and had the exact same type of stamp. P44s were used quite a bit by USMC personnel throughout the 1950s, and these stamped laundry markings are definitely something seen on uniform items like this from that era.
  11. The stamped number is 100% fine and commonly encountered on USMC items from the 1950s and 1960s.
  12. This DCU is configured like the ones used in the 173rd's OEF deployment to Afghanistan in 2005. Consequently, for this to have belonged to a vet that performed the combat jump in Vietnam in 1967, he would have to have at LEAST 38 years of service and be in his late 50s. Just doesn't seem likely. More likely he served in a unit that jumped into Panama, or was in on the 2003 jump with the 173rd. The jacket is kinda odd... it looks to be an older non-ripstop version made from the heavier fabric like used with the DBDUs. It also looks like it still has loose threads from where the lower pockets were removed. If this one is legit, it was likely rarely worn. All of the legit DCUs I've seen from this deployment were the lighter weight ripstop versions, which would have been readily available by 2005. Don't get too hung up on mismatched sewing on the patches/badges, especially in cases where combat badges/patches could have been added. I've seen many examples of 100% legit DCUs with mismatched stitching on the name/branch tapes and badges, and even some different stitching for the FWTS patch and combat-related badges earned while still on deployment. Personally, I'd be skeptical of this one. But if it was cheap and came from a good source (surplus store, garage sale, etc.) it would be worth looking into.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.