USN Denims (WWII)

[29navy]

Possibly. Maybe they ran out of the plastic buttons and used these as a substitute.  

[jerry_k]

The same like USN N-3 pants, some of them have a plastic buttons, some metal

 

Thanks for your insight,

Jerry

[schk]

Like most ww2 garments the usage of plastic or metal buttons wasn’t contract specific but was what was on hand. This applied to the n3 hbt and also the denim pants

 

Regarding the confusion with the slash pockets being the early model I chalk that up to the vintage clothing guys who don’t do any research. That incorrect info gets passed around ad nauseum

 

the other reason for the confusion is because in the 50s the pattern reverted to a patch pocket version (although still wildly different from the earlier ww2 patch pocket variation) so people think the patch one is later

 

What most fail to notice are other very unique details to the construction of the denim pants jerry highlighted in the 1941 regs.  There is no outseam (ie the entire pant leg is made of one piece of fabric wrapped around versus having 2 felled seams on the inseam and outseam)

Also the primary patch pocket is almost on the side of the pants and then super close to the rear pocket. See attached photo (only photo I could find on my phone quickly). These pants also had metal or plastic buttons

 

 

 

[dmar836]

Agree about the denim guys. Forgetting about the slash pockets for a minute there are still many period photos of trousers WITH side seams(outer). This pic from the first page comes to mind.

Clearly there were patch pocket variations. Many of the early regs also state one hip pocket but find that one! The large rear pockets seam to be common as well rather than the little jeans style pockets so common later. There were some variations for sure.

[schk]

Have you actually owned or seen USN denim pants with the contract intact with the side seam as the 2nd guy appears to be wearing? The issue with the military is that there are always exceptions to the rule and guys can be wearing commercial or PX style garments.

 

There's no way to rule out that those weren't PX or commercial made garment.  You would be surprised of all the oddball PX style pieces that actually exist.  At the same time, with military stuff, there are also the same exceptions. 

 

I'm not saying military issued USN pants never existed with the outseam in that pattern, but with the hundreds of pairs of denim I've handled over the year, I've never seen one with the seam like that.  From that photo, he seems to have a larger waist compared to all the other guys, so my only guess would be they may have had different construction for larger sized waists.  In addition, the photo is obviously blurry, so it seems the 2nd guy could simply have fade marks from the pocket bag as you can't clearly make out patch pocket seams.  His arm is of course covering where you would want to see where the slash pocket ends.

 

 

[jerry_k]

Thanks for your insight SCHK! I agree in all! 

 

Take care,

Jerry

[sigsaye]

This is really an interesting conversation. First off, I never knew about the “Bag Pocket dungarees. (Learned about them a few years ago).   First saw them in that series of books about Navy Uniforms. At that time, I would sit with my dad and uncle and talk about the photos of standard Ship board Sailor uniforms. My uncle enlisted in 1939, retired in 1960. My dad enlisted in 1947, retired in 1967. Neither recalled “Bag pocket” dungarees. They remembered the different shaped patch pockets, but couldn’t remember “Bag Pockets”. I wonder if that wasn’t a “Short rum”. Bag pockets are so much more complicated and time consuming to make than just stitching on patch pockets. 
 

also, my dad didn’t recall “Private Purchase/NEX commercial dungarees, until the late 1960s, and then only from shops out in town. He never thought they were worth it, as dungarees had such a short lifespan aboard ship, the issue ones from “Small Stores” were just more practical. Just recollections of old Sailors. 

[sigsaye]

Just now, sigsaye said:

This is really an interesting conversation. First off, I never knew about the “Bag Pocket dungarees. (Learned about them a few years ago).   First saw them in that series of books about Navy Uniforms. At that time, I would sit with my dad and uncle and talk about the photos of standard Ship board Sailor uniforms. My uncle enlisted in 1939, retired in 1960. My dad enlisted in 1947, retired in 1967. Neither recalled “Bag pocket” dungarees. They remembered the different shaped patch pockets, but couldn’t remember “Bag Pockets”. I wonder if that wasn’t a “Short rum”. Bag pockets are so much more complicated and time consuming to make than just stitching on patch pockets. 
 

also, my dad didn’t recall “Private Purchase/NEX commercial dungarees, until the late 1960s, and then only from shops out in town. He never thought they were worth it, as dungarees had such a short lifespan aboard ship, the issue ones from “Small Stores” were just more practical. Just recollections of old Sailors. 

These are photos of my dad. They range from 1947-1952, Thales aboard USS St. Paul (CA-73), and USS Iowa, (BB-61).   I know it’s not WW2 exactly, but WW2 contract uniforms were still being used up, into the 1950s. 

[jerry_k]

Thanks for this nice family story. Looks like you have a good NAVY roots in your family! 

 

Good shots, hard to say from this resolution if the pants are PP or slash variations. Anyway cool to see!

 

Thanks,

Jerry

 

 

[sigsaye]

20 minutes ago, jerry_k said:

Thanks for this nice family story. Looks like you have a good NAVY roots in your family! 

 

Good shots, hard to say from this resolution if the pants are PP or slash variations. Anyway cool to see!

 

Thanks,

Jerry

 

 

Yeah, didn’t really look that close. The ones I can see are the large patch type with the angled top openings. 

[sgtdorango]

Heres one i picked up recently, dont really collect usn stuff but had to have it, named...cap added for display only...mike

[sigsaye]

1 hour ago, sgtdorango said:

Heres one i picked up recently, dont really collect usn stuff but had to have it, named...cap added for display only...mike

Interesting fact about these. They originally, did not have buttons, and were worn as a pullover, called “Jumper”.   When the Navy adopted the chambray shirt for the dungaree uniform (1926?), this was simply split down the front and, turned into a work jacket. On a personal note, my dad never liked these. He said it was too thin to really provide any warmth ( it was originally a shirt), and only ever wore it when painting, to keep paint off his chambray shirts. 

[dmar836]

Most of what I have learned is from studying to make patterns for such trousers. A detail that I notice with some consistency is that the "seamless" dungarees almost always have front and rear pockets that nearly touch. Those with seams are much further apart. Specs also mention a different waist band width in the front vs. the back. Many things to discuss.

[sigsaye]

4 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

Most of what I have learned is from studying to make patterns for such trousers. A detail that I notice with some consistency is that the "seamless" dungarees almost always have front and rear pockets that nearly touch. Those with seams are much further apart. Specs also mention a different waist band width in the front vs. the back. Many things to discuss.

A lot of that is “tailoring”. 19th century trousers were higher in the back, like tuxedo pants.   Additionally, no side seam is easier to make. Are the pockets all the same size, regardless of the size of the trousers?  That also is a point to consider. If the patch pockets are all the same, they will be closer together on smaller sizes

[jerry_k]

Haha there is another differences in patch pocketes type - shape of the front and rear pockets:

 

1.round "U" shape

2.cut edge shape

 

But I guess it is only a contractors difference.

[dustin]

February 1943, available of pocket patterns.

 

[dustin]

another selection from August 1943

[dustin]

PB4Y Privateer aircrew c.1945. Slash pocket and leg seam.

 

[dmar836]

Small patch pockets with side seams, etc. in there. Lots to discuss.

 

So is it the opinion now that any authentic, issued WWII dungaree trouser must have only large patch pockets with no side seams and either plastic or metal buttons? And that variations shown here must simply be PX or PP variants? Those are a lot of contract numbers(19) and war years(5) to stay with one exact style. Not sure of any other item that didn't evolve like that. Variations are excused as fold creases, what was on hand at the time, and what was expedient? Like the USMC HBTs? Don't see too many plastic buttons on M41s. I guess I just don't understand the flexible inflexibility on these.

I'm not trying to be difficult but am I reading this correctly?   

Dave

[dustin]

Clearly a side seam here.

 

[dustin]

Large front patch pockets, one looks beveled to me to include rounded and square.

[jerry_k]

Please remove. 

[jerry_k]

Great photos Dustin!

[jerry_k]

The most typical and "popular" patterns:

 

1. Round shape pockets:

[jerry_k]

2. Cut edge shape pockets