Giovanni R. Posted July 20, 2014 Share #1 Posted July 20, 2014 Hello,I've stumbled upon these two utility shirts that looks quite "strange". They share the same model, quite close to a 3rd pattern standard utility shirt with the addition of a button flap to hold the sleeve rolled up. The material is a lightweight fabric for the camo one and a ripstop poplin for the OD one, as you can see the tag shows a DSA number but it doesn't look at all an official army garment. The camo pattern looks like ERDL.Any Infos/ideas about?Can these be actual Vietnam era PX shirts or something similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giovanni R. Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share #2 Posted July 20, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted July 20, 2014 Share #3 Posted July 20, 2014 The camo piece is civilian hunting clothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival Posted July 20, 2014 Share #4 Posted July 20, 2014 I am not a clothes guy but the lower shirt looks like it has the same contract tag as the camo version. It has a contract number from 1970 but the stock number has the extra two numbers that are usually seen maybe 1972 to 74 and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giovanni R. Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted July 20, 2014 They have the same label indeed, so you think these are postwar pieces only for the civilian market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival Posted July 21, 2014 Share #6 Posted July 21, 2014 I believe they are commercial shirts made to look military with a fake look a like tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B229 Posted July 21, 2014 Share #7 Posted July 21, 2014 I believe they are commercial shirts made to look military with a fake look a like tag. Agreed. They are commercial. Rutter Rex of Louisiana did make utility uniforms for the military, but the real company's name was J. H. Rutter Rex Mfg Co., not G.H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now