Jump to content

Is this a WW2 B-3 flight jacket tag?


AZPhil
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello All,,

Someone pointed this B-3 jacket out, to me, And I thought instead of posting photo's of it and hear its a dude, I thought I would post the tag and go from there.

So does this look like a Real WW2 B-3 Tag?

 

 

Thanks for looking!!!!

Semper Fi

Phil 

1631296110_B-3jacketTagfromauctionhouse.jpg.fbb48ed906ba64aa241d20e7c08bc9cb.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn’t to me. There are no-name contracts but they are well established - not sure about B-3s. If you look up the drawing or contract number you might find an issue. I remember one older repro used the numbers off of trousers or something else so it would look official. 

Im sure others will chime in but I can sent some photos of mine tomorrow.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Gent's,

 Since knowing one day I will need to add one of these.

 I have started saving Jacket Tags of B-3's deemed real.

I was hoping it would help me ID the Real vs Repro's

This is a photo of the Rough Wear Clothing tag from another B-3 posted on another site.

 

This one has all the info I would expect to see. Where the first one has minimal information.

457020887_B-3WRFRicktag.jpg.b49fd075bb5a7a14a384b43b5f30e547.jpg

 

When I get home from work I'll post up the whole jacket.

It doesn't match the pattern of other's I have seen , Yet I have not really studied these to a great extent to know all the variants.

 

Semper Fi

Phil 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some of the other photo's.

Now from the little I have studied on these,

 I thought the back of them was made up of 3 separate pieces of material.

This one is 21173851747_B-3sideonauc.jpg.b6c011b373f597b3a5a5b500d64fe64b.jpg piece .

The drawing number is correct.   

 

What do you think?

 

Semper Fi

Phil 

1496309893_B-3frontonauc.jpg.2a02691f4d9f79a9f5ec453bc1387cf3.jpg769022355_B-3backonauc.jpg.9cf36640401a249d834818753b98a58c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just not sure, Phil. The white on black label doesn't look right for that contract. The overall jacket doesn't look bad to me.

Were the neck straps cut off, folded back, never present? The waist straps almost appear a finished leather from the pic but that could be the reflection. They should be unfinished vegetable tanned.

Does the zipper work and what kind is it? Need pics of the slide and the box end. That's kind of a staple question with vintage jackets and can tell a lot.

It also depends what they are asking.

Dave

P.S.

I'll run up and grab a few pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, foot in mouth. The straps are finished on my unnamed and on my RW example. Both backs are 3 piece. My unnamed has white lettering as well but is different enough that I would call this jacket unverifiable. The label checks all the boxes for the intra and post war sporting labels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 9:29 PM, AZPhil said:

Hello All,,

Someone pointed this B-3 jacket out, to me, And I thought instead of posting photo's of it and hear its a dude, I thought I would post the tag and go from there.

So does this look like a Real WW2 B-3 Tag?

 

 

Thanks for looking!!!!

Semper Fi

Phil 

1631296110_B-3jacketTagfromauctionhouse.jpg.fbb48ed906ba64aa241d20e7c08bc9cb.jpg

 

 

Phill, The tag is not correct. It's missing "property Airforce, US army "  and the cut is wrong. Dmar's jacket is spot on. It would make for a good painted project for air shows though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave,

 Your Jacket is what I have in my mind as to what a real B-3 should look like.

The different color leathers front pocket /trim and elbow support area.

 

Beautiful Jacket Dave!!!

 

Understand on the thought's about label.

 I 'll see if they can supply a photo of the zipper and box.

Confirm the post war thought.

Thanks Again Dave!!

 

Semper Fi

Phil

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw you chimed in P-59A,

I was busy replying to Dave. Slow typer!!LOL!!

Thank you for your thoughts/confirmations on a NoGo jacket!!!

No need to ask about zipper then.

 

Yeah Dave's is a beauty.. Made me drool a little bit!!!

 

Thank you!

Semper Fi

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, At a fair price it would make a good repop project, but that's all. Jackets that are split all the way down the back in the center like that are nothing I have seen in WW2 military leather A-2 or B-3 jackets. Not sure about the D-2. I would have to refresh my memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The subject label and jacket are 100% genuine and, if still available, I’ll buy if you do not.  
 

It is really annoying to me personally, and a great disservice to the poster, to see people who do not know what they are talking about speak out with some authority, either damning a good piece or elevating a bad one.  This, unfortunately, happens too often, and usually with the exotic and rare that requires arcane knowledge: painted helmets, reinforced para suits, and just about anything Third Reich.

 

I feel very badly for you, Phil.  Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PQD,

Thanks for the input. 

Saying all contributors here "don't know what they are talking about" might be a little rough. I think we all see the redskin, correct though partial numbers, etc. I wouldn't die on the hill that this is absolutely authentic though it appear it to me. Why? Because I learn something every day. You will see I retracted some of my concerns earlier based on looking at originals. The original pic of the label is the concern to me still. No contract year, no maker, no property mark. All very typical of the post wartime-ish and civilian variants.

I can be more certain when it is other's money but if I must air all concerns, I have to bring up any noticed variations.

Can you explain the variations in this label for us? Were all GW labels from the 17757 contract like this?

Please advise,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmar836 said:

PQD,

Thanks for the input. 

Saying all contributors here "don't know what they are talking about" might be a little rough. I think we all see the redskin, correct though partial numbers, etc. I wouldn't die on the hill that this is absolutely authentic though it appear it to me. Why? Because I learn something every day. You will see I retracted some of my concerns earlier based on looking at originals. The original pic of the label is the concern to me still. No contract year, no maker, no property mark. All very typical of the post wartime-ish and civilian variants.

I can be more certain when it is other's money but if I must air all concerns, I have to bring up any noticed variations.

Can you explain the variations in this label for us? Were all GW labels from the 17757 contract like this?

Please advise,

Dave

 

Dave,

 

Please show me where I ever said "ALL (my emphasis added) contributors don't know what they are talking about."  You won't be able to because I NEVER said that!  I choose my words very, very carefully, and I invite you to please review my words again -  it is yet another great disservice by you to attribute such words to me.  

 

The label is genuine and so is the B-3; I know this from my decades of experience:  This is a one-looker for me, as I know my A. C. flying jackets and this contract exceedingly well, and I can see the label is cotton, not synthetic, as are all labels made today, and no repro maker has perfected their "redskin" sheepskin to this level, and sheepskin breeds today simply do not match what was available in 1941 when this jacket was contracted and produced.  Additionally, age and wear represent salient areas of detection that cannot be favorably duplicated, whether it's a steel helmet, a leather jacket, or a cotton or wool uniform. 

 

I am unsure what the "GW" abbreviation you stated means vis-a-vis the 17757 contract, but every 17757 B-3/A-3 Winter flying Suit I have seen does indeed have labels exactly as seen here (winter flying suits were contracted for in sets, and both jackets and trousers will share the same contract and P. O. number).  Prior to 1942, contractors were not instructed to list the "Property" declaration on labels.  A great illustration of the transition phase for the "Property" declaration mandated for labels is J. A. Dubow's 23379 A-2 contract:  this was awarded on Dec. 26, 1941, and we can find examples of this contract without the "Property" declaration and also with a separate label sewn below the main label that does bear the "Property" declaration.  A reasonable deduction for this event is that the main labels were made before the new directive reached the contractor and some jackets could be produced, then the contractor, having received the directive, had to have the separate labels made and attached to all subsequent jackets yet to be produced.  I have not, however, seen this with any B-3/A-3 sets produced in "redskin," as these were all contracted much earlier in 1941, with completion of all contracts very likely in 1941 or very, very early 1942.  Additionally, for example, the HLB Corp. P. O. No. 42-5112-P for B-3/A-3 sets date to a contract from very early 1942, yet every example I have encountered does not display the additional "Property" label sewn below the main label, so the main labels exist as did labels for contracts produced prior to 1942.

 

The specs. for the B-3/A-3 sets, A-2's, B-6/A-5, etc. all stipulate for the contractor to list their name or contract number or P. O. number, with most contractors choosing to list both name and number, but some, as seen here, elected to only list the contract number, and none elected to list only their name.  Labels were supplied by the contractor and were paid for by the contractor as part of the contract (unlike the other materials that comprise the contract work) and there was no stipulation by the A. C. for size or color of labels, which is why we can find shorter or longer labels and labels that are taller and with and without borders, silver-on-black labels, gold-on-black labels, white-on-black labels, and later in the war, brown-on-white labels and red-on-white labels.  The contractor simply went to a label-making company and had a woven label produced in whatever quantity was needed with the information mandated in the contract and/or spec.  I have seen memos from contractors where it is noted that label maker X is making labels for, say, Rough Wear Clothing Co., and that "we should contact that label maker for pricing."

 

If the OP can still buy this B-3 Jacket, he should do so confidently and with all-due haste.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. "...to see people who do not know what they are talking about speak out with some authority..." Sounds rather inclusive - it was a pretty small discussion.

That last post was a much more productive and on-topic response for the forum than digging at other contributors.

Thanks for clarifying,

Dave

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

WOW!

I've been away on a trip to Colorado,

 

PQD,

I'm just now reading your post.

The jacket sold 2 days after the last post 

It went for only $275.

 

For my education , If you don't mind me asking,

So that rear 2 panel part construction is a original feature?

Was this on early types only?

 

Semper Fi

Phil

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...