Does anyone know anything about a WASP B-16 flight jacket?

[P-59A]

I want to be as fair as I can be about this. Owned by a WASP and flown by a WASP are two different things. I don't doubt Scott when he say's his flight suit was owned by a WASP and that someone  bought it from a WASP and sold it in good faith thinking owned and flown were the same thing. I'm sure sure Scott thought the same thing. The research he did at the time with the information available to him seemed to confirm this. I do not see any intentional attempt to misinform or decieve anyone. What I do see is a reference book that fell short of the mark on this item. The book in question is a good book and has alot of good information in it. Its a refernce book and like all reference books, time has a way of bringing new and more accurate information foward. Maybe going foward the author can update the information or at least explaine how he came to the conclussion he did. As it stands right now one would have to prove TWU failed in its due diligence in presenting the facts. I just don't see that happening. They are the gold standard on all things WASP related.

[dmar836]

Interesting, I was thumbing through the gear list in the back of this book last evening. Was gonna post a pic but it's not needed. There are several entries of items with bizarre documentation. One of interest had the part number, description, etc. and even the month/year it was standardized. One would assume all necessary correspondence, testing, and approval procedures had been completed before it was made a standard issue item. As with many items there is no date at which it was made limited std or removed from inventory but then hand written off to the side is the comment "Never Procured". Not the fault of Sweeting here but how could items be proposed, named, approved, made standard, and then never even procured. Admittedly, I do not know too much of the details of that procedure now or then but it shows that some of those items I have never heard of nor seen may never have been produced or made it from the prototype stage.

Sweeting also states "letter from xxx"  in some of his documentation in the same list. Perhaps those are bigwigs in the government in the late 70s or something or maybe they are revealed elsewhere in the bibliography but documentation certainly isn't 100% confidence inspiring though not his fault. A good reference with presumably good data but always things an author would change after the fact.

Anyone know if Sweeting is still living? 

[P-59A]

So Dmar, It sounds like a number of items should be revisited to see what if any new information has come foward since that reference book was writen. Kind of like a peer review to update what is known now. There is nothing wrong with testing the accuracy of a book after so many years. The whole idea of this site is to find the knowable truth about any given topic or artifact...right?

[dmar836]

 

I do agree we should bring to light what we find lacking in reference books. I do wonder if Sweeting is alive and well. I know Maguire's books are "coffee table" and not specifically reference but they contain a lot of great reference material. There are errors in those as well.

A few years back someone pinged the archives until they finally located the correspondence that showed the Australian made A2 V-505 contract really existed and not of the long rumored kangaroo skin! It's a lot of work but what we know should certainly be brought to light. IME, it is often resisted as many prefer what they prefer. I'm sure Steve, for example, isn't cheering to prove something he has might not be what was thought. He's done no wrong, of course, and is to be commended for staying with the topic. Since he still has examples and collects WASP stuff I'd love to see him involved though he does have a dog in the fight. NASM is another source to be contacted. 

Dave

[Steve D.]

I have just heard back from the National Air and Space Museum,  in regard to an email I sent them asking about the photo in Sweeting's book. They confirmed that the

photo is indeed a WASP wearing a B-16 jacket. I have also asked them if they can confirm that the Sovereign Mfg. Company was given the contract for these jackets.

They have agreed to look into the matter, but said that they will not be able to get back to me until sometime in the new year. As far as I'm concerned, confirmation from

NASM about the photo is pretty strong evidence that a B-16/ A-12 set was in fact produced during WWII.

Stay tuned...

[dmar836]

 "...C.G. Sweeting was the curator of flight material at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution,...."

 

I wonder what the NASM records will say when he was their curator?

 

No offense but to me this is still a single source of info.

 

I want this jacket to be legit as anyone else but this type of authentication needs data from someone other then the author and museum owning the one known pic of the WASP wearing the items.

 

JMO,

Dave

[Steve D.]

If I understand your argument correctly,  should the NASM confirm that the contract for the B-16 jacket was given to the Sovereign Mfg. Company, they can't be trusted as

they own the pic of the WASP wearing the jacket, and G.S. Sweeting worked for them?  

[dmar836]

That's not what I said at all.

I would be quite surprised if that is something they turn up. Sweeting never quoted a contract or any details other than stating what the WASP was wearing and copy/pasting a list he did not compile. In fact, the Type Specification tables in the back of the book and referred to here as a source are from Materials Division, Wright Field. The list is simply reprinted in the book and appears to be no result of additional research by Sweeting or SI.

What I am saying is asking the NASM/SI if research material found in a book they published, own the rights to, and written by their flight material curator/expert is accurate info is a conflict of interest that should be concerning.  

Dave

[dmar836]

The other issue is that the NASM claims to have the only surviving equipment lists from Wright Field. They also say the list includes even items never actually sourced but left in for completeness. What else might fall into this category?

There is no conspiracy and nobody thinks the NASM is trying to create history. Most of all nobody want's to "gaslight"(to sound all Millennial) to create drama in collections. 

My concern is that I/we have always based our info on Sweeting's "research" and his one photo. Without his 1984 book, what evidence does anyone have of the authenticity of this jacket? On a previous page from the WASP pic there is a woman wearing what is said to be the B-17 jacket. This pic is also the property of the SI. To me the only way for the NASM/SI to know the nomenclature of these jackets, as they could well be men's garments as were often used, would be that the photos were labeled with such things as "B-16" and "B-17" implying that they were from Wright as well and thus part of testing or prototype pics.

There has always been a supply of B-15s that were civi made with cloth labels that in circulation. I think what many fear is that these were a similar construction and possibly a similar thing.     

[dmar836]

Sweeting also pictures the alpaca, poplin, "unlabeled" vest that then shows up in Maguires book and others. I bought one. What do I now think I have? A KW USMC vest and nothing really supports it's WWII existence yet I have one right in front of me. I also have a stockpile of variable density AAF marked goggles everyone refers to as "gunners goggles" that were never really that either. What few pics they show up in are USN(a different) and/ or AAF with unknown purpose but not gunnery.

To me there was a period in the 90s, early 2000s where everyone was an author and there are many questions out of that.

I don't know if a bunch of B-16s were made before the war's end but I do have that B-10 made by Sovereign. They were real. Why labels would be so radically different I don't know. You don't see other late war items give up on woven labels for printed cotton. I have an AAF parka with a woven label but I suspect it falls into those late war/post war civi constructions.

I would love to see a B-16 with a leather name tag. WASPs did that a lot so I'd like to see at least one in the wild. My suspicions are that it was prototyped but never an issued thing.

I have no doubt that if you insist on authenticity, you will find evidence to such.

Remember, we are not your enemy. I'm just thinking out loud and have nothing to gain or lose here. 

Dave

 

P.S. Could you post some detailed pics of the WASP boots? I would love to see them and their similarities to other boot examples

 

[Steve D.]

Let's wait and see if the NASM can find any information on what company was given the contract (If any). Then we can begin a debate about the Sovereign Tags in the

jackets being forged.

[Steve D.]

Here are some pics of the A-16 boots, ( also listed in Sweeting's book). Last pic is comparison of A-16 to A-6.

[dmar836]

Cool. Thank you.

Dave

 

[P-59A]

I also have contacts at NASM. I have sent a link to this conversation to my contact for review and opinion. As Scott said lets wait and see. I do not expect anything soon from NASM either nor do I expect anything from TWU on what they know about that photo. Merry Christmas everyone and Happy New Year!!!! 

[Steve D.]

I agree!  Scott sounds like a pretty smart guy to me!

[vintageproductions]

Let me throw something out there that no one has touched on as I guess only Steve and I have handled these jackets.

 

The tag that you keep referring to as a cloth tag, like found in civilian jackets is completely false.

 

The tag in the B-16 is made out of a material that is a complete 180 from the crap cloth tags in civilian fashion jackets.

 

It is hard to describe the construction of the tags but it is like no civilian piece ever made.

 

Once you see or handle it, you will never mistaken it for a civilian fashion tag.

 

Also since it seems that Steve and I have handled these jackets and others commenting are just looking at photos, is another disservice. To keep referring to them as civilian copies is another far fetched. If you can ever handle one even just briefly, you will never confuse them as civilian pieces. The outer body, the alphaca lining, the zipper, the knits, etc., are military quality. These items I am pointing out are not found on later civilian jackets.  Everything in the construction of these jackets is military grade, not civilian.  You should really at least hold one in your hands and have knowledge of them before you condemn them as a civilian copy jacket.

 

I am going to add something here that is not meant to be a slag at anyone or to discredit anyone, but to make a comment along the lines of the Texas institute knows and has handled everything the WASP's ever did is a we bit of a stretch of the imagination. The people that work there were not around when the WASP's were and are probably paid employees that do the research. The WASP were a small organization and a lot of items could have been private purchased and no documentation ever done, because Ms Jane Doe went to the local dept store to get a piece she needed for her uniform because supply didn't have it or didn't have it in her size. If we follow the logic that it doesn't exist because Texas hasn't seen it, then you are going to pass up many items because of some paid employee who works for an archives.  The people that work in these places are just human and will make mistakes. But to make a blanket statement that an item doesn't exist because a person who works for an institute 70 years after the fact says it isn't so, is a disservice to all.

 

Everyone of these "Institutes" and museums make mistakes, you can read about it all over this forum. So to say one place is the all knowing and because they say it doesn't exist it can't exist is a stretch.

[jerry_k]

Looks like another "myth" without any historical proofs and facts to confirm it. Another story "being WASP jacket" for make the item more attractive on the market in my opinion. 

[dmar836]

Bob,

With all due respect, we are not people who have never handled or studied actual WWII jackets. Your statement implies that handing and collecting many B-10s, B-15's, AAF parkas, etc. offers no insight into the unique construction of a B-16. The Sovereign B-10 I posted is the closest thing we have to to this jacket. Sure there are differences in printed cheesecloth labels and the cut edge treated fabric labels but it's not that this isn't a "period" jacket, it's that it isn't adding up..... yet.

The "Civi" term has been used but is NOT the only concern. I'm not sure it's even the primary concern or that I agree with it. A comparative term it is based on all the questioned period B-15 - type and B-9 type jackets out there. I know when many look at pics and say, "Looks the same" or, "That's totally different." it's a dangerous road for those just trying to find their way but I can't imagine I would pick up a B-16 and, slowing bouncing it up and down, saying, "Oh, yeah. I see what you mean. This isn't anything like a B-15 in feel."

All this is no different that all the "I like it!" and, "Looks good to me." posts that tends to verify anything on here anymore. Incidentally, this is how the flak goggles and many other things have held their lure for so long. Theater-made VN patches are quite different with a different/lacking paper trail than QM approved garments. The B-16 is not such a qualitative piece.

How many people say, "If Bob says it's real, I'm good with it."? Sure, such statements kill threads for those watching and trying to learn from both perspectives, but they do little to prove anything and don't give any objective reason for vetting something. Once the expert has passed we are back to assumptions. Just like other threads, statements like, "I have handled hundreds of these and it's 100% good" or, "I've had every extant example and you are wrong..." (sorry, it's a peeve lately) is fine for flexing I suppose but never gives the "Why". Enough of that and these types of items remain or even creep in.

I've not heard anyone say these are 1960s or70s repros. If the B-16 were proven by documentation to be submissions from Sovereign for contract consideration, testing samples, or made in, say, April, 1945, being just as materially real as these are, I'd be completely happy but their owners likely would not be and would likely keep (not) searching for more info. The owners have done nothing wrong at all but they also are the least likely to research the paper trail for these jackets. I'd also be just as happy if some patched, labeled ones are found or ANY period reference to their manufacture and use is found - regardless of the label construction that we just can't understand from pics. To be incorrect would not be embarrassing to me - it would be great for all of us.

We just want paper, that's all. I'd settle for reasons the paper doesn't exist. We have one pic with no proof of what jacket is worn, when it was taken, where, or if is was during operations and not just a press photo. Obviously, posed, it is quite likely from Wright Field as are the entries in the Type spec list (oddly, both the property of the publisher of the book). That's it. Really, that's it. The rest is a dead trail. This Type list contains no data or evidence at all that contracts were ever issued for any of the the types listed. Finding contract info in national archives might be possible but that's up to others to find.

This discussion has not yet allowed, disappointingly, the possibility that the nurses combo and the WASP combo were both standardized on the same date 4/1944 and might have been combined. Would this authorization have been by different authorities and just happen to be on the same date? One Material Command and one QM? High altitude-dressed nurse pics are difficult to find even taken in 1945 but has anyone seen a B-17 pictured in 1944? 1945, sure, but that does nothing for the WASP jacket/trousers time line. I can only assume someone came to and said, "So why are these very similar jackets and trousers, both for women, both with nearly identical function, being called for." Add to that the knowledge of the cancelling of the WASP program in mid-44, and wouldn't they have possibly combined them? 

There are inconsistencies with the trouser pics too - some with lower pockets, some without, interestingly, like the nurses A-13 trousers. It's a deep dive nobody wants to take.  

There is no war here but there is also still no proof the the B-16 was manufactured and distributed buy the end of the WASP program. I'm not saying it isn't real, I just want to know what it actually is and when it was actually made. Saying it's a late war, little-issued but definitely a WASP worn jacket is simply an assumption - one not needed for other WASP and AAF gear.

I do respect your opinion here.

JMO,

Dave

 

[dmar836]

https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-war-supply-contracts/

 

There are trails to follow for those wanting to find the B-16.

I would need to brush up on how contract dates(in our case 1945) lines up with fiscal years. Can't remember how that worked but all should be in here. Some are for All Completed contracts and some only for those of $50,000 or more.

Enjoy!

 

[Steve D.]

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a reference to the A-16 boots except in Sweeting's book. Should their authenticity now be doubted? Someone could have forged the Converse tag.

[P-59A]

3 hours ago, vintageproductions said:

Let me throw something out there that no one has touched on as I guess only Steve and I have handled these jackets.

 

The tag that you keep referring to as a cloth tag, like found in civilian jackets is completely false.

 

The tag in the B-16 is made out of a material that is a complete 180 from the crap cloth tags in civilian fashion jackets.

 

It is hard to describe the construction of the tags but it is like no civilian piece ever made.

 

Once you see or handle it, you will never mistaken it for a civilian fashion tag.

 

Also since it seems that Steve and I have handled these jackets and others commenting are just looking at photos, is another disservice. To keep referring to them as civilian copies is another far fetched. If you can ever handle one even just briefly, you will never confuse them as civilian pieces. The outer body, the alphaca lining, the zipper, the knits, etc., are military quality. These items I am pointing out are not found on later civilian jackets.  Everything in the construction of these jackets is military grade, not civilian.  You should really at least hold one in your hands and have knowledge of them before you condemn them as a civilian copy jacket.

 

I am going to add something here that is not meant to be a slag at anyone or to discredit anyone, but to make a comment along the lines of the Texas institute knows and has handled everything the WASP's ever did is a we bit of a stretch of the imagination. The people that work there were not around when the WASP's were and are probably paid employees that do the research. The WASP were a small organization and a lot of items could have been private purchased and no documentation ever done, because Ms Jane Doe went to the local dept store to get a piece she needed for her uniform because supply didn't have it or didn't have it in her size. If we follow the logic that it doesn't exist because Texas hasn't seen it, then you are going to pass up many items because of some paid employee who works for an archives.  The people that work in these places are just human and will make mistakes. But to make a blanket statement that an item doesn't exist because a person who works for an institute 70 years after the fact says it isn't so, is a disservice to all.

 

Everyone of these "Institutes" and museums make mistakes, you can read about it all over this forum. So to say one place is the all knowing and because they say it doesn't exist it can't exist is a stretch.

In TWU's defence  they have Cochran's archives. They have found NO papers, photo's etc and can find nothing that supports the B-16 as being made for them...nothing. One would assume someone would have mentioned it at some point in time to Cochran and if Cochran asked for this some kind of paper trail would exist. TWU after combing through the archives found nothing. That is a hard road to get past. Then toss in why the government would even go to the trouble of making this for a non military institution even if  they asked for it after years of mens flight clothing having worked just fine. No historical corrisponding paperwork and no historical photo's beyond the retyped letter in Sweetings book wich by the way is not stamped as a true copy by the government. Its just an unverified (so far) paper he had made because the original was not readable. I am hoping the original document can be found as it stands right now that document in the book has not been confirmed as a true copy. That is not much to hang your hat on. I personally think the jacket looks great but the historical record does not confirm this as being what everyone says it is. 

[Steve D.]

So if there is no mention of the A-16 boots in Cochran's archives,  I should assume they were not worn by the W.A.S.P. ?  That of course,  assuming that we can believe that

 A-16 boots were in fact produced during WWII.

[P-59A]

57 minutes ago, Steve D. said:

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a reference to the A-16 boots except in Sweeting's book. Should their authenticity now be doubted? Someone could have forged the Converse tag.

I did not ask TWU to comment on the boots or the trousers, only the jacket. They found nothing to support the claim the B-16 jacket has anything to do with the WASP program. Nothing. Other than a  retyped document in Sweeting's book no original documernt has been produced to support the claim the B-16 jacket was made for the WASP program. Even Sweeting failed  to find documentation in the WASP archives citing only handbags and such as being authorized WASP gear. That says alot when the author of the book with all his connections can only find one obscure paper. That is were we stand right now.

[P-59A]

On 12/22/2022 at 3:52 PM, Steve D. said:

Here are some pics of the A-16 boots, ( also listed in Sweeting's book). Last pic is comparison of A-16 to A-6.

I do not see anything on those boots stating they were made for the WASP program or for women in service unlike that B-16 jacket.

[dmar836]

I think I'm out on this one. To say that if the A-16 boot(noted as std for women pilots AND nurses from 2/44) existed therefore the B-16 must have existed at a similar time is reductionist reasoning. The boots you do see earlier even with men's clothing.

As I mentioned, I'm sure you and other owners will have no trouble finding plenty of evidence.

This is getting to where anyone not agreeing with one side is being absurd. Really wish we could get actual data.

Good luck to all on this one.

Dave