arclight Posted October 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 13, 2009 Got a pair of leggings I think are WW2 for a buck. They are khaki, but with an OD edging. When I got them, they seemed to be much smaller than most I have seen, but then again, all the ones I've seen are completely khaki. Am beginning to wonder if perhaps these were issued to women? There is a tag in one of them, but all markings have long since vanished. The only other identifier is a faded "3" on the upper inside, which I presume is the size. Can anyone shed light on this for me? Thanks, G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocRick Posted October 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 13, 2009 I think they are USMC leggings, shorter and less eyelets than the army style. As far as size, remember even 60 years ago, people on average were smaller than people today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arclight Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted October 14, 2009 I think they are USMC leggings, shorter and less eyelets than the army style. As far as size, remember even 60 years ago, people on average were smaller than people today. Thanks for the input, Doc! I was hoping they were Marine, and even pored over Harlan's book on Marine uniforms & eguipage, but found next to nothing on leggings. Any idea if these are early or late war? Thanks, G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted October 14, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 14, 2009 I believe these are an army pattern.I have a set or two and one set is marked for women. RD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Robinson Posted October 14, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 14, 2009 I think they are USMC leggings, shorter and less eyelets than the army style. As far as size, remember even 60 years ago, people on average were smaller than people today. Doc That's what I thought when I first saw them before a bit too short for Marine leggings of the period plus the Phila QM Depot markings ID them as Army contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocRick Posted October 14, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 14, 2009 He said the only visible marking is a faded "3"? But there is one eyelet short to be the regular Marine leggings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Robinson Posted October 14, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 14, 2009 He said the only visible marking is a faded "3"? But there is one eyelet short to be the regular Marine leggings. My mistake....I was confusing these with another set of leggings that was recently discusssed on the forum. But I own a 1934 dated set of Marine leggings that have seven eyelets. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linedoggie Posted October 15, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 15, 2009 Boy Scouts leggings maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arclight Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted October 15, 2009 Boy Scouts leggings maybe? That's a very interesting thought. Very plausible, as is the WAC idea, too. Just don't know what to think of these because they are so small. :think: Seems like leggings may be an area of opportunity for some more research. Sadly, most pictures from that era don't show leggings in enough detail to help, and most close up shots are waist up. Looks like I'll be digging for info for a while. The seller I got these from said that they had come out of a Marine's footlocker, and the other items she sold from that trunk were definitely from a male. She was unable to provide me with any additional infformation, as is usually the case whenever I ask. Thank you to everyone who provided input. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Apathy Posted October 15, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 15, 2009 Got a pair of leggings I think are WW2 for a buck. They are khaki, but with an OD edging. When I got them, they seemed to be much smaller than most I have seen, but then again, all the ones I've seen are completely khaki. Am beginning to wonder if perhaps these were issued to women? There is a tag in one of them, but all markings have long since vanished. The only other identifier is a faded "3" on the upper inside, which I presume is the size. Can anyone shed light on this for me?Thanks, G Hi Arclight, your leggings are Marine Corp from around 1943, see the attachment from ' page 149 Doughboy to G.I.' which shows an identical pair to yours with the inside label itact which you mention is washed out in yours, they are male and not female leggings. In the attached photo you will be able to see that there is a printed cotton label inside along with a couple of printed paper labels on the outside Hope this helps. Cheers ( Lewis ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Robinson Posted October 15, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 15, 2009 Hi Arclight, your leggings are Marine Corp from around 1943, see the attachment from ' page 149 Doughboy to G.I.' which shows an identical pair to yours with the inside label itact which you mention is washed out in yours, they are male and not female leggings. In the attached photo you will be able to see that there is a printed cotton label inside along with a couple of printed paper labels on the outside Hope this helps. Cheers ( Lewis ) Yes....the white Depot tags define them as "USMC" in most cases. But I did once own a set of leggings, identical to the USMC pattern, that had the white label Id'ing them as Navy issue. Only time I've ever seen this and maybe it was a manufacture's variation. Contractor was Hood Rubber. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortworthgal Posted October 15, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 15, 2009 Those are definitely women's leggings. They were introduced in 1942 and made by the Army for WACs and Army Nurses. I own about several pair and only 2 of them are marked "women's" - the others are just marked the same as men's leggings. Many were not marked anything at all, and therefore most people don't know what they are, and I buy them for a song. The women's leggings do not lace the same as the male Army leggings, which also contributes to confusion and mistaking the leggings for USMC or something else. The majority of women's leggings I have seen are solid dark OD, although I have seen some khaki and a couple of "transitional" (like what you have) pairs. Those are more rare than the dark OD. There also seems to be some variation in the number of eyelet holes, as I have pairs that have 6 holes, and pairs that have 7. Go figure. Another thing to remember in keeping Army & USMC leggings separate is the sizing. Army leggings ran sizes 1 (S), 2 (M), 3 (L). Women's leggings ran the same sizing. USMC leggings ran 1 through 7 or 8. If those are marked a 3, they'd be pretty darn tiny if they're USMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arclight Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted October 16, 2009 Wow! That seems to just about cover it. Very much informative! Thank you all for the great input. As you can tell, this is yet another area I am still trying to get a handle on. Thank you very much! G :thumbsup: 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