Questions About the United States Navy Peacoat

[Peacoat]

Those pictures are an excellent find. I had never seen the knee length "peacoat" before. Thanks. It may be an officers' coat, a forerunner of the bridge coat.

 

[Dinerman]

The pic is from 1917. The one on the left is a seaman, the right is a chief petty officer.

 

[Spoonbelly]

WWI Pea Coats

I'm sure a WWI pea coat is a real find. They are probably made like battleships but to tell you the truth I think my favorite is still a post war late '40s -'50s. I'm not too crazy about the two sets of pockets.

 

[mihai]

I'm sure a WWI pea coat is a real find. They are probably made like battleships but to tell you the truth I think my favorite is still a post war late '40s -'50s. I'm not too crazy about the two sets of pockets.

One that appears to be a WW1 pea coat was recently sold for 1200 usd on eBay: ref nr 121166960938. I would like something like this but for this price - no way. I value vintage items however I am interested also in their practical side. I am not interested just to keep them in storage. For serious collectors paying that kind of money is something usual perhaps.

 

[Peacoat]

One that appears to be a WW1 pea coat was recently sold for 1200 usd on eBay: ref nr 121166960938. I would like something like this but for this price - no way. I value vintage items however I am interested also in their practical side. I am not interested just to keep them in storage. For serious collectors paying that kind of money is something usual perhaps.

I found a 1930s peacoat (same style as the WWI) on ebay several years ago. The coat had belonged to the seller's grandfather. It was offseason, and had attracted no interest. I could probably have picked it up for less than $100 bucks. I wrote the seller and told her what she had, and what she was likely to get for it that time of the year. My advice was to pull the auction and save it for her children. She did so.

Every time I think of that advice, I kick myself. What I should have done was to tell her what she had and that I was willing to pay $300 to $500 for the coat. We could have worked out a deal: she would have gotten some money, and I would have the elusive pre WWII coat in my collection. Plus it would have been a wearer, as it was my size!

All I could think of was that if I bid on that coat, I would steal it for less than $100, and how bad that would have been on my part. Never did I think of a way to buy it from her for what it was worth. That came a few months later. Oh well, live and learn.

 

[arahat]

Good man, Peacoat.

Rest assured though that you have propagated the appreciation for vintage USN peacoats to the seller and down the line.
No mean feat that.

 

[antilleschris]

Hi, I recently purchased a pea coat after reading a lot of good information from this forum. Thank you! However, I'm hoping it is authentic, and if it is, if I could get some help in dating it. I have read the dating thread, but my coat seems to have some conflicting evidence. The coat is in mint condition, but the tag is very faded (does that seem odd?).

Here is a picture of the coat:
http://imgur.com/vC3Ly78

Here is a picture of the tag:
http://imgur.com/qzSQ1Pt

I know you can't see much, but this is what I think I can read:
COAT, MAN'S WOOL KERSEY
DSA 100-8889 (guessing on the numbers)
100% WOOL
SIZE: ??

Some other details: It has a single stitching with a double stitching above it on the cuff. The pockets seem to be a grey fabric (not a corduroy).

What do you think? If anyone is willing to help, let me know if you need any other info!

Thanks a lot!

 

[Peacoat]

Have you looked at the Peacoat Dating thread, which is a sticky on the first page of the Outerwear Section? I think the answer to your question lies therein. If not, let me know, and I will dig into it a bit. You may have to do a bit of reading in that thread, but I believe you will be able to figure it out.

Congratulations on a nice find. PC.

 

[Peacoat]

Good man, Peacoat.

Rest assured though that you have propagated the appreciation for vintage USN peacoats to the seller and down the line.
No mean feat that.

Yes, and doubled the price of the vintage coats while doing so!

 

[antilleschris]

Have you looked at the Peacoat Dating thread, which is a sticky on the first page of the Outerwear Section? I think the answer to your question lies therein. If not, let me know, and I will dig into it a bit. You may have to do a bit of reading in that thread, but I believe you will be able to figure it out.

Congratulations on a nice find. PC.

Yeah, I've read that entire thread. However, I was confused because I seemed to have some conflicting evidence. For example:

My tag does not seem to match any of the examples (and why is it so faded? Would a lot of dry cleaning do this?)
My pockets are not corduroy which would imply later than 1968.
My coat has a line of double stitching above the cuff which would imply before 1966.
My coat can not be buttoned from both left and right which would imply later than 1965.
The coat has black plastic buttons and the tag says Kersey, which would both imply 70s or earlier.

From all this, I would gather, assuming it seems authentic that it's....from the 60s? Perhaps that is the best that can be said of it, and if so, fair enough. I take solace that the tag does not seem to match the "imitators" ones!

Thanks for the response.

 

[Peacoat]

Aha, I was hoping you could figure it out. When I saw your description of the coat, I knew there would be problems getting an exact year. The cotton pockets and the double stitching above the cuff, just did not present a consistent picture. Just now when I compared your tag to the 1966 and 1967 tags, I don't see an exact match. When I saw the tag last night, my first impression was 1966, but after digging a bit deeper and doing some comparisons, although not exact, I think it is closer to a 1967 tag.

As to the features, some of the double stitching above the cuff were in the 1967 coats. Although the corduroy pockets were eliminated in the 1968 contract, some coats may have been built with cotton pockets in 1967. So while your coat has features that are not exactly consistent with any year, I think it is a 1967 coat.

Keep in mind also that some of the people who made these coats had a good sense of humor. They enjoyed putting older tags in newer coats that were actually made at a later time. I once saw a 1953 tag on a post 1968 peacoat. They seem to have outdone themselves on this coat as several features are mis matched, and the tag is a bit different. It is my theory that they somehow knew researchers would be coming along 40 to 50 years later, and they wanted to make it more difficult to put an exact date on some of the coats. As if this isn't difficult enough!

So, with all of the above in mind, I hereby pronounce this coat as a 1967 model. A good year. Wear it with pride.

 

[antilleschris]

Aha, I was hoping you could figure it out. When I saw your description of the coat, I knew there would be problems getting an exact year. The cotton pockets and the double stitching above the cuff, just did not present a consistent picture. Just now when I compared your tag to the 1966 and 1967 tags, I don't see an exact match. When I saw the tag last night, my first impression was 1966, but after digging a bit deeper and doing some comparisons, although not exact, I think it is closer to a 1967 tag.

As to the features, some of the double stitching above the cuff were in the 1967 coats. Although the corduroy pockets were eliminated in the 1968 contract, some coats may have been built with cotton pockets in 1967. So while your coat has features that are not exactly consistent with any year, I think it is a 1967 coat.

Keep in mind also that some of the people who made these coats had a good sense of humor. They enjoyed putting older tags in newer coats that were actually made at a later time. I once saw a 1953 tag on a post 1968 peacoat. They seem to have outdone themselves on this coat as several features are mis matched, and the tag is a bit different. It is my theory that they somehow knew researchers would be coming along 40 to 50 years later, and they wanted to make it more difficult to put an exact date on some of the coats. As if this isn't difficult enough!

So, with all of the above in mind, I hereby pronounce this coat as a 1967 model. A good year. Wear it with pride.

I really appreciate it and I will (as soon as it gets cold enough, man it's a warm coat)! Thanks!

 

[kodak125px]

I have a question about the armhole fit of US Navy pea coats... Got an issue size 42R Sterlingwear off of eBay and the armholes are rubbing on the inside of my arm. Body fit in the pea coat seems good; it fits like a good suit jacket.

Before purchasing I measured myself with a tape and came up with 42-42.25 inches. I did a pit to pit measurement on the size large J Crew Bayswater pea coat I had. The J Crew is a little bit large in the body. The 42R coat I got had a pit to pit of 22.5 inches, around an inch or so smaller than the J Crew. Should work in theory. I wear 42 size Hickey Freeman suit jackets and they are right on the money over a dress shirt too.

Wondering if sizing up to a 44 on the issue pea coat has a chance of solving the armhole fit problems? Or whether a USN pea coat is just not cut for some? I figure the body should not be too loose on a 44. Also does anybody know any stores in the NYC area carrying Sterlingwear so I could try on a bunch of different sizes and cuts?

Thanks!

 

[Doctor Damage]

Sometimes some things just don't fit, even though by the measurements they should. I found a similar fit problem with the one I had, although not as pronounced as you. In any case, there should be tons of stores in the NYC area which will carry Sterlingwear's products - send the company an email ([email protected]) and they should be able to advise you. If not, an internet search should turn up a bunch of results.

 

[Peacoat]

You can go to Sterlingwear's website and look for a store finder. There are several in Manhattan and one or two on Long Island.

 

[Spoonbelly]

A couple of years ago I bought a Sterlingwear issue coat. It was a size 46L(Long). I think it was from the early '90s. I noticed that the sleeves were tighter (smaller diameter) then other size 46 pea coats that I had. It felt a little weird when driving with sleightly tighter sleeves.

 

[CGL]

Here is a good buy for a WW2 era 10-button pea coat with a tag size of 42. However, the pocket is lined with greenish color cotton or wool and not corduroy. Very strange for a WW2 10-button pea coat with no corduroy lined pockets.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/15112114859...AX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_420wt_1402

 

[Peacoat]

Yes, the pocket material is most odd for that era coat. At first I thought is was corduroy, but that the lighting just made it look different. On closer inspection, I'm not sure what it is. Probably not corduroy, though.

 

[CGL]

The eBay description said "Pockets lined with wool and not corduroy" so it is indeed not corduroy.

 

[Doctor Damage]

No research is ever definitive and we remain students our whole lives. Here's two plausible explanations for the non-standard pockets:

1. Simply a run of coats that were made with wool pockets instead of corduroy. Remember, they had to churn out thousands of these coats and if at the end of a run they were short some corduroy, would they have stopped production until it was sourced? There was a war on. They just grabbed some wool they had on a shelf and the supervisor said "use this" to the seamstresses and the USN didn't give a damn because it meant they didn't have to wait another week for the coats. That means the coat is original.

2. Replacement pockets, for worn-out or excessively dirty pockets. That means the coat isn't 100% original but surely the value in these things isn't in the pockets?