Preview: Buzz Rickson's Space Program L-2B

To those NASA fans of the heyday in the space program, please allow me to provide this preview for fall:

We're still working on securing a "celebrity" L-2B for a future production, but this is a copy of one worn by a test pilot that was made from the same nylon twill as the found on the issue L-2B. It will be offered in a plain version and the version seen here with insignia, though we will stock only the plain version.

Price looks to be coming in at $500.00 for the plain version. All Buzz Rickson's goods will be going up in price due to the increase in cost of materials, and if the USD continues its downward trend against the JPY, this will further contribute to higher costs. We can special order the version with insignia and quote a price for it now.

Measurements will follow the L-2B measures listed under the tab at page top for PRODUCT MEASUREMENTS on our website:

https://www.historypreservation.com...f/buzz-ricksons-usaf-1957-l-2b-flying-jacket/

Anyone interested in placing a reserve order for either style for fall should contact me no later than Tues. Feb. 27, 2018. A reserve order guarantees we will have the item for you when we receive our shipment, but you are welcome to purchase from stock if you don't mind taking chances on us selling out first in your size. The version with insignia will not be stocked and is only available now with a reserve order.

Please ask questions now. Thank you!

Totally killer. Between the blue and the red MA-1, I am purple with envy!

Great looking jacket! Is there any picture of the original this one is based on? I've never seen Land MFG jackets with epaulets/black oxygen mask tab.

Cocker said:

Great looking jacket! Is there any picture of the original this one is based on? I've never seen Land MFG jackets with epaulets/black oxygen mask tab.

Click to expand...

Same here...would love to see pics of the original jacket. I was under the impression these jackets had orange liners and a lighter coloured zipper tape too.

Looks cool tho!

@Cocker, over on the VLJ another member has just fed you that information and you've stated that you're going to come over here and use it to 'troll' the affiliate member HPA Rep;

http://vintageleatherjackets.org/th...acket-from-buzz-rickson-this-time-nasa.20656/

I took a screen shot (available on request) as a safeguard against editing.

Without affiliate members, the TFL would have to shut down or charge for membership. IMHO you ought to be banned for that.

No need for screenshot, I'll gladly repeat over here what was said over there!

I said, and I quote "call me a troll if you want". As stated there, I as well as others indeed want to see the original jacket with epaulets and so on this one is based on! Is it that hard to understand? Thanks, I didn't think so.

Edit: Oh, and BTW, I also said I'm fed up with the "über realistic BR" thing. So either we have pictures to prove this one is an accurate repro of an existing jacket, or it's just another vaguely historical nylon windbreaker.

nick123 said:

Totally killer. Between the blue and the red MA-1, I am purple with envy!

Click to expand...

You're killing me!!!!!

I don't get this crap Big J. Seems you are continuously trying to stir things up on various threads with different members ( now Cocker ). Who's next..??

Let's be honnest, I was the one stirring things up, here. I'm really curious about the accuracy of the jacket here and don't mind raising other's concern if they are not willing to post on TFL.

Oh by the way, here's a poor quality picture of an original Flite Wear jacket I took at the Georgia Museum of Aviation 2.5 years ago. No epaulets and bright orange lining.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk

Well I still can't see that Cocker. What I can see is someone running over to another forum to copy a post and paste it here. Then have the audacity to claim that you should be banned.

Well I still can't see that Cocker. What I can see is someone running over to another forum to copy a post and paste it here. Then have the audacity to claim that you should be banned.

Click to expand...

This is why Bob M has such a job ahead of him.

Anyways, here's some pics of related jacket, but not the same. Interesting stuff. It's important to remember that astronauts would have had custom-made-up jackets, special for them, and maybe some NASA pilots/aircrew people would have too, so we're into foggy territory with jackets like the one this thread is about. Also, Buzz has always done some oddball stuff, often copying a specific jacket worn by a specific person who made specific changes/alterations, so again we're into foggy territory.

Who's Bob M...??

Too much drama..not enough mamma. It's a cool jacket, for me that's enough but....

Big J said:

@Cocker, over on the VLJ another member has just fed you that information and you've stated that you're going to come over here and use it to 'troll' the affiliate member HPA Rep;

http://vintageleatherjackets.org/th...acket-from-buzz-rickson-this-time-nasa.20656/

I took a screen shot (available on request) as a safeguard against editing.

Without affiliate members, the TFL would have to shut down or charge for membership. IMHO you ought to be banned for that.

Click to expand...

Big J,

I haven’t read VLJ in about 10 years, which is a shame because there are some few insightful posts, but too much I liken to The National Enquirer, this being such an example. It is interesting that the initiator of the post refers to the red MA-1 as fantasy when two vintage jackets were depicted in a photo as worn by F-89H crewmen. And then there's the L-2A with O. D. knit that everyone has now gone silent on since I posted Capt. Gleason of the 334th FIS wearing one in Korea 1952.

It is equally interesting to note that no one asks interrogating questions with requests for photo documentation when some select repro makers claim some original maker did X between the lining and outer shell of their jackets. Or that no one even does the slightest bit of comparison work themselves to contrast such obvious details as insultingly large stitch holes in certain leather repro garments vs. the vintage examples, or performs weight comparisons of original jackets with repro counterparts, or makes comparisons of knits and linings under magnification, naming but a few less-than-critical points for study. Fortunately, I'm not alone in noticing this and I don't fear in speaking out on these topics, but it is unfortunate that some have been intimidated into silence even here, a place that is, in my opinion, more fair, balanced, and forgiving.

When it comes to the limited production of NASA items, or Test Samples, or commercial goods, I'd be the last one to endeavor to make any sort of omniscient, sweeping claim of how things must be across the board because I know enough to not be so self-indulging in such claims and I'm equally aware of my potential fallibility. Issue items do fall into a different category, but even then I have learned to refrain as much as possible from the use of positively exclusionary words such as "never" and "always." I know enough to know I'm still learning.

So, BR is in the business of propaganda. First, I think every company in the world engages in marketing that some might deem propaganda. Second, I posted a few photos of a new style and announced orders were being accepted. I made no claims that this was copied directly from Buzz Aldrin's jacket or the like; in fact, I said we were still pursuing a "celebrity" jacket. Lastly, those who are reasoning that the absence of something (predicated on a very narrow range of info.) is proof that something does not exist truly amaze me. The logical reasoning at hand is at odds with how I trained to think as an historian, and those who can be attributed to such reasoning and their attendant statements demonstrate their narrowness of thought, problematic reasoning, and limited knowledge on the subject.

Alas, do the naysayers really know the people at BR brand and their obvious nefarious ways (that's a joke)? Do they really think BR designers are so inept as to not look at photos and realize that they could easily make a jacket look like a photographed item just to appease those who do not look beyond photos and perform true research? Making items that may appear as anomalies to many is not a smart way to proceed because it draws attention; this is why forged items sold as genuine almost always conform to what the collector expects vs. the unexpected. Do they know what goes into making the many BR products? Do I think BR is perfect? I don't, nor do I think any other brand is, but some have more flaws than others. BR A-2’s, for example, use leather that is too heavy to be authentic, as does just about every top repro maker today, but the BR A-2 linings, on the other hand, are the most authentic I’ve seen, yet still not perfect. Other things I do like about BR is their passion and dedication and execution. I like the amazing items they have pulled out of the air and the recreations that followed. And I like the surprises I didn’t know existed – things I have never seen before.

The world making the purchases is changing, that is indisputable to anyone in this business who knows what is going on. BR made a good deal of money in the heyday and reinvested that in many areas to make the great products they do (several million on Crown zips, for example), but they would never spend those sums today. For those who crave vintage-style items that are about as good as it can realistic get, why not be grateful such offerings exist, because it's truly by luck that they still do in this world that has needs and interests that are more focused on functionality with cell phones and daily life than vintage authenticity, even in Japan.

I sincerely think it bothers the naysayers when confronted by a company that sometimes does things in such an intense way that they would normally be inclined to admire (testing the melting point of nylon for the MA-1 being one such example), yet they cannot get beyond whatever prejudices drive them so as to allow themselves to appreciate the efforts and resultant goods. Such individuals could readily be called negative thinkers, focusing energy and time to always pursue the negative. I eschew negative individuals because they drag all that is good down with them if one allows oneself to be sucked into their orbit.

Please don't allow yourself to get sucked in, Big J, which is not suggesting you are or have been. Your forthright candor in pursuit of balance and fairness is immensely refreshing and appreciated. This is something I see woefully little of anywhere these days.

You're a better man than I Charles.

Doctor Damage said:

This is why Bob M has such a job ahead of him.

Anyways, here's some pics of related jacket, but not the same. Interesting stuff. It's important to remember that astronauts would have had custom-made-up jackets, special for them, and maybe some NASA pilots/aircrew people would have too, so we're into foggy territory with jackets like the one this thread is about. Also, Buzz has always done some oddball stuff, often copying a specific jacket worn by a specific person who made specific changes/alterations, so again we're into foggy territory.

Click to expand...

That's the sort of insightful knowledge that is absent in the posts Big J cited. The fog of jackets should not be discounted. Right on, Doctor Damage!

Big J said:

You're a better man than I Charles.

Click to expand...

I think you're a better man than you think, Gunga Din!

Charles, when you open a post about this jacket stating that "this is a copy of a jacket worn by a test pilot", I think quite a few of us will be this be interested in seeing the original jacket because it differentiates to the usual NASA L2's we've seen.

I certainly have no malice or bad intentions by asking that. After all, I'm here on a forum where discussing vintage and rare flight jackets is pretty much the point of posting...

Hmm.

Charles, I felt compelled to post here as much of what you wrote above is dubious. Let’s start with some facts:

Firstly, that “Blazing Red” MA-1 which in your own marketing blurb from your own site states, “the result being a Blazing-Red MA-1 Jacket that made their elite test pilots stand out, as seen in our vintage photo of the crew of an F-89H “Scorpion.” So let’s have a look shall we…

Here’s your Blazing Red MA-1:



…and here’s the colour photo of the two Northrop test pilots standing in front of the Scorpion (also from your website):



Now here’s something, have a look at the left sleeve on the chap on the right, that’s funny, there doesn’t appear to be a sleeve “cigarette” pocket. Perhaps it’s just the image or a play of light. Or maybe not:



Here’s a better and closer photo of these two Northrop test pilots pre-flighting the Scorpion for the photographer. Once again no cigarette pocket and the finish on their jackets is not a shiny nylon as per the Blazing Red MA-1 but a flatter more matt material. It’s also debatable whether the jackets have oxygen tabs.

So is it fair to claim that your Blazing Red MA-1 is the same jacket as worn by the Northrop Scorpion pilots as you infer in your product spiel?


No and therein lies the problem.


I don’t have a problem with BR jackets at all, but I don’t like it when you or anyone else tries to stretch the truth or tell outright porkie pies saying a jacket is an exact replica or copy of a specific jacket when it’s very obviously not. Where I come from that’s called bullshit. I understand that you sell these jackets and that you have to market them and talk them up but there’s a difference between advertising pap and trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

That’s the reason why BR, and I suppose you as well since you are a rep for them, have copped some flak over at VLJ. It’s not because anyone has anything specifically against BR (well I don’t speaking for myself) but it’s this outright BS of saying that some BR jackets are exact replicas when they’re clearly not or it’s unproven.


Case in point again, this NASA Flite Line jacket which you tout as a “copy of one worn by a test pilot”, except it’s different from known NASA Flite Line jackets in terms of the epaulettes, lining, it has an oxygen tab, and the BR nylon looks to possibly be a different material from what Flite Line normally used. This is why posters have asked to see the actual jacket it was based on so that they can see this is based on an actual jacket because right now it’s different from known existent examples.

In terms of the L-2A (and the B-15C Mod whilst we’re about it) with olive knits, everybody knows they exist/existed as there are photos/examples of them. What is disputed is whether they left the manufacturer like that (which would contravene the specifications which were needed to be passed by an inspector for distribution for government use) or whether, the far more likely and logical reason, these were in theatre repairs.

What probably didn’t help matters was in an earlier thread here (and which got brought up a lot over at VLJ) was where it was thinly implied (well not that thin if we’re honest) that a member was perhaps racist for questioning the veracity of certain BR jackets.

A little honesty and some actual facts would probably go down a lot better rather than blindly railing against anyone who dares question the accuracy of certain of BR’s claims. I’d also question why you have such a problem and sensitivity with members on these various fora asking genuine questions about the historical veracity of some of BR’s offerings. If they’re possibly going to shell out quite large sums of money for one then surely they’re allowed to ask for some evidence to back up any claims made, be they marketing or otherwise.

Oh and saying that because BR have made it, it must be based on fact isn’t actually evidence of that.

Smithy said:

A little honesty and some actual facts would probably go down a lot better rather than blindly railing against anyone who dares question the accuracy of certain of BR’s claims. I’d also question why you have such a problem and sensitivity with members on these various fora asking genuine questions about the historical veracity of some of BR’s offerings. If they’re possibly going to shell out quite large sums of money for one then surely they’re allowed to ask for some evidence to back up any claims made, be they marketing or otherwise.

Oh and saying that because BR have made it, it must be based on fact isn’t actually evidence of that.

Click to expand...

I feel this is a very fair point. I've got no beef with anyone in this whole thing - every dealing I've had with Charles previously has been very polite and courteous.

However, I feel like it's only fair to inquire about the provenance of certain designs when spending such a lot of money for supposed historical accuracy. I asked my initial question with genuine sincerity, but it feels like we've basically been told to get lost. I don't feel that it was an unfair question to ask.

Not quite sure what to make of Charles' response, to be honest.