Fine Creek Leather

Ayeteael said:

I could care less about stitch count and laser-straight rows of stitching. All I care about is whether it passes the eye and fit test: does it look good on my body and does it feel good when I wear it?

Click to expand...

Marc mndt said:

I personally like a cossack better when it's short (2nd one) View attachment 300129

Click to expand...

dudewuttheheck said:

Agreed @Marc mndt I think cossack jackets generally look better short.

Click to expand...

marker2037 said:

My biggest problem with that ripped seam FCL was not the construction or that it even ripped, but rather the response by the retailer and FCL themselves. He got hosed man and I'm not sure I would do business with either again.

Click to expand...

jeo said:

Really?

I saw it on the leather jacket thread on styleforum. The thread is sometimes hard to follow since there is so much bullshit going on there, but last I saw, the retailer offered to pay for his shipping to Japan and handle all further communication with FCL until it gets fixed. He refused for the retailer to pay for the shipping. He ended paying a pretty penny to ship it back to Japan. The package hasn't been accepted yet by anyone over at FCL.

That's as far as the story goes. Has it been also documented on another thread? Did FCL not agree to fix it?

Click to expand...

marker2037 said:

That's not entirely true. SE told him he had to ship it back to FCL in Japan himself and that they (Selfedge, not FCL) would cover the return shipping, any import duties back to the USA, AND any costs that FCL MIGHT charge to repair the jacket.

A shitstorm ensued and basically SE upped their ante by offering some store credit after a couple members offered to pay for the shipping cost to Japan ($220!). The guy declined their offer, rightfully so in my opinion, but now the jacket sits in limbo because he wasn't the original importer of the jacket (that would be SE) and he doesn't have the import receipt to cover any import duties back INTO Japan.

What a mess...

Click to expand...

Blackadder said:

The rack of jackets are for display and fitting. You may be able to convince them to sell you a floor model if you are there but not when ordering online. I have been to their booth at the Inazuma Festival and seen a few old (patina) display items on sale but for brand new jackets, those are made to measure. You get a small discount if you order at the Inazuma Fest.

Click to expand...

Superfluous said:

@BloodEagle -- thanks for the photo -- that is beautiful stitching on your FCL jacket. I also love the French seams. This is why I want a FCL jacket.

Stitch density has been debated on TFL many times in the past. Stitch density can be desirable both for structural integrity and aesthetics (for those of us who prefer stitch density, me included). On the other hand, "excessive" stitch density can, at some point, compromise the integrity of the leather. The key question is what constitutes "excessive" stitch density. When are the stitch holes too close? When is the thread too tight? When is the leather at risk of tearing? There are lots of lay opinions being shared here based on eyeballing an internet photograph, but who here is sufficiently knowledgeable to advance an informed opinion regarding what constitutes "excessive" stitch density, when that line is crossed, and whether FCL has crossed that line? I admittedly am not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the subject.

Himel posted about stitch counts a few years ago: https://www.thefedoralounge.com/thr...bros-avail-at-orvis.87375/page-9#post-2153480 It is far, far more complicated then merely the distance between the holes. The type of needle used and the resulting size of the stitch hole is a key factor. The type of thread is also a key factor. And there are other considerations, including the leather itself.

If FCL jackets were regularly failing because stitch holes were tearing, I would be concerned. However, to the best of my knowledge, that is not happening. To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one FCL seam failure (that has been shared multiple times on TFL by those who dislike FCL) and, even then, I don't know if that was caused by compromised leather that tore at the stitch holes. I also am aware of Aero seam failures. It happens. If FCL's stitch holes were in fact too close and thereby impairing the integrity of the leather, I would expect multiple failures -- certainly more than one. That hasn't happened. If it does, I will re-evaluate my opinion. Otherwise, unless someone can proffer concrete data and/or a genuinely knowledgeable/expert explanation that FCL's otherwise beautiful stitching is in fact too tight and does in fact compromise the integrity of the leather in light of the various relevant considerations, I am unpersuaded by lay opinions that the stitch holes "look too close." They don't "look too close" to me -- then again, I am not an expert on the subject.

I am putting my money where my mouth is. FCL jacket ordered today. I am MUCH less concerned with the structural integrity of the beautiful stitching, and MUCH more concerned with the fit. Fingers crossed.

Lastly, @dudewuttheheck - if I came on too strong, I apologize.

Click to expand...

marker2037 said:

That's not entirely true. SE told him he had to ship it back to FCL in Japan himself and that they (Selfedge, not FCL) would cover the return shipping, any import duties back to the USA, AND any costs that FCL MIGHT charge to repair the jacket.

A shitstorm ensued and basically SE upped their ante by offering some store credit after a couple members offered to pay for the shipping cost to Japan ($220!). The guy declined their offer, rightfully so in my opinion, but now the jacket sits in limbo because he wasn't the original importer of the jacket (that would be SE) and he doesn't have the import receipt to cover any import duties back INTO Japan.

What a mess...

Click to expand...

Superfluous said:

The operative words in the above statement are "to me." Jacket length is fundamentally and inherently a subjective issue and there is no objectively correct or incorrect length. It is personal preference. I respect your preference and I know you respect mine.

As has been discussed here ad nauseum, those of us who do not tuck-in our shirts generally prefer slightly longer jackets so as to minimize the distance between the bottom of the jacket and the bottom of our shirts. Others here usually tuck in their shirts and, for those people, a shorter jacket is often more desirable. Different stokes for different folks.

Height is also an important factor. Some here who endorse vintage dimensions coincidentally are not particularly tall (@Carlos840 being the exception). If I was shorter and could fit into a greater variety of vintage jackets and/or OTR offerings, I might feel differently.

Ultimately, the biggest consideration is . . . drum roll . . . plain old personal preference. Its that simple. What aesthetic do you prefer. No aesthetic is inherently correct or better. Its all personal preference.

My gripe is when someone attempts to establish an absolute, objective benchmark and derides any deviation from their benchmark. Live and let live. Its fine to respectfully state your own preferences, as we both have done here, but we also must respect our varying subjective preferences. Such mutual respect is the foundation of this great community. No one should disparage varying opinions, nor proclaim an objective standard (which simply does not exist). IMHO, some of the sharing of subjective preferences that occurs here occasionally includes subtle disparagement of differing opinions that crosses the line and that detracts from our respectful discourse. I likely am guilty of such transgressions. We all should be mindful of the foregoing.



Again, your "opinion." I respect your opinion, but completely disagree. I strongly believe that repro manufacturers are, and must be, free to deviate from the precise dimensions of prior models and vary the proportions as they deem appropriate. The dimensions used in 1950 or 1960 are no more superior or "correct" than the measurements used in 2020. They are merely different. Likewise, the manufacturing methods and standards used in 1950 and 1960 and no more "correct" than the substantially different methods used today. Just as one is free to "build a better mousetrap," one is free to build a better (or different) jacket (or at least try). In general, the jackets built today incorporate objectively better leather and improved stitching as compared to 1950-1960 (there are exceptions). Changes to the dimensions are no less appropriate or permissible. Throughout history, clothing manufacturers have endeavored to improve upon pre-existing clothing, including dimensions. But for these improvements, we all would be wearing leaves, loincloths, or togas. Again, there is no reason to proclaim that the manufacturers of 1950-1960 made the perfect product and any deviation necessarily diminishes the product.

I also greatly appreciate the variety and choices that arise from repro manufacturers willing to take chances and deviate from the strict parameters of vintage pieces. Many/most vintage jackets do not fit me -- they are often way too short. My Buco J-100 is the exception. I wish I could fit into a vintage Sears Hercules, but I cannot. If all repro manufacturers refused to deviate from vintage dimensions, I would have very few options. Therefore, I am grateful for those repro manufacturers that deviate from the originals. Some deviations from the originals work well. Some not so much. Either way, I applaud the attempt and appreciate the varied options. TFH jackets have very broad shoulders -- much broader than originals. Although that does not work for me, I nevertheless greatly respect TFH's efforts and their stellar product.

I apologize to the A2 segment that eschew any deviation from the originals. I respect your desire to replicate the originals as closely as possible. I feel no similar desire with moto jackets.

A little mutual respect goes a long way.

Click to expand...

Carlos840 said:

Not trying to start an argument here, but IMO @willyto is right...
Yes there is some wiggle room to allow for personnal preference, but in general to be functional a motorcycle jacket has to be short. (unless you are talking trial style longer jackets)

Case in point the Vanson Commando:

That jacket is supposed to be a motorcycle jacket, it is inspired by the J-24 which is a motorcycle jacket.
My LW J-24 has a back length of 25.25", which is slightly longer than original, but still pretty short.
With that jacket i can comfortably sit on a motorcycle without the bottom hem hitting my thighs, riding up and choking me.

Back to the Commando, the jacket is longer than a J-24 was, with a back length of 26.5".
I assume they did that so that modern day users would be able to wear it whilst wearing low rise trousers and untucked shirts.
1.25" doesn't sound like much, but it is enough to cause a problem.
Try sitting on a motorcycle with that jacket and you are instantly getting choked, the bottom hem rides on your thighs, the back of the jacket touches the motorcycle seat and goes up, it's a mess. It's a problem for me and i am taller than average. Someone who is 6' or less would be incapabale of sitting down comfortably in that jacket because of it's length.
To counteract that, they used a two way zipper so that you can open the bottom of the jacket when you sit down:

IMO this is an absolutely ridiculouse thing to do, it looks bad, feels bad and i don't trust a zipper like that to hold up in a slide, it's an overall bad idea, which would not have happened if they hadn't tried to fix a "problem" created by people trying to wear that jacket in a way it was not designed to be worn.

When i designed my custom commando the first thing i did was remove 1" all around, and that jacket has gone back to being usable on the bike:

If personnal preference starts screwing with functionality, it isn't really a good idea IMO.
The reason i shortened the commando 1" was not personnal preference, it was 100% functional, i was just taking the jacket from "MC inspired jacket" back to "real MC jacket".

Click to expand...

Carlos840 said:

Not trying to start an argument here, but IMO @willyto is right...
Yes there is some wiggle room to allow for personnal preference, but in general to be functional a motorcycle jacket has to be short. (unless you are talking trial style longer jackets)
It has to be short enough that the bottom hem doesn't touch your thighs or the seat behind you, but long enough to not have too much of you exposed to the elements, that doesn't leave much room for "personal preference"...

Case in point the Vanson Commando:

That jacket is supposed to be a motorcycle jacket, it is inspired by the J-24 which is a motorcycle jacket.
My LW J-24 has a back length of 25.25", which is slightly longer than original, but still pretty short.
With that jacket i can comfortably sit on a motorcycle without the bottom hem hitting my thighs, riding up and choking me.

Back to the Commando, the jacket is longer than a J-24 was, with a back length of 26.5".
I assume they did that so that modern day users would be able to wear it whilst wearing low rise trousers and untucked shirts.
1.25" doesn't sound like much, but it is enough to cause a problem.
Try sitting on a motorcycle with that jacket and you are instantly getting choked, the bottom hem rides on your thighs, the back of the jacket touches the motorcycle seat and goes up, it's a mess. It's a problem for me and i am taller than average. Someone who is 6' or less would be incapabale of sitting down comfortably in that jacket because of it's length.
To counteract that, they used a two way zipper so that you can open the bottom of the jacket when you sit down:

IMO this is an absolutely ridiculouse thing to do, it looks bad, feels bad and i don't trust a zipper like that to hold up in a slide, it's an overall bad idea, which would not have happened if they hadn't tried to fix a "problem" created by people trying to wear that jacket in a way it was not designed to be worn.

When i designed my custom commando the first thing i did was remove 1" all around, and that jacket has gone back to being usable on the bike:

If personnal preference starts screwing with functionality, it isn't really a good idea IMO.
The reason i shortened the commando 1" was not personnal preference, it was 100% functional, i was just taking the jacket from "MC inspired jacket" back to "real MC jacket".

Click to expand...

Carlos840 said:

Not trying to start an argument here, but IMO @willyto is right...
Yes there is some wiggle room to allow for personnal preference, but in general to be functional a motorcycle jacket has to be short. (unless you are talking trial style longer jackets)
It has to be short enough that the bottom hem doesn't touch your thighs or the seat behind you, but long enough to not have too much of you exposed to the elements, that doesn't leave much room for "personal preference"...

Case in point the Vanson Commando:

That jacket is supposed to be a motorcycle jacket, it is inspired by the J-24 which is a motorcycle jacket.
My LW J-24 has a back length of 25.25", which is slightly longer than original, but still pretty short.
With that jacket i can comfortably sit on a motorcycle without the bottom hem hitting my thighs, riding up and choking me.

Back to the Commando, the jacket is longer than a J-24 was, with a back length of 26.5".
I assume they did that so that modern day users would be able to wear it whilst wearing low rise trousers and untucked shirts.
1.25" doesn't sound like much, but it is enough to cause a problem.
Try sitting on a motorcycle with that jacket and you are instantly getting choked, the bottom hem rides on your thighs, the back of the jacket touches the motorcycle seat and goes up, it's a mess. It's a problem for me and i am taller than average. Someone who is 6' or less would be incapabale of sitting down comfortably in that jacket because of it's length.
To counteract that, they used a two way zipper so that you can open the bottom of the jacket when you sit down:

IMO this is an absolutely ridiculouse thing to do, it looks bad, feels bad and i don't trust a zipper like that to hold up in a slide, it's an overall bad idea, which would not have happened if they hadn't tried to fix a "problem" created by people trying to wear that jacket in a way it was not designed to be worn.

When i designed my custom commando the first thing i did was remove 1" all around, and that jacket has gone back to being usable on the bike:

If personnal preference starts screwing with functionality, it isn't really a good idea IMO.
The reason i shortened the commando 1" was not personnal preference, it was 100% functional, i was just taking the jacket from "MC inspired jacket" back to "real MC jacket".

Click to expand...

sweetfights said:

Carlos has the fit down for riding but I have to admit that is a great looking jacket dude is wearing on the motorcycle and at least he has the bottom zipper. He has nothing on Carlos though!

Click to expand...

Ayeteael said:

The photo is of the proprietor of Butterscotch, which is a pretty cool shop in Long Beach, CA. They do a lot of collabs with companies like Vanson and Addict. Concur he's got nothing on Carlos and his incredible collection.

https://www.butterscotchlb.com/

Click to expand...

sweetfights said:

Carlos has the fit down for riding but I have to admit that is a great looking jacket dude is wearing on the motorcycle and at least he has the bottom zipper. He has nothing on Carlos though!

Click to expand...

Carlos840 said:

Thanks,

Something else they did to that jacket, was make the wrist openings huge.
All 10 of my Vansons have wrist openings that are between 4" and 4.5" measured flat side to side when zippered shut.
With that mesurement i can comfortably fit shorty gloves inside the sleeve opening and get a tight seal, or feed the bottom of my sleeve inside a gauntlet gloves and get a perfect seal.

The commando wrist openings are 5.5" across, that is IMO huge. There is never a need to unzip the gussets, when you do they are literally funnels:

With 5.5" across, the sleeve is too big to seal above a short glove, and too bulky to fit inside a gauntlet glove.
It's all good if you live in California and ride in nice warm weather, but to me the wrist are a killer in the bad weather i get around here, i can never seal my wrists and the cold always comes in.

Why you ask?
I am 99% sure they did that so people can put the jacket on and off whilst wearing thick watches without having to open and close the zippers, as well as being able to zip the sleeve shut above a watch. If you look at the pics of the Butterscotch guy, he is wearing huge watches on most pics of him wearing the commando...
Once again they sacrificed on the bike functionality just for ease of life off the bike.

Again, on my custom commando i had them remove 2" from the wrist circumference, bringing it down from 5.5" to 4.5" across, like my other vansons.
I can't wear a thick watch with it, but i can ride my bike....

Click to expand...