Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Can you help me identify a US Navy Issue Peacoat?

return of neo

New in Town
Messages
9
I recently bought a US Navy Issue peacoat from a thrift shop in NY. It came dirty and requires some tailoring work, yet is one of the coolest coats I have ever seen.
I have a slight issue though. In my religion we cannot wear wool and linen in the same garment. The special religious tester said that this coat is probably made from reclaimed/ recycled materials, and if so this would highly increase the chance of having linen inside, but it would be ridiculously expensive to test the entire coat.
What are your thoughts?
Would certain era coats have this collection of filler material? What is the likelihood of this coat having linen in it?

Although I am not a expert, due to descriptions in have read on other threads, I believe it is made from Kersey wool.
I have attached pictures in order for you guys to take a look.

One last question. What do you think is the best way to deal with the fix-up work? Should I get the original polyester lining replaced? Should I have the raw edges of the front buttonholes sewed? (Similar to the buttonhole on the lapel.)

Once again, thank you so very much for your time and your help.
Mr Rusrus
Front right cuff threading.
Front right outside pocket.
Front putside button.
Top left lapel and button hole.
Label on right side of interior.
Hanging tab on neckline area.
Small pocket on lower left interior.
Corduroy lined main pockets.
 

Carlos840

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,939
Location
London
I think it's a lot easier and a lot more reliable to use Photobucket.
Just creat an account on photobucketdotcom, upload your pictures to it and copy and paste the IMG link to your fedora lounge post.
 

Carlos840

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,939
Location
London
Would that give me any info on the content of the lining?

Honestly, i have no idea! Your peacoat is definitely Kersey wool, but is there any linnen in the fabric or in the linning? I don't think anyone can say for certain.
Maybe Peacoat will know more, he will definitely show up soon.
 

return of neo

New in Town
Messages
9
Honestly, i have no idea! Your peacoat is definitely Kersey wool, but is there any linnen in the fabric or in the linning? I don't think anyone can say for certain.
Maybe Peacoat will know more, he will definitely show up soon.
Well thanks for the help! I'll await the arrival of Peacoat and hope he has the knowledge I seek, somewhere in his famous treasure hoard of peacoat information.
Thanks again Carlos!
 

Atticus Finch

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,718
Location
Coastal North Carolina, USA
I have two pea coats like yours, but in a larger size. Peacoat's dating thread places this jacket at 1965, but I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. I've researched this tag foremat and I believe it to have been used in fiscal year 1959. There are many reasons, but the three most compeling are:

1. In 1965, the DSA was the government agency responsible for issuing military clothing. The DA had ceased operation over two years prior. The tag in your jacket is, thus, older than 1965.

2. I uncovered several references to this contract number foremat in the pleadings of federal lawsuits wherein the government was suing contractors for breaching government clothing contracts. In addition to reciting the specific contract number, the pleading also stated the date of the contract. The foremat used in your jacket's tag corresponds to contracts entered in 1959 and 1960.

3. Our pea coats are sized only numerically. That is, our tags are marked only 38, 42, 48 or whatever. There were no longs, regulars or shorts. By 1962, pea coats were, for the first time, being issued in longs, regulars and shorts...and their tagged sizes reflected this. For example, the 1962 tag in Peacoat's thread is marked "36R". It would not make sense for pea coats to come in long, regular and short in 1962, but not in 1965, and then again in 1966. It is much more likely that the sizing scheme reflected in your jacket predates 1962.

AF
 
Last edited:

Peacoat

*
Bartender
Messages
6,333
Location
South of Nashville
Actually I placed the US NAVY tags at a range of 1958, or perhaps a year or two earlier, up to 1965, which was the last year of it's issuance. I have misplaced my list of prefix letters for contract numbers, which isn't unusual, but I certainly don't dispute Atticus' use of the contract numbers to date the coat more specifically to 1959 or 1960.

Normally in years after about 1953 the date was embedded in the contract numbers, so that makes a determining a specific date a simple matter, if so embedded. In peacoats of earlier years, we can use the prefix of the contract number to determine if one coat is of an older contract date than the other. For example with two similar tags, we might see that one has a TAP prefix and one has an N prefix. In that situation we would know that the N prefix is the older coat. If the date of the TAP prefix coat is known, then the N prefix coat will be a year or so older. Sometime after the TAP prefixes, along came the DA prefixes, which is what we see in this particular peacoat

As this is the US NAVY tag, we would expect to see the date embedded in the contract number. It doesn't seem to be there. I think Addicus' date of 1959 or 1960 is as close as the OP will get for his coat. PC.
 

Atticus Finch

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,718
Location
Coastal North Carolina, USA
I don't know much about peacoats...but I've learned much about that particular style of tag. :)

The DA 36-243-QM (CTM) xxxx-C-xx tag nomenclature seems to have begun in late 1957 and ended in 1962 when the DSA came into existence. During that time, some tags were made showing the entire identification scheme; other tags only display a portion of the number. Apparently, this was done at the whim of the individual contractor. So, technically, the OP's peacoat (and my two) could have been made at anytime during that period. We can't know exactly when because, obviously, their DA numbers don't include a specific date. I do doubt that they are 1962 jackets because they seem to only have come in numerical sizes. I also doubt they were made in 1958 because the tags from at least one 1958 contract include the date "58".

AF
 
Last edited:

return of neo

New in Town
Messages
9
Thank so much guys for the feedback so far!

Please excuse my ignorance, but does DSA stand for Defense Services Administration?

Also, now that we narrowed down the range of years my peacoat belongs in, how would I go about discovering whether or not there is linen in the coat?
Is there a way? Or a person to contact? You guys seem to be pretty much the foremost experts. So i'm really reaching here.

Thanks
Mr. Rusrus
 

Atticus Finch

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,718
Location
Coastal North Carolina, USA
Without testing, I'm not sure how you would know, conclusively, if any garment is completely linen-free. I trust the USN when they say that the shell of what we refer to as a "peacoat" is 100% wool. But, of course, that doesn't tell us what the pockets are lined with, nor does it indicate what the coat's interior lining is made from. Cotton corduroy and rayon (respectively) would be my guess...but that's only a guess based on what I know about other military jackets from that era. Further, I would be surprised if there is anyone alive today who answer this question without testing the coat's fabric. The people who actually made our 1960-ish coats are probably no longer around to ask.
 

Peacoat

*
Bartender
Messages
6,333
Location
South of Nashville
And to throw a few flies in the ointment: Just because you can date your coat to a manufacture year of 1959 or 1960, that doesn't mean it was issued in either of those years. Some sat around for several years before being put in service. I once saw a mid 50s peacoat that wasn't issued until sometime in the mid to late 60s, I believe it was. The tag I have listed in my dating guide as a 1965 tag was actually issued to a buddy of mine in April, 1965. That is how I fixed the specific date--the date of issue. According to Atticus' analysis of the contract number it may have been produced a few years earlier.

Also, use of the prefix letters to fix a specific year has its own perils. For instance there were still DA prefixes in existence in 1962 when, supposedly the DSA prefixes had superseded them (see the 1962 tag in the link below). And to confuse matters further, My research shows that DSA prefixes were used from 1961 to 1977, thus overlapping the DA prefix. Additionally, I just found more contradictory informaton regarding the prefix numbers. I think that is why I didn't put much stock in them after the N, TAP and QM prefixes on Navy peacoats.

For dating vintage Navy peacoats, and limited to Navy peacoats, here is what I have on prefixes. This guide is for only Navy peacoats, and I have found it to be mostly accurate:

N (seen on Clothing Supply Office type 2 labels).
TAP (seen on Clothing Supply Office 1 labels and Clothing Depot labels)
QM in use in 1958 (seen on US NAVY labels)
DA in use in 1962 (seen on Clothing Supply Office type 2 labels* and US NAVY labels)
DSA in use from 1961 to 1977
DLA in use from 1978 to present

For my purposes the most useful prefixes are the QM prefixes when the date isn't specified in the contract number, TAP prefix when the date isn't given or is illegible and the N prefix, which is the earliest prefix I have found. Using those prefixes I can give a pretty close estimate of the date of production. During and after the TAP prefix, the date is usually embedded in the contract number, but not always.

For WWII peacoats the closest I can normally get is that it is of wartime vintage. There are no real identifying characteristic changes during the war years. If the neck tag is still on the coat and is legible, and if it contains an NXSX prefix followed by five numbers, I can give a date to a specific month in a given year in the war. For some reason the record keeping and the identifying numbers on the individual coats were much more meticulous than in later years. Unfortunately, the first thing to wear off on the WWII coats was the neck tag, leaving only the chest pocket tag, which has little information.

While Atticus says printing only a part of the contract number on the label appears to have been at the whim of the contractor, I feel there is a more sinister motive. The conflicting and partial information included on the tags was simply to confuse and make the subsequent researchers life more difficult 70 years down the road. With this researcher, they accomplished their goal.


http://www.thefedoralounge.com/thre...-dating-the-united-states-navy-peacoat.72058/

_________
*While the Clothing Supply Office type 2 label may have been used in 1962, I have never seen one.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
107,538
Messages
3,039,783
Members
52,917
Latest member
eltqt
Top