Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Outerwear' started by Matt Jones, Aug 30, 2005.
Hi and thank you! In the hand warmer pockets the lining is white cotton
With the white cotton lining in the pockets, that means if the buttons are original to the coat, then the contract on this coat was let between 1968 and and 1979. If the buttons have been replaced, the contract date is 1968 to 1973, or perhaps early 1974. The originality of the buttons, or the lack thereof, will now determine the date range of this particular coat.
Wow! I am amazed...Thank you!
Hello I just purchased this pea coat on ebay. Trying to see what year it is. This is the only tag on the coat(inside pocket) the hand pocket is white inside. Ill put the link for the coat I got. Thanks!
Wish all questions were this easy. A 1975 coat with a Kersey shell.
I am going to move this to the main peacoat thread.
Welcome to the Lounge. PC
Probably the wrong time of year to be buying a Peacoat as it'll soon get warmer but I took a punt on one yesturday anyway but it had no tag inside.
Having read through @Peacoat fantastic article/info on how to date them I was just wanting to get a little clarification really as I think the one I bought may have been listed incorrectly (possibly good for me).
Am I right in thinking that if a peacoat has cord pockets it would be blue and not black and more likely to be Kersey wool due to the date cord pockets were replaced and the Melton wool introduced?
I'll link the listing bellow in case its any help, I did speak to the seller and the one pictured is the one for sale, even with those pictures it looks a little blue to me tbh.
This is a pre 1968 peacoat which will have the midnight blue Kersey wool.
Thank you so much for replying and for the free education , it was your guide that made me decide to go the vintage route rather than a new modern version, really looking forward to receiving it.
My size 46 1949 coat arrived today. This looks almost unworn to me, there is no marking inside or outside. The lining is undamaged at the cuffs and armpits. The only sign of wear is a loosening of the buttons on one side where it has probably been buttoned up (compared to the super tightness on the other side). I almost don't believe this is actually 70 years old.
I am pretty disappointed that as expected it is too big for me and I need to keep looking for a size 44...
Thanks for your help @Peacoat. I am going to put this up for sale or trade (for a size 44 of similar age or WW2).
One point is that there is no throat latch on the underside of the collar, is this something that has been lost or was it never there?
Throat latch was likely never there. If I remember correctly, this is a 1949 coat, and the throat latches were last used on the WWII coats.
IMHO, that coat fits you perfectly! Shoulders hit exactly where they should. Also, PEACOAT states in his pinned post that these early post-WWII coats fit more trimly than same sizes made later. Also, the throat latch was featured only on the WWII 10-button coats. Excellent condition post-WWII 8-button.
No, sadly the shoulders of the coat are way beyond my shouders... and it is very very roomy in the body. Definitely too big.
So I've read Peacoat's treatise and had some experience purchasing thus far. Here is my current strategy, wanted to hear your thoughts and perhaps get a few questions answered...
Objective: A very fitted, fashionable-looking but still military-issued peacoat. Normal measurements are 38 suit, 32 sleeve, 30 waist.
Experience: First tried the current Schott repros, then the Sterlingwear last issued ones. This was mostly before reading about the history and proper measuring technique on the thread. Everything was enormous. Even the 34s, the smallest ones each mfr. makes, were enormous. NB- I have no idea for whom these things were cut. Every sailor in the modern era must've been swimming in them!
Local vintage store had a 70s era one, I believe, and it was a 36 with a pit to pit measurement of 20". Was almost my size but still read a little large. So I determined that I need a 60s-70s 34, ideally with a pit to pit of 18". But I feel like a 20" will be fine as it was the shoulders that were really the problem with the 36.
This all sound about right?
1. Most of the ones I come across on the 'bay that are pre-Sterlingwear seem to be from either Dale Fashions or Pembroke. Anyone know much about this?... Hah, never mind, just discovered Pembroke is some general term for the style, not a mfr. Same still applies for Dale.
2. Peacoat mentioned that these labels indicate phonies:
They seem to come up a lot. Anyone know where these are actually from/what their story is?
Those two things don't go together. They are oil and water. Pick one or the other. My advice is to pick the former, since your measurements indicate you are tiny and will probably never find military clothing that small that fits the way you want it to. If you keep looking you should be able to find a civilian coat which has conservative details. To be honest, genuine military peacoats, esp the modern ones, are kinda bland and cheap looking, so finding a high quality civilian one would probably be smarter anyways.
In your second paragraph, you said "38 suit . . . . " Did you mean 38" chest? If a size 36 is a little large on you, then I doubt your chest circumference is 38".
A size 34 will have a p2p or about 19" not 20".
Dale Fashions and Pembroke were both manufacturers.
Those tags are most likely Fidelity coats.
If a size 36 is a little large on you, then a 34 with a p2p of 19" might be the best fit you are going to find, as the size 32 just isn't out there much. There were a few of them in the vintage coats, but hard to find.
You may have already done this, but give me your exact chest circumference, and I will suggest a tag size, along with the p2p that should give you a good fit.
So I just measured. The reason I omitted this step before was because, somewhat as you alluded to, I’m down to really no more options- if a 36 is too big, there’s only one option left .
But, for the info: it’s 40.25”-40.5”. Might seem large to you for what I am after but don’t know what to say. The ones that measure 20 inches across just don’t lay right and do feel a bit too large. And I did measure a good number of times right across the even line under my arms, exhaled, and at a relaxed tension point.
In the vintage coats, with a 40" chest, a size 40 (p2p of 22.25) should give a loose fit with sufficient room for layering. A size 38 (p2p of 20.5") should give a trim fit. Don't know why you are having the problems you are having, unless, perhaps you are incredibly skinny, and the coat just hangs on you. Unless, you aren't trying on the vintage Navy issue coats but are trying the civilian fashion peacoats, which really aren't peacoats at all.
The smaller sizes (34 through 38) have a different p2p than what we are used to in the regular sizes (40 through 44) that have the standard p2p. While the larger sizes (46 through 48) also have different p2p measurements. Can't tell you why, that's just the way it is.
Here are the approximate p2p measurements for the smaller sizes:
34 = 19"
36 = 20"
38 = 20.5"
And the P2p for the normal sizes:
40 = 22.5"
42 = 23.5"
44 = 24.5"
Yeah the seller gave me a p2p of 19” for the 34. Perhaps a difference here is that I’m actually intending to wear this mostly with a T-shirt and not to layer. I would rather have a slimmer fit that works with only one thin layer, and have it be a bit snug with thicker ones, than a baggy fit with a light under layer.
Hello everyone, just got this nice 50's coat off ebay for $50. Corduroy pockets, Naval Clothing Depot tag. Overall in good condition with a few moth holes but i can live with it. This time i took a 36 and the fit is perfect. I'm reposting the picture of my first 40's coat from a couple of years ago for comparison.