G'day ladies and gentlemen - long time lurker (about 3 years in fact!), first-time poster. I apologize in advance for 1) the fairly negative tone of this post - I have some problems with a recently-bought Aero jacket, which are making me wonder if I did the right thing spending such a large amount of money on a jacket; 2) the long post - I tend to keep writing once I get started; and 3) the rather quirky English - English is my fourth language, and not even a year-long internship in Dublin could remove the "continental European"-quirks from my English. (It did, however, leave me with a new-found appreciation of Irish whiskey - but that's another story altogether.)
Anyway, on to the heart of the matter. I discovered Aero through this forum, and had been playing the "should I or shouldn't I"-game for well over a year before I finally decided to pull the trigger a couple of months ago on a FQHH Bootlegger jacket. The jacket arrived a while ago, and my first impressions were very positive indeed: the fit was spot on, and the leather quality seemed to be out of this world on first glance. Beautiful grain, very sturdy, very heavy. The Bootlegger model is quite vintage-looking, very unlike the typical mall-jacket of today. In short, I was very, *very* pleasantly surprised by the jacket, and I thought I'd found the jacket that was going to be my daily wearer for the next ten years or so. So pleased in fact that I immediately started brainstorming about ordering a Long Halfbelt, hah.
However, today I sat down and had a closer, better look at my jacket, and found a couple of things that were a bit unfamiliar, unheard of and plain strange to me. Two things bug me and - being somewhat prone to obsessive worrying - I know that these things could become a major source of worry for me, especially on a £600 jacket. Fortunately, this forum seems to house a lot of Aero-aficionados, so I thought I'd run my problems by you lot. I'm sincerely hoping that I'm making a big fuzz out of nothing, but here goes:
The first issue is regarding the difference between the "smooth" and "jerky" leather. The leather used on the torso and back of the jacket is very smooth, and feels very solid. However, one of the lapels of my jacket has very "grainy", or "jerky" leather. It's not just slightly more grainy, it has tons of folds, creases and ridges on it, right out of the box. It's the horse-hide equivalent of Keith Richards' face. I think it *looks* fantastic (the jacket - I have no opinion whatsoever of Mr. Richards' face), as if the animal's scars and skin blemish are all still there. However, I'm not too sure about whether this affects the strength and durability of that spot of leather. Should I be worried about the more "gnarly"-looking, scarred and jerky leather being more prone to drying out and cracking than the smoother leather? This isn't a major source of concern for me - I'm not expecting the jacket to last me 30 years, but I was hoping for something like a decade of solid wear, really. Every picture I've seen of vintage jackets (meaning older than 40 years) showed plenty of grain in the jacket, but very little creases and blemishes. Could it be that there is some kind of survivor-effect going on there, with the more jerky leather being more prone to cracking and tearing, resulting in these jackets being discarded?
The second issue is of much bigger concern to me. On the sleeves of my Bootlegger, I noticed that the different pieces of leather constituting the sleeve are joined in two ways: they are either stitched together (with the stitches showing, e.g. on the outside of the sleeves) or one piece is sort of "folded over" the other (with no stitches showing, on the inside of the sleeves as shown in this picture: http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL806/142228/4523742/56783277.jpg - you can see the "folded over" joining of the leather there). Upon closer examination of the folded-over bits, I noticed little pieces of some sort of sticky residue (almost silicone- or glue-like) could be seen inside the fold. It's not a solid line of glue, but small pieces in a "stitch-like" pattern. If I squeeze my fingernail in the fold, I can sort of pick the residue out. Has anyone else noticed this glue-like substance in the folds of their jackets? I've never had a leather jacket of this quality before: all of the other jackets I have are typical "mall-jackets", and they all show stitching where the different pieces of leather are joined. On this Aero, it seems as if the leather is simply folded over and glued together - is that right? If so, isn't that a lot less durable than having it stitched together? I tend to be very rough on my jackets, as I consider them workwear (after all, that's what leather was for back in the days!), and I don't hesitate to put them through different kinds of weather. I'm guessing that this would result in the glue dissolving over time, and the jacket falling apart. The other aspect is purely aesthetic: the contrast between the fantastic, thick, high-quality leather and this glue showing is remarkable. I've never handled a vintage jacket, so I have no idea what they're like - whether they had stitches showing at every "seam" or not. Maybe someone could shine some light on that?
Again, I'm hoping that I'm making a big fuzz about nothing - it just seems strange to find "glue" on a jacket of this price category. Especially seeing as the person who made the jacket is someone whose name I've seen mentioned on this very forum before, and always in a very positive manner. (I must say that if it wasn't for this "glue residue issue", I'd be singing the praises of Aero as well right now - in fact I'd probably be posting about how much I'm looking forward to my Stockman!)
I sincerely thank all of you in advance for your reply - this is somewhat doing my head in.
Anyway, on to the heart of the matter. I discovered Aero through this forum, and had been playing the "should I or shouldn't I"-game for well over a year before I finally decided to pull the trigger a couple of months ago on a FQHH Bootlegger jacket. The jacket arrived a while ago, and my first impressions were very positive indeed: the fit was spot on, and the leather quality seemed to be out of this world on first glance. Beautiful grain, very sturdy, very heavy. The Bootlegger model is quite vintage-looking, very unlike the typical mall-jacket of today. In short, I was very, *very* pleasantly surprised by the jacket, and I thought I'd found the jacket that was going to be my daily wearer for the next ten years or so. So pleased in fact that I immediately started brainstorming about ordering a Long Halfbelt, hah.
However, today I sat down and had a closer, better look at my jacket, and found a couple of things that were a bit unfamiliar, unheard of and plain strange to me. Two things bug me and - being somewhat prone to obsessive worrying - I know that these things could become a major source of worry for me, especially on a £600 jacket. Fortunately, this forum seems to house a lot of Aero-aficionados, so I thought I'd run my problems by you lot. I'm sincerely hoping that I'm making a big fuzz out of nothing, but here goes:
The first issue is regarding the difference between the "smooth" and "jerky" leather. The leather used on the torso and back of the jacket is very smooth, and feels very solid. However, one of the lapels of my jacket has very "grainy", or "jerky" leather. It's not just slightly more grainy, it has tons of folds, creases and ridges on it, right out of the box. It's the horse-hide equivalent of Keith Richards' face. I think it *looks* fantastic (the jacket - I have no opinion whatsoever of Mr. Richards' face), as if the animal's scars and skin blemish are all still there. However, I'm not too sure about whether this affects the strength and durability of that spot of leather. Should I be worried about the more "gnarly"-looking, scarred and jerky leather being more prone to drying out and cracking than the smoother leather? This isn't a major source of concern for me - I'm not expecting the jacket to last me 30 years, but I was hoping for something like a decade of solid wear, really. Every picture I've seen of vintage jackets (meaning older than 40 years) showed plenty of grain in the jacket, but very little creases and blemishes. Could it be that there is some kind of survivor-effect going on there, with the more jerky leather being more prone to cracking and tearing, resulting in these jackets being discarded?
The second issue is of much bigger concern to me. On the sleeves of my Bootlegger, I noticed that the different pieces of leather constituting the sleeve are joined in two ways: they are either stitched together (with the stitches showing, e.g. on the outside of the sleeves) or one piece is sort of "folded over" the other (with no stitches showing, on the inside of the sleeves as shown in this picture: http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL806/142228/4523742/56783277.jpg - you can see the "folded over" joining of the leather there). Upon closer examination of the folded-over bits, I noticed little pieces of some sort of sticky residue (almost silicone- or glue-like) could be seen inside the fold. It's not a solid line of glue, but small pieces in a "stitch-like" pattern. If I squeeze my fingernail in the fold, I can sort of pick the residue out. Has anyone else noticed this glue-like substance in the folds of their jackets? I've never had a leather jacket of this quality before: all of the other jackets I have are typical "mall-jackets", and they all show stitching where the different pieces of leather are joined. On this Aero, it seems as if the leather is simply folded over and glued together - is that right? If so, isn't that a lot less durable than having it stitched together? I tend to be very rough on my jackets, as I consider them workwear (after all, that's what leather was for back in the days!), and I don't hesitate to put them through different kinds of weather. I'm guessing that this would result in the glue dissolving over time, and the jacket falling apart. The other aspect is purely aesthetic: the contrast between the fantastic, thick, high-quality leather and this glue showing is remarkable. I've never handled a vintage jacket, so I have no idea what they're like - whether they had stitches showing at every "seam" or not. Maybe someone could shine some light on that?
Again, I'm hoping that I'm making a big fuzz about nothing - it just seems strange to find "glue" on a jacket of this price category. Especially seeing as the person who made the jacket is someone whose name I've seen mentioned on this very forum before, and always in a very positive manner. (I must say that if it wasn't for this "glue residue issue", I'd be singing the praises of Aero as well right now - in fact I'd probably be posting about how much I'm looking forward to my Stockman!)
I sincerely thank all of you in advance for your reply - this is somewhat doing my head in.
I have four Aero jackets to date (Steer Black MC; FQHH Brown 30s Halfbelt; Goat AN6552; Goat A2; did also briefly own a horse ANJ3, bought used, too small - the 42 in a USN jacket is definitely neater than the A2, but in an ANJ3 it was like having a whole size down!), and they're all fantastic. I love the variable grain pattern on the FQHH - reminds me of my very first leather (a steer mc style when I was 15), which had a big difference between the two lapels.... it's an organic look. Anything too uniform looks, well, artificial to my eye. The Bootlegger is one of the real stars in Aero's line, to my mind - that bit more distinct than anything else in the market. I've seen some great variations on it, too - one which dispensed with the top pocket and had much, much larger lapels. Based on a photograph of a pp jacket worn by a WW2 RAF pilot in N Africa, according to the owner. Mine is in FQHH, with wool tartan lining. I added a zip to the top pocket, 30s halfbelt button cuffs, and a throat latch. Cordovan in colour. I love it. One of my future Aero plans is a real custom variation on the Bootlegger.... watch this space as soon as I have the money! 
