ELMC Products

[HPA Rep]

I started this topic in addition to our affiliate thread and separately because, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, there is a distinct absence of previous postings that cover this same subject and because there is at this time and to my knowledge, no other company in. N. America offering this brand and its products; we are alone in offering the wares of this line directly and for immediate availability in N. America.

I’m starting with what has been, thus far, the most popular jacket from the brand: the ELMC Californian Vintage-Style, Half-Belt Horsehide Jacket. The first example is black, which is very close in popularity to American Walnut, and the third color, Havana Brown, is, well, third, but not by leaps and bounds, and Havana is, in my opinion, the most vintage looking in appearance due to how the light color shows wear so readily.

The entire range of ELMC is new to History Preservation Associates and this jacket style has proven the most popular in the collection. I've been wearing this jacket style since October and I cannot say enough good about it; in fact, I'm wearing my own jacket in this series of images of the black example, which reflects about six weeks of regular use. It feels rugged but not overly heavy, it's extremely comfortable, and the satin rayon lining allows it to glide on and off effortlessly. The quality is superb, from its construction to the materials employed. The horsehide is the same fully vegetable-tanned, aniline-dyed imported Italian Vintage WarHorse Eastman uses for some of their military jacket styles such as the Rough Wear 1401-P, Werber 1729, and Cable Raincoat Co. A-2 jackets. Of all the leather jackets I own, this has become my go-to jacket.

The jacket depicted is a size 40R; all Californian jackets grade longer in length of sleeve and body as the sizes get larger, and they are also available in long fittings, which are 1" longer in sleeve and body length than their regular-fitting counterparts. I'm 5' 9" tall, chest 40", waist 30", shirt sleeve 33", weight 147 lbs., and my build is best described as lean and athletic.

We have these in stock from sizes 36 - 46 in both regular and long fittings and in all three color choices. You can see product details, detailed and larger images, fit tips, and product measurements on our website here:

https://www.historypreservation.com...fornian-vintage-style-half-belt-jacket-black/

 

[bretron]

Man, I want that jacket in walnut!! So nice

 

[HoosierDaddy]

All sizes come only in regular or long sizes..which are 1" longer than regular in sleeves and body..?
No other custom sizing or made to measurements..?

 

[zhz]

All sizes come only in regular or long sizes..which are 1" longer than regular in sleeves and body..?
No other custom sizing or made to measurements..?

ELMC does not do customization.

 

[rocketeer]

ELMC does not do customization.

Shame if your body or arm length do not match the off the hanger model then. Back it goes

 

[ProteinNerd]

This jacket has really grown on me, only issue is the sleeve length, even the longer one is a bit short from what I understand a size 40 long only has about a 24.5 inch sleeve....is that correct?

 

[Cocker]

24.5 inches for a long size? You must be kidding me...

 

[zhz]

Here's the measurements from ELMC for a standard size 40 California, so, 24.5 for a long 40 is possible.

CALIFORNIAN SIZE 40 :

ARMPIT TO ARMPIT: 53.5cm

SHOULDER SEAM TO SEAM: 46.5cm

SLEEVE LENGTH FROM SHOULDER SEAM TO END OF CUFF: 60cm

BACK LENGTH FROM NAPE OF NECK SEAM TO BOTTOM OF WAISTBAND: 61cm

 

[A-1]

Had the same “issue” with the Bill Kelso - Aeronaut. The long was 24.75. The normal 24.25 in a size 42 model. I went with a 25.25 length which is still shorter than most of my other jackets. Yet I think it’s better to have a leather jacket that is a little bit too small or too short than a baggy and too long fit. But that’s just my opinion fit-wise and I’ve never had a leather jacket. So from an observatory view.
I just hope my Aeronaut is not too long, .

 

[zhz]

Had the same “issue” with the Bill Kelso - Aeronaut. The long was 24.75. The normal 24.25 in a size 42 model. I went with a 25.25 length which is still shorter than most of my other jackets. Yet I think it’s better to have a leather jacket that is a little bit too small or too short than a baggy and too long fit. But that’s just my opinion fit-wise and I’ve never had a leather jacket. So from an observatory view.
I just hope my Aeronaut is not too long, .

The first thing u need to know is the pattern of the jacket, the Aeronaut is a standard/short length jacket, the ideal fit of this pattern is just cover the belt loop on your trousers.
The California is a standard length half belt, so as shown in OP's pics, the body length is long but the sleeve is short. TBH, I think this should be a short length jacket.

 

[Superfluous]

I love the Californian, but the relatively short length -- even in the long version -- is a deal breaker. To make matters worse, some of the longs are, in reality, even shorter than advertised. Charles measured a long for me and it was half an inch shorter than it was supposed to be. I spoke with Gary at Inspiration and urged him to make an even longer version of the Californian -- he adamantly refused. Gary said he wants Eastman jackets to have consistent measurements (they already don't -- see above) -- Gary stated that it is not a cost issue -- rather, per Gary: "I don't want a bunch of Eastman jackets floating around with different measurements." Gary was clearly mocking the customization offered by other manufacturers. IMHO, Gary is making a mistake. If he offered nothing more than the ability to lengthen the sleeves and body, he would sell more jackets (I would buy the Californian).

 

[HPA Rep]

Here's the measurements from ELMC for a standard size 40 California, so, 24.5 for a long 40 is possible.

CALIFORNIAN SIZE 40 :

ARMPIT TO ARMPIT: 53.5cm

SHOULDER SEAM TO SEAM: 46.5cm

SLEEVE LENGTH FROM SHOULDER SEAM TO END OF CUFF: 60cm

BACK LENGTH FROM NAPE OF NECK SEAM TO BOTTOM OF WAISTBAND: 61cm

Our listed measures for a size 40R indicates an average arm measure of 24.5”. A long is supposed to be 1” greater in both arm and body length and ELC operates with a tolerance of 0.5” in length or width, thus a 40R could be within tolerance at 24” or 25”, but if a long came in with 24.5”, that wouldn’t be within tolerance and should be valid grounds for complaint.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Seems these jackets are in a very similar price range with other jacket companies who do offer 'custom made to measure' jackets. ELCM products would be OK for those who could get by with off the rack R & L but for those of us that are tall it's a definite 'look elsewhere' situation.
HD

 

[IXL]

I'm not even all that tall, at 5'11", but those factory-given sleeve lengths are just too short for me: I'd look like I was wearing my kid brother's stuff.
Too bad, as I would otherwise be interested.

 

[gtdean48]

I'm not even all that tall, at 5'11", but those factory-given sleeve lengths are just too short for me: I'd look like I was wearing my kid brother's stuff.
Too bad, as I would otherwise be interested.

:arated:

 

[HPA Rep]

I love the Californian, but the relatively short length -- even in the long version -- is a deal breaker. To make matters worse, some of the longs are, in reality, even shorter than advertised. Charles measured a long for me and it was half an inch shorter than it was supposed to be. I spoke with Gary at Inspiration and urged him to make an even longer version of the Californian -- he adamantly refused. Gary said he wants Eastman jackets to have consistent measurements (they already don't -- see above) -- Gary stated that it is not a cost issue -- rather, per Gary: "I don't want a bunch of Eastman jackets floating around with different measurements." Gary was clearly mocking the customization offered by other manufacturers. IMHO, Gary is making a mistake. If he offered nothing more than the ability to lengthen the sleeves and body, he would sell more jackets (I would buy the Californian).

I agree with everything you stated, other than anything Gary said to you, which I was not present for and cannot have more than an opinion about that; if factual (and I'm not saying it isn't), then such a policy could be injurious to business. Having said that, most manufacturers of the type I think Gary is trying to align himself with, be it Buzz Rickson's or Ralph Lauren, don't offer any sort of special sizing and, I think, Gary feels that his products are fine as long as they can satisfy a common denominator among the masses.

I addressed with Gary the incident-specific jacket you and I discussed vis-a-vis measurements, which was a 42 Long with sleeves and body length being 0.5" shorter than what a long should be, but he repeated that tolerance is 0.5", so these areas being shorter by that much were within tolerance. I haven't concluded this dialogue with Gary, so the jury is still out; I'm asking that either the tolerance for a long be inflexibly set at + 1" above a regular fitting that is also dead on spec. or that all regular fittings become 0.5" longer, because they really can't be any shorter should any given jacket be 0.5" less in length and within spec.

This entire conversation dates back to the summer of 2014, when I pestered Gary and an ELC staff member to make this jacket style 1" longer in the sleeves. I don't know how impactful my nagging was, but the jackets were made 0.5" longer in the arm length as of the fall, which I was told was Gary's choice in light of being convinced they could be so justified to grow a wee bit in length, thus what we have today are indeed longer in arm length than those made prior to the fall of 2014. Asking for what amounts to my original increase of 1", which would now be 0.5", is not likely going anywhere, but requesting a long fitting to truly be a long seems reasonable and I'll remain cautiously optimistic this may happen via persistence.

I should also say that I must agree with Gary that a regular fitting that is on spec. hasn't presented a problem, nor has a long that is on spec., but there are both regulars and longs that aren't on spec. but are within tolerance, and because, in my opinion, the spec. of sleeve length was set last fall at the bare minimum and not an optimum length, the potential for fitting issues does arise more commonly when a jacket is within tolerance yet short of ideal spec.

Lastly, I find it curious that there exists a fixation among some to look exclusively at the arm length vs. the totality of the shirt-sleeve measure as we all do when buying a dress shirt. We purchase dress shirts that are 32", 33" 34", etc., which is a number that combines half the shoulder width with the length of the arm in the shirt, yet I don't often find this consistency among customers in measuring and calculating a jacket's fit when the end result is achieved via the same methodology. We should be focusing on the totality of the shoulder half measure added to the length of the jacket's arm, which then allows us to know if the cuff of the jacket is above our wrist bone or down on our hand. I do think the individual measures can shed important light about a garment's overall design, but any individual measure shouldn't be judged as a stand-alone measure when calculating where the jacket's cuff is going to wrest vis-a-vis our hand or wrist bone.

I've seen this fixation on a solitary measure play out often enough and to a customer's ultimate realization that such fixating indeed can have its problems at their expense in shipping costs and attendant frustration. Relying on such things as a fixed chest width doesn't account for many other variables in the engineering of some garments. There are countless anecdotes I could share about a customer needing a set shoulder width or chest width or arm length without the customer knowing all the many differences that can exist in other garments they own and the one they wish to buy. These personal fixed laws of sizing may indeed work most of the time, but they don't work all of the time. And when a customer is working with a manufacturer or retailer who genuinely knows more about the garment of intended purchase than the customer and who genuinely knows more about the multitudes of body types and shapes and personalities who have purchased the given style with satisfaction, it doesn't make the manufacturer or retailer right all of the time, as no one ever is, but it may just make them more knowledgeable and correct the vast majority of times. Genuinely knowledgeable retailers and manufacturers may be rare, and such absence is something I find personally distasteful, but when you latch onto one that is, please try to break beyond your own laws and defer to those who may be among the rarified few who possess the genuine desire to know their products extremely well and the customers they hope to serve.

And I apologize for placing this generalized take on sizing and fit in a post that could be construed as being directed to Superfluous, which was in no way my intention; this all just flowed from my keystrokes as being related in a more general way to the topic of length that has been of significant discussion already in this thread and one which Superfluous and I specifically shared.

 

[HPA Rep]

I'm not even all that tall, at 5'11", but those factory-given sleeve lengths are just too short for me: I'd look like I was wearing my kid brother's stuff.
Too bad, as I would otherwise be interested.

I agree, at 5' 11" tall you aren't all that tall, so please do tell what is your chest measure and your shirt-sleeve measure; I'm very curious to learn where the factory lengths are deficient so this can be evaluated for my discussion with ELMC. I can understand this complaint more with a man your height who is lean and narrow, but if someone has a 42" chest measure or larger at your height, I fail to see how a long fitting would not satisfy your measures unless you want a cuff that extends onto your hand.

 

[HPA Rep]

Seems these jackets are in a very similar price range with other jacket companies who do offer 'custom made to measure' jackets. ELCM products would be OK for those who could get by with off the rack R & L but for those of us that are tall it's a definite 'look elsewhere' situation.
HD

In my genuine efforts to attempt to improve any deficiencies with the ELMC Californian jacket, please do share your height, shirt-sleeve measure, and your chest measure so we can evaluate what may be reasonable to amend. Thank you.

 

[ykurtz]

Having 'short' sizes would help as well. I would think offering an XL might address some of the sizing issues while keeping things 'standard'. I agree that measuring half the shoulder width plus sleeve length is very important as I have suit sleeves (shoulder to cuff) that range from 23.5 to 24.5 based on the shoulder width.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

Charles, could you possibly take pictures of you wearing the Windward jacket? Thank you.