M-422A v AN6552

[Skyhawk]

I know the seller. He knows his stuff inside and out. I have seen him completely disassemble an original M422, change out panels from donor period correct jackets, and re-assemble it with no evidence of the work done. He even hand stitches through the original stitch holes when needed.

With the other measurements, It's definitely a 40. In one of the pictures (#2) it shows a length of 26.5". Closer to the original. Also the new knits could have added a little length but probably not much.

The seller says it "fits like" a vintage 40L not that it actually is a 40L. He knows a lot about the vintage USN jackets. He definitely know they didn't make Long sizes back then.

 

[jeepjeep13]

That's a pretty solid referral. I know he knows his stuff based on the conversations I've had with him, but was really just checking myself on the measurements.

 

[Skyhawk]

Yes I would wonder too. I agree it is long for an average size 40 M-422-G1 type jacket. I wonder how consistent the Ostermann sizes are throughout the contract jackets. I have seen some G-1 contracts all over the place, but still within specs. 1 1/2" is a lot of wiggle room.

For a size 40 that's anywhere from 24 3/4" to 26" are within the specs going back to 1966.

 

[jeepjeep13]

Again, just for my own piece of mind, do you think this would fit a guy like me whos 6'4"/ 185 lbs? I typically need a 40 long and the length on this seems perfect.

 

[Skyhawk]

Well maybe. 185 seems a bit big to fit size 40 with a 21.5" chest. I wear a size 40 G-1 and I'm 5'8 and 150#. But if you wear other "Military Fit" G-1's in 40 it may work for you.
27" length would be too long for me but probably perfect for you at that height.

That's a sweet jacket though! Check out some of that grain.

 

[jeepjeep13]

I know! The grain and patina is what drew me to it initially. Plus the fact that I used to live about a block away from where the Ostermann store used to be located in Milwaukee was cool for me.

Typically a 40 works fine. I don't have any authentic military jackets, but I have a 40L Eastman B3 which fits fine and I imagine would be comparable.

 

[jeepjeep13]

Hi fellas, I just bought an ELC m422a with a leather blood chit on the back and it came with an AVG patch to sew on the chest but I’m unsure as to which side of the chest it would go on. My initial instinct was left but then I thought that’s where the name tag would normally have been so perhaps it’s right but that feels awkward kinda. Any advice?

 

[Brettafett]

Hi Jeepjeep.... You are a lucky man, that M442a is stunning. Regs the patch, I seem to recall seeing a WW2 pic of that particular patch on the right hand side. I will go back and try and find that pic over the weekend.

 

[jeepjeep13]

Hi Jeepjeep.... You are a lucky man, that M442a is stunning. Regs the patch, I seem to recall seeing a WW2 pic of that particular patch on the right hand side. I will go back and try and find that pic over the weekend.

Sweet, yea if you can find that pic, that would be helpful. Thanks!

 

[thor]

The Flying Tigers wore a mix of uniforms, some A-2’s and some M-422a’s, some Army and some Navy clothing, even some “borrowed” RAF items.

 

[thor]

 

[jeepjeep13]

View attachment 114359 View attachment 114358
The Flying Tigers wore a mix of uniforms, some A-2’s and some M-422a’s, some Army and some Navy clothing, even some “borrowed” RAF items.

I actually was super confused about that when I watched the movie "The Flying Tigers" with John Wayne for the first time. I noticed right away that none of the leather flight jackets were the same and were a mix of styles.

 

[jeepjeep13]

View attachment 114359 View attachment 114358
The Flying Tigers wore a mix of uniforms, some A-2’s and some M-422a’s, some Army and some Navy clothing, even some “borrowed” RAF items.

The nose art on the plane is the same image thats on my patch. It's that tiger flying out of a giant V for victory.

 

[thor]

As far as AVG squadron patches, I don’t think there was any specific guidelines for their uniforms. As you can see in the above photo, not everyone decorated their flight jackets. It was usually left up to the individual’s personal choice.

 

[thor]

An interesting note; Walt Disney studios designed the Flying Tigers emblems. The tiger artwork for the side of the planes were stencil kits that Disney’s people actually produced and shipped to the AVG! The shark mouth on the front were, I believe, hand painted by the squadron artist or local talent.

 

[jeepjeep13]

An interesting note; Walt Disney studios designed the Flying Tigers emblems. The tiger artwork for the side of the planes were stencil kits that Disney’s people actually produced and shipped to the AVG! The shark mouth on the front were, I believe, hand painted by the squadron artist or local talent.

I believe I heard that fact just recently! Super cool piece of history trivia. Actually I think that Disney designed most of the patches and squadron emblems which involved animals or "Disney-like" characters. Makes sense looking at them now after I heard that.

 

[jeepjeep13]

I think that this might be driving me nuts! I agree that there may not have been any specification for where the patches went, but find that semi hard to believe based on how rigid army/navy uniform regulations were back then and now. I found an answer on Eastman's website, but it contradicts all of the pictures I've seen from the day which show the group patch being on the left side (point of view) under the name tag and the squadron patch on the right. Eastman shows the exact opposite.

 

[Skyhawk]

The modern USN specs are very clear. Name on left, squadron on the right. Flag on left shoulder, Aircraft on right shoulder. The specs in the 1940's seem rather murky with patches being placed seemly at random at times. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of name tag placements are on the left though. Now and back then.

 

[jeepjeep13]

So it's

The modern USN specs are very clear. Name on left, squadron on the right. Flag on left shoulder, Aircraft on right shoulder. The specs in the 1940's seem rather murky with patches being placed seemly at random at times. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of name tag placements are on the left though. Now and back then.

So it's safe to say that my AVG flying tiger victory patch can be placed on either side?

 

[Skyhawk]

So it's
So it's safe to say that my AVG flying tiger victory patch can be placed on either side?

From what I have seen, the AVG patch was usually on the right side (wearer prospective). Usually not always, as can be seen in photos. I believe this was in part due to the volunteers showing up with squadron patches already sewn on the left side under the name tag. Naturally the AVG patch would have to go to other side where there was room.

Check out these repros made for the FT vets:

I would put it on the right if I were patching the jacket.

Regards,
Jay