Master Supply Co

[Monitor]

This is where the money is spent: having a tool like Fjorde do a bullshit review.

If I were a jacket maker I'd pay Fjorde to not wear or review my jackets.

I'm sick of these clowns. Each and every one of them immediately starts shilling trash clothes, as soon as "sponsorships" start rolling in. And who would even want to take this guys advice on style, anyway? Grown-ass man dressing up like a 13 years old kid from an 80's sitcom taking place during the 50's.

 

[Will Zach]

I'm sick of these clowns. Each and every one of them immediately starts shilling trash clothes, as soon as "sponsorships" start rolling in. And who would even want to take this guys advice on style, anyway? Grown-ass man dressing up like a 13 years old kid from an 80's sitcom taking place during the 50's.

There is enough lazy, clueless sheep out there looking for style advice. Clowns like Fjorde just take advantage. Can't say I blame them. Easy money, like taking candy from a child.

 

[Sean66]

I recently tried on one of their jackets, the « convoy » in a shop here in France. Honestly, it fit really well and looked pretty good. No where near the quality of a Lost Worlds, Aero, real Schott, etc, but not all that bad. Overpriced, sure, but not bad. Maybe they’re improving?

 

[MickeyPunch]

I had no idea there was a thread about this brand in FL but it keeps popping up in my Insta, I don’t need to read the thread to know it’s a not a FL-approved brand, but this design really caught my eye.

Is it a copy of some older design by any chance?

Might even be my next jacket, that’s how much I like it. And after spending over €1k on my last 3 jackets my wallet would welcome spending half or less. I’m so over Levi’s trucker designs in suede (especially the III, ugh so overdone) regardless of the brand. That pseudo-type II Field Leathers did recently is alright and I’m sure miles ahead in terms of quality (both materials and construction) but from a pure design perspective I like this one better. And to be honest in suede the difference in quality is nowhere near as apparent as in leather. Too bad it will be like 5cm longer that I’d prefer.

 

[TartuWolf]

Mate, why would you buy a jacket that is 5cm longer than you prefer?

 

[MickeyPunch]

Mate, why would you buy a jacket that is 5cm longer than you prefer?

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good?

I can live with an extra couple inches (I was probably exaggerating tbh and it’s less than 5cm) if the rest is right.

It’s not like going custom and dropping 2x or 3x what this jacket costs is going to warrant perfection, right? And it’ll be not returnable/refundable.

I just want to replace my boring-ass Type III style suede trucker. I like the RRL Alston but it’s really overpriced and the pattern looks wonky.

 

[ABCD]

the pattern looks wonky.

To me the master supply patterns look wonky. Note the square shoulder, it looks like they forgot to remove the hanger before putting the jacket on.

 

[MickeyPunch]

To me the master supply patterns look wonky. Note the square shoulder, it looks like they forgot to remove the hanger before putting the jacket on.

View attachment 652758
View attachment 652759 View attachment 652760

Yep I don’t expect the most refined pattern. But RRL Alston looks like an A in many pics. And it’s like 3.5x of Master.

 

[wearever]

I came to this thread seeking meaningful insight into a leather jacket brand. As someone who values craftsmanship and thoughtful critique, I expected to find a discussion that would help me make an informed decision about Master Supply Co. Instead, I found a conversation that made me question the reliability and authority of the expertise on display.

What immediately stood out was that none of the responses were based on actual engagement with Master Supply Co.—not with their products, not with their materials, and not with their customer service. Despite this, strong opinions were asserted with certainty, dismissing the brand outright without firsthand evaluation. Rather than discussions informed by experience, the thread quickly became an exercise in reinforcing an in-group consensus: a brand outside of the usual heritage-approved names was presumed unworthy of consideration.

Skepticism about a new brand is reasonable, even valuable. But what unfolded here was something different: a reflexive rejection, where dismissals were made not on the basis of quality but on the basis of assumption. Instead of an informed assessment, the discussion read like a performance of expertise—one where the goal was not to evaluate the product but to assert authority.

Rather than firsthand assessments or substantive reviews, the thread quickly devolved into signaling—who was "in the know," who could dismiss the brand in the fewest words, and who could most effectively undermine any attempt at genuine discussion. Sarcasm, mockery, and outright dismissal took the place of detailed evaluation. Instead of a space for expertise, this thread became a space for reinforcing status.

The irony is that this thread presents itself as an informed critique of Master Supply Co., yet not a single comment reflected firsthand experience with the brand. The most revealing responses were not those offering substantive critiques but those relying on broad dismissals.

Many seasoned members delivered their opinions with a dismissive, condescending flair that undermined the informative value of their expertise. For example, when a new user posted positive comments about a Master Supply jacket, responses ranged from sarcasm—“Salesman of the year.”—to outright scorn. One veteran member responded, “I’m sorry, but you couldn’t be more wrong,” and proceeded to lecture on stitching techniques. While he may have had technical knowledge, the tone (essentially “how dare you call that pure quality”) was dripping with condescension.

Such dismissive language and unsubstantiated assumptions erode the professional atmosphere of a forum purportedly about craftsmanship. Instead of simply ending with an explanation of why a detail like zigzag stitching might indicate cost-cutting, the member framed it as obvious folly, implying anyone (especially the newcomer) who thought otherwise had "never handled a quality jacket"—the kind of pronouncement that drips with the self-satisfied snobbery of someone holding court at a country club bar. This combative approach turns a potentially educational moment into a gatekeeping exercise. It diminishes the credibility of the forum because it suggests that discussions aren’t open exchanges of knowledge but rather posturing arenas for a few voices to assert dominance. Also, my research since first reading this post has answered any concerns they raised about the use of zigzag stitching, which is incorporated for aesthetic reasons in areas not integral to the structure of the jacket.

Moreover, some critiques were stated as foregone conclusions without evidence. For instance, one comment flatly declared that because the jackets are made in Pakistan, there was nothing more to discuss: “Hasn’t it been established that these are made in Pakistan? What else is there to talk about?” A claim like “you could do far better for far less” was thrown out without any specific comparisons or data. Sweeping statements delivered with a sarcastic or smug tone made it difficult to trust that the so-called experts were being fair. In a truly professional discussion, expertise would be demonstrated with substantive reasoning, examples, or data—not just a snarky one-liner that shuts down conversation. When forum members resort to quips and put-downs, it reflects poorly on the forum’s credibility as a serious venue for discussing craftsmanship. No matter how experienced a commenter might be, condescension and derision weaken their argument and, by extension, the trust readers place in the community’s collective expertise.

Ironically, the hostile tone of the thread made me more curious about Master Supply Co. instead of deterring me. With so many members almost performatively trashing the brand, I wondered what might be on the other side of that vehemence. Was this company truly terrible, or were they an upstart challenging the status quo in a way that ruffled purist feathers? The more I read the snarky put-downs, the more I felt compelled to investigate Master Supply Co. on my own—almost as if to fact-check the claims presented here. In an unintended way, the discussion’s tone signaled that there might be more to the story, since the responses felt disproportionate. It wouldn’t be the first time a newcomer brand faced pushback in a community of established aficionados.

The irony is that the very narrative imposed on Master Supply Co. by Fedora Lounge positions it within a classic heritage archetype—the outsider, the independent craftsman, the proletarian figure excluded by institutions of established power, prestige, and wealth. This is the very figure romanticized in countless heritage discussions: the lone artisan, the underdog craftsman, the worker whose value is dismissed by elitist gatekeepers. Yet, when presented with a business that genuinely seeks to embody this narrative—not in myth, but in its approach to production and customer engagement—the response is not admiration, but rejection.

In the interest of transparency, I should acknowledge that I have not yet received my jacket. That is entirely the point of this post. The timing of my post here is purposeful because it highlights what this discussion is actually about: these evaluations are not based on product quality but on narrative positioning. They exist in the terrain of branding, where legitimacy is negotiated through symbolic and exchange value rather than through any direct engagement with the utility value of the product itself. The conversation here is not about craftsmanship—it is about gatekeeping the meanings of craftsmanship.

This approach does not reinforce the credibility of the forum—it undermines it. If knowledge is primarily used to exclude, then what happens when that exclusion appears arbitrary? If the goal is to uphold standards, shouldn’t those standards be applied consistently? If the concern is quality, shouldn’t the discussion actually be about quality?

I ultimately decided to purchase Master Supply Co.’s veg-tanned natural leather field jacket based on the style, my own research, and the direct conversations I had with the company. They provided detailed explanations of their design choices and assured me that they use French seams in structurally significant areas to maintain integrity. For me, this evidence-based dialogue—rather than unsubstantiated forum opinions—was a key factor in my decision to invest in their product. In short, my experience with Master Supply Co. has been defined by direct engagement, transparency, and a commitment to service—qualities that should be valued in any serious heritage discussion. I will, of course, verify all of these claims and follow up here when I receive the jacket--as any responsible evaluation should.

Now, I understand that some might misinterpret my perspective here as an attempt to promote Master Supply Co. If there’s a way to prove otherwise, I’m happy to provide it. If I have a negative experience with the brand, I will report it here. But so far, my experiences with them have been unusually positive—they have set a customer service standard I haven’t seen in many markets. And if I see a brand being unfairly dismissed, I feel an ethical obligation to say so.

If heritage communities want to champion quality over marketing and craftsmanship over exclusivity, then they should engage in fair, experience-based assessments rather than relying on cultural gatekeeping. Otherwise, heritage stops being about craftsmanship and becomes just another elitist performance.