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.

 

[scotrace]

Wow, that's a lot of typing. Especially for a first post. If your favorite jacket supplier would like to talk about becoming an affiliate, please let us know.

 

[TartuWolf]

@scotrace That's what bots do best

 

[Johnny Deadlifts]

Wow, that's a lot of typing. Especially for a first post. If your favorite jacket supplier would like to talk about becoming an affiliate, please let us know.

No s@#t

 

[ton312]

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.

Of course this post reads like pure shill propaganda for the brand, regardless if it is or not. Largely members dismissed this brand because simply by looking at them it becomes clear they are typical, run of mill, Pakistani produced budget leathers and the model shots show pattern flaws and value engineered materials. Most members here don't need to actually buy a piece like this to recognize what it is. The reason being experience is the greatest teacher and years of collecting make novice or budget brand workmanship, patterning and materials incredibly easy to spot.

When you say " 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" You are ignoring the reality of the company. Which is anything but what you have described. The reality is a bunch of workers in a room like this:

So while you may have had great conversation with fellows sending patterns to the people that actually make the jackets, to paint them as artisans is quite ridiculous and absurd. If anything, they are drop shippers. Best of luck with the jacket.

 

[barnabus]

I ultimately decided to purchase Master Supply Co.’s veg-tanned natural leather field jacket

Cool. Looks like a really nice jacket, albeit a chore jacket style rather than a field jacket. And thank goodness it doesn't have that horrible fake patina like the Goldrush.

Those lower patch pocket openings look a bit small to me. Might be awkward on the wrist, and tricky to stow much in there. Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts when the jacket arrives.

And to see how the natural cowhide tans and evolves.

 

[wearever]

Cool. Looks like a really nice jacket, albeit a chore jacket style rather than a field jacket. And thank goodness it doesn't have that horrible fake patina like the Goldrush.

Those lower patch pocket openings look a bit small to me. Might be awkward on the wrist, and tricky to stow much in there. Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts when the jacket arrives.

And to see how the natural cowhide tans and evolves.

Yes to the chore jacket--also part of the appeal. I was looking at the Rogue Territory waxed canvas supply jacket, but I preferred the idea the of leather--especially in veg tan. Also, the fit seems as though it will work better for me. I totally see what you mean about the pockets. I tend to keep my hands in my side pockets quite a bit, and I actually like the angle. That's a great detail to follow up on.

 

[wearever]

Of course this post reads like pure shill propaganda for the brand, regardless if it is or not. Largely members dismissed this brand because simply by looking at them it becomes clear they are typical, run of mill, Pakistani produced budget leathers and the model shots show pattern flaws and value engineered materials. Most members here don't need to actually buy a piece like this to recognize what it is. The reason being experience is the greatest teacher and years of collecting make novice or budget brand workmanship, patterning and materials incredibly easy to spot.

When you say " 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" You are ignoring the reality of the company. Which is anything but what you have described. The reality is a bunch of workers in a room like this:
View attachment 686168 View attachment 686168
So while you may have had great conversation with fellows sending patterns to the people that actually make the jackets, to paint them as artisans is quite ridiculous and absurd. If anything, they are drop shippers. Best of luck with the jacket.

I anticipated these responses in my longer initial draft of my post (which I had to shorten to meet the character limit). And as expected, rather than engaging with the substance of my argument, the response pivots to a familiar rhetorical move: using an image of workers at sewing machines to imply a lack of craftsmanship, as if the presence of women at machines in a workshop somehow precludes skill or artistry. The introduction of a workshop photo is meant to shift the discussion away from the actual product and toward a different kind of argument—one that isn’t really about craftsmanship at all. It’s a rhetorical move that plays on a common but selectively applied assumption: that production in certain regions inherently equates to exploitative labor and subpar quality.

Let’s be clear—there’s nothing in these images that inherently disqualifies Master Supply Co. from being a serious player in this space. And if you think that last line sounds promotional (another predictable move), consider that it’s simply a restatement of the very premise I’ve been arguing all along: that legitimacy in the heritage space is too often determined by preconceptions and gatekeeping rather than by actual engagement with a product’s craftsmanship, materials, or design. What exactly is the issue here? That people in Pakistan sew leather jackets? That a workshop with multiple workers exists? Because if that’s the standard, then many of the so-called “authentic” heritage brands would also fail to meet it. The critique here isn’t about labor conditions or material quality—it’s about reinforcing an exclusionary definition of heritage, where legitimacy is tied not to craft but to symbolic status.

There’s also a deeper irony at play here. The very industrial production methods now romanticized in American heritage brands—assembly-line sewing, standardized patterning, mechanized cutting—were not viewed as artisanal in the 19th century. Quite the opposite. Many of the brands now held up as paragons of craftsmanship were, in their own time, part of the industrialization of garment-making that critics decried as a loss of true craft. The historical amnesia in these conversations is striking: what was once dismissed as mass production is now enshrined as authenticity, while newer brands that operate within similar frameworks are excluded by default.

Today, brands like Schott and Vanson are upheld as paragons of authenticity, yet they themselves emerged from the very industrial system that cultural gatekeepers of the 19th century—Like Matthew Arnold, the designer John Ruskin, and writer William Morris—condemned. Schott’s iconic Perfecto jacket, for instance, was born in the early 20th century—an era when industrial production had already reshaped the manufacturing landscape. Like other American workwear and military suppliers, Schott did not arise from a pre-industrial artisan guild, but from an expanding industrial economy that relied on standardized production to meet the growing demand for durable, functional garments.

Despite its reputation (and they make great products), Schott’s production involves industrial machines, pattern standardization, and multiple workers specializing in different stages of the construction process—much like any other modern factory. Workers use flatbed and post-bed sewing machines, hydraulic cutting presses for leather, and pattern templates that ensure consistency across jackets. None of this resembles the romanticized image of a lone artisan hand-cutting and stitching each piece from start to finish.

The same could be said of Horween Leather Company, whose famed shell cordovan leather is often described in heritage circles with near-religious reverence. While Horween does employ traditional vegetable tanning techniques, its production still relies on mechanized drums, splitting machines, and conveyor systems to handle the labor-intensive process at scale.

So, if the objection to Master Supply Co. is that its jackets are made in a workshop where multiple workers operate industrial sewing machines, then the same critique would logically apply to many of the brands celebrated within the heritage space. The fact that these methods are selectively overlooked when applied to legacy brands reveals the deeper issue at play: exclusion is not based on production techniques alone but on who is allowed to claim authenticity and who is denied entry.

If the argument is now about ethical production, then that’s an important discussion, but let’s be consistent about it. Many brands that are widely accepted in heritage circles also rely on offshore manufacturing, cost-saving labor decisions, or material sourcing at points in their supply chain--all practices that could easily be scrutinized under the same lens. Yet, for those brands, such decisions are framed as pragmatic necessities rather than disqualifying flaws. The double standard is clear: some brands are afforded complexity and nuance in these conversations, while others are dismissed outright.

And let’s be honest—this isn’t really about ethics. If it were, the same scrutiny would be applied across the board. Instead, the workshop photo is meant to elicit an immediate reaction, reinforcing a long-standing bias against production in certain regions. The implication isn’t just about quality; it’s about status. The assumption being made here is that a brand cannot be part of the “heritage” conversation unless it fits a narrow, predetermined model of legitimacy.

This is precisely the kind of gatekeeping I described in my original post. The pattern has played out predictably: first, outright dismissal based on assumption, then mockery of anyone questioning that dismissal, and now, an attempt to shift the argument entirely in order to maintain the original position. It’s not a discussion—it’s a performance of authority.

I came here looking for informed perspectives on leather craftsmanship. What I found instead was a conversation more interested in maintaining a particular hierarchy than in engaging with actual product quality. If the goal is to have a real discussion—one that actually considers the complexities of production, ethics, and quality—then let’s have it. It's a very important discussion that I take seriously and which deserves extended attention. But if the goal is simply to keep moving the target in order to sustain a predetermined conclusion, then that, at least, should be acknowledged.

 

[wearever]

Wow, that's a lot of typing. Especially for a first post. If your favorite jacket supplier would like to talk about becoming an affiliate, please let us know.

Lol—yeah, about the length of my posts--I hear that a lot. I started out as an English professor, and I’ve always been interested in discussions of craft and heritage. I appreciate the depth of conversation in Fedora threads, especially when they bring in film, literature, and history. It’s a cultural-studies goldmine. I actually had to shorten my post to fit the 10k character limit. I geek out on this stuff.

My favorite jacket supplier? I'm not sure I buy at the scale necessary for a "supplier," since this will be my first and probably only leather jacket for some time--unless I can convince my wife otherwise. But my argument so far has been, "I only need one jacket." Of course, I once said the same thing about my first pair of selvedge denim, and my first pair of Nick's boots... flat caps... wide-wale corduroy blazers... suede shirt jackets...

By the way, I couldn’t help but notice your signature quote from Gatsby—a novel that, among other things, is deeply concerned with status, exclusion, the constructed nature of authenticity, and the cultural negotiation of legitimacy. The novel honestly came to mind as I thought about this thread.

 

[wearever]

Most members here don't need to actually buy a piece like this to recognize what it is. The reason being experience is the greatest teacher and years of collecting make novice or budget brand workmanship, patterning and materials incredibly easy to spot.

A statement like this doesn’t just dismiss Master Supply Co.—it dismisses the very idea of firsthand evaluation. It asserts that expertise is not about engaging with a product but about the ability to judge it from a distance, as if experience is not a tool for deeper assessment but a shortcut to instant certainty. This statement also repeats a tired trope in this thread.

The irony here is that real expertise should encourage closer scrutiny, not reflexive dismissal. If experience is the greatest teacher, then wouldn’t the most experienced among us be the first to demand direct engagement with a product before rendering judgment? Instead, what’s being suggested is that experience functions as a kind of preemptive conclusion—that those with the most knowledge don’t need to examine a jacket (or anything else) to know its quality, because they’ve already decided in advance.

This is precisely the gatekeeping I described in my original post. It’s not just about assessing a product’s craftsmanship—it’s about reinforcing who gets to speak with authority and who does not. When knowledge is used to shut down discussion rather than enrich it, it stops being expertise and starts being dogma.

I’ve worked with plenty of real experts in a variety of fields, and one thing they all have in common is caution in their claims. True expertise is never about instant certainty—it’s about framing conclusions as contingent on available information, always leaving room for complexities that might challenge assumptions.

The moment someone claims they don’t need to engage with something to know exactly what it is, they’re no longer demonstrating expertise—they’re demonstrating ideology. Real experts know that knowledge is always evolving, that the deeper one goes into a subject, the more they realize how much they don’t know. The confidence to dismiss something outright, without firsthand evaluation, isn’t a mark of mastery; it’s a refusal to engage with complexity.

 

[wearever]

So while you may have had great conversation with fellows sending patterns to the people that actually make the jackets, to paint them as artisans is quite ridiculous and absurd. If anything, they are drop shippers. Best of luck with the jacket.

The assumption that designing and overseeing production somehow disqualifies someone from being considered an artisan is a fundamental misunderstanding of how craftsmanship works. The history of heritage brands—especially those often celebrated in this forum—is filled with examples of designers who don’t personally stitch every garment but who still play a critical role in shaping the quality, aesthetic, and execution of the product.

And let’s not pretend that the celebrated American heritage brands aren’t also sending patterns to workshops—because they are. The distinction between a workshop and a "drop shipper" is massive, and conflating the two is either an act of willful misrepresentation or a lack of understanding of production.

If the argument is that Master Supply Co. lacks legitimacy because they don’t personally cut and sew every jacket themselves, then by that logic, we’d need to exclude many of the legacy brands people here admire. The question isn’t whether a designer is working with skilled laborers to produce a product—that’s standard across the industry—but whether the oversight, quality control, and design philosophy align with the values of the heritage space.

And if the claim is that the people actually constructing these jackets are somehow undeserving of the title of artisans, I’d be curious to hear what the working conditions of a U.S.-based leather workshop would need to look like to meet that same standard. Because, as history shows, 19th-century American industrial production wouldn't have been viewed as "artisanal" by the standards of the time either.

 

[handymike]

I would like to see photos once you get your jacket. Please post them.