Most great artists are not appreciated during their lifetime . . .

[Superfluous]

I just read @jonbuilder ‘s new post wherein he describes his newly acquired vintage deerskin jacket manufactured by “WM Gallagher Co.” in Fenton, Michigan – “The Deerskin Center of Michigan.” I have never heard of this company but, based on @jonbuilder ‘s post, they made a fine jacket.

This got me thinking. During the 1930s – 1960s, there were literally dozens of leather jacket manufacturers scattered throughout the United States making wonderful jackets. It was the Golden Age of leather jacket manufacturing in the United States. Sadly, that Golden Age is long gone. Fortunately, we have the vintage jackets to carry us back in time.

So I wonder: How were the Golden Age jackets perceived during the Golden Age of jackets? Were the leather jacket artisans of the 1930s – 1960s and their varied offerings fully appreciated during their time? Or, were they the “mall jackets” of their time, unappreciated and/or taken for granted? We know that many of these jackets – perhaps most – were sold through the dominant department stores of the time (e.g., Sears and Montgomery Wards). How did that impact the real-time perception of the jackets?

I know that many Golden Age leather jackets were perceived largely as utilitarian articles of clothing, often worn for taxing manual labor. Were certain leather jackets also perceived as stylish and/or worn when going out for the evening?

I have seen advertisements marketing moto jackets to John Q. Suburbia. Did he wear his leather moto jacket while riding his John Deere, or did the jacket serve a different purpose?

We have all seen the photos of Brando and Dean wearing their moto jackets. Was there a rebellious and/or counterculture element to leather jackets during the Golden Age?

Today, we revere Durable for having made Brando's jacket. Did Durable receive real-time praise for the Brando jacket, or only in retrospect years later?

Were any of the leather jacket artisans of the Golden Age fully appreciated during their time, or were they merely purveyors of functional workwear and/or motorcycle gear, only to be exalted and fully appreciated many years later?

 

[sweetfights]

I could be dead wrong but I believe the appreciation was for the jacket and not so much the maker. With so many makers, whether you ordered from the Sears catalog or bought directly from a brick and mortar store the value was in the jacket, regardless of where it came from.

 

[Monitor]

I don't suppose any of the makers of the era could really have been perceived one way or another in any objective manner because people didn't have a point of comparison. So to say. I could be mistaken, but mass produced, low quality clothes wasn't available at the time and makers we nowadays hold in such high regard, all had to compete with each other - And of course, the only way to do that was by producing merchandise of comparable quality. Which was high. Sears included, even though it was closest to being what we'd refer to as shopping mall. Thus, having such flat contrast between makers, I don't suppose that many people back then even fully understood how to appreciated what they had. At least not to the extent we do now. I'm guessing it was like comparing, I don't know, Zara to H&M. Levi's to GAP.

Whether there used to have been an equivalent of, let's say RMC, I do not know. . .

At the beginnings of mass produced clothes, the quality of clothes really did plummet to unprecedented levels and we are seeing now is what could be described as a revival of some kind of standard, as more and more large companies take note to make better clothes. Levi's is already producing very nice stuff and even H&M has recently released some pieces I wouldn't mind buying at all.

Dunno, it's just how it seems to me. I've given this some thought but I don't really know.

 

[Benny Holiday]

I think we're trying to view a different time period and culture through the lens of our own modern consumerist culture, which didn't exist back then - unless you were one of the rich elite who had your suits made bespoke and purchased monogrammed shirts. To most everyone else back then, the way we spend money on ourselves today would seem frivolous and wasteful, at least from my understanding of the era. Utility jackets of leather, wool or similar material were functional work attire and not made for glorifying as objects of commercial desire. You bought ONE, wore it until it fell apart after ten years of sweat, grime and toil, and then bought another ONE. "Art" was about cats named Van Gogh and Rembrandt, not Ralph-Pughs or Rich-Sher.

In the 30s through to the 60s, oftentimes only the husband worked while the wife stayed home and looked after the home and kids. His wage went on home maintenance and bills, mortgage, car expenses, basic wardrobes for his wife and kids. What little disposable income he had was spent on a beer at the pub after work and maybe saving a bit of dough for a simple holiday once a year, maybe a camping or fishing trip or driving interstate to see relatives. There was advertising and consumerism but nothing like on today's scale. Also, in the 30s you had the Great depression, and in later decades those who were kids understood all too well the value of money and would look on our hobby as extravagance and profligacy. That said, I also believe that if they could see today's cheap mall shop clothes, they would also share our appreciation of the workmanship seen in the clothes of their own time.

Just my thoughts . . .

 

[Blackadder]

I can say for sure that my Rich Sher is of better quality than my Grais. My Buco is better than my Beck.

 

[Bfd70]

What Benny said. I think people were too recently removed from the primary goal of the day being not starving to death. Only the wealthy put thought into garments and i suspect rarely was it leather. I liken it to the overall lack of collecting things hence the shortage of Honus Wagner cards.

 

[Bfd70]

Oh, btw, keep up the fun posts super.

 

[navetsea]

but didn't they do hard on their clothes... cooking the white on stove until boiling, or scrub them over wooden or later plastic washing board using harsh bar soap or harsh early detergent that always made the skin of my hands exfoliated when I did the dishes or washed the car using similar detergent , then put them under the sun press them with charcoal iron, I remember in elementary school my grandpa coming from that era and us coming from then farther behind 3rd world country, he used to cook my school uniform, add chlorine bleach, put in the direct sun, iron them with old fashion iron without thermo-switch (luckily not the charcoal variant but I went to catholic school adjacent to monastery and I saw the nuns ironed their laundry with those archaic thing) and the next time I wore them they feel like cardboard, and after a year it started developing hole and so we bought new uniform again.

I think now we care a lot more of our clothes, many delicate setting on washing machine, and hanging clothes in the shade since detergents have gotten better so the color of our clothes stay fresh longer, we use non chlorine stain remover. and it's been awhile since the last time I see my tshirt developing holes. usually in the old time it was a common thing for a t-shirt to have holes and repurposed as rags after a year or two.

 

[dudewuttheheck]

My guess is that things were much more local back then so you probably weren't comparing different makers as much as we are now. Also, for people back then, it was less of a hobby and more just the clothes they wore. I could of course be wrong about this and I'm sure a lot of people really did care about how they dressed, but I'm not sure if "appreciated" is the right word because the way we appreciate these things is almost certainly different than people would have appreciated them back then anyway.

 

[Blackadder]

I bought my Grais on ebay from a seller who claimed that he bought it in 1949 and had only worn it a couple of times. If that is the truth, I think he bought the leather jacket merely because it was fashionable.

 

[red devil]

I would think same as we are a niche when it comes to appreciating clothing now, there probably were a niche of dandies putting a lot of effort in their clothing, but as mentioned by at @Bfd70 probably not leather.

After all, the desire to look good in both men and women is a very old one. Vikings were known for their well groomed hair for example, medieval nobles used to wear fancy fur and jewellery...

 

[Jasonindenver]

There is a local shop here in Denver run by a Hungarian immigrant who learned the trade from his father and grandfather. We had a long discussion about this very issue when I was in to have a Schott altered.

Frank started his business in the late 1960s and it was booming for 20+ years. He sold leather and fur jackets to large east coast department stors sich as Bloomingdale’s and Barney’s. He showed me his sales catalogue from the early 1970s and they had over 30 standard models.

By the late 1980s, the demand for US produced, quality leather and fur plummeted. His large customers wanted cheaper produced goods rom overseas against which he could not compete and keep paying his people a living wage. The Members Only jacket drew his specific ire. People’s demand for cheap crap went off the charts, taking many craftsmen like him out of the equation.

He adjusted by going full custom 25 years ago, but he admits it is a very tough business.

At the time I met him I already had an Aero on order. However, this thread reminds me that it might be time for another custom jacket.

 

[navetsea]

another thing is in old days there was distinct differences between clothes people wear at home and going out, while nowadays we wear good clothes at home too although what we considered good clothes nowadays is just a shirt and jeans not a suit , and probably only put on shoes or jacket when going out. So in a way we have become more honest in the way we dress not putting up a costume for public eyes.
the clothes of the rich and poor, the first world and the third world is also basically the same now, maybe different in fine details, or the brands, but basically people wear similar array of clothes globally, and mostly able to afford to buy and dress to fit their personal style not forced to wear limited clothes based on their status.