Questions About the United States Navy Peacoat

[Peacoat]

As to the 1949 peacoat having cotton pockets, I imagine the seamstress simply ran out of the corduroy material toward the end of the day, and substituted what she had, hoping it wouldn't be noticed. Evidently it wasn't. With the US not at war, I'm surprised this was done, and that it passed inspection.

I don't think the collar tags were built to last any type of wear. They were there for the supply Sgt. to quickly find the right size and to show they had been inspected and passed. "J. O." is the most prolific inspector I have seen. Doubt that he is still alive. He would be able to answer some of our questions, if he had a mind for the arcane.

Thanks for taking the time and going back to the shop to check things out. There may well have been another change in the regulations between 1922 and the 1939 Bridge Coat you examined. I'm thinking I have seen at least one during the mid 30s but haven't been able to locate it again.

 

[Doctor Damage]

Source: http://indicatorloops.com/usn_pequot.htm
Quote: Roger Calamaio and Norman Zinner ashore in their regulation Pea Coats 1943. Roger loved that thick wool coat. He said it made him feel "snug as a bug in a rug."

 

[Doctor Damage]

It also has one rank stripe right at the cuffs.

That means the coat's sleeves were shortened at some point, since the rank braid would have been a couple inches above the cuff when new.

 

[Peacoat]

That means the coat's sleeves were shortened at some point, since the rank braid would have been a couple inches above the cuff when new.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw an image of that coat, or a similar one.

 

[Doctor Damage]

 

[BigBrother]

Hey all, been a bit since I chimed in here. I had temporarily given up on finding an authentic peacoat with the fit I wanted since going down to the smallest size I could find (34) was still yielding way too large coats for me. I was essentially after a 17” shoulder to shoulder, 20” pit to pit. Those measurements may have technically existed in the coats I had tried but the whole thing was way too large. Well, a few weeks ago eBay happened to show me a size 32 and I jumped at it. I actually picked up that one and another that resulted from my immediate search for “peacoat 32”. Both were 40s-50s era.

They arrived and finally I had in my hands peacoats that fit how I wanted… almost. When open they still flared out way too much around the bottom, producing, for lack of a better description, a snow angel look.

I fiddled with them a bit and realized that I really was close- if I could find a 32S, I would probably have it. The overall length and sleeve length were both a bit too long for my taste and I could tell shorter would alleviate the snow angel look I was getting.

So, before I return the one I have left- has anyone on here ever seen a military-issue 32S? I’m trying to determine if it’s something I’ll ever find after returning this one.

Oh, and please, no commentary on “that’s not how it should fit!” “what you want is too small!” etc etc etc. I’ve been buying and trying these now for about two years and for my personal taste, these 32s are perfect save for the length.

Thanks so much all!

 

[Bfd70]

Not to say “its how they should fit.” I think that varies. Last night I met some friends for dinner. When we were leaving I was telling a friend bout my new pea coat I acquired and was wearing that night. He said oh you mean like this. He had one of the same vintage (1966). We are the same proportions but he is 5 inches taller than me. Mine wears much longer than his does. To be honest I thought his looked better. I would wear a 38 short if they exist

 

[BigBrother]

I’ve almost certainly seen them available! Take a look on eBay. There certainly are short sizes I just wasn’t sure in this particular case if 32 had them.

 

[Peacoat]

I just don't know how you guys can wear a size 32 peacoat. I mean that is the smallest size thy make.

My wife is petite at 5' 4'' and 117 lbs. She could wear a size 32.

 

[BigBrother]

I just don't know how you guys can wear a size 32 peacoat. I mean that is the smallest size thy make.

My wife is petite at 5' 4'' and 117 lbs. She could wear a size 32.

For what it’s worth, they fit just like my 37R and 38R World War II tunics (Army and Navy). That’s why this sizing has been so confounding- they don’t conform to any other jacket or overcoat sizes I’ve ever seen, except for maybe Army Mackinaws. I swim in those as well in sizes that would normally be fine on me. I get that they were supposed to go over a uniform but even a size 34 is excessively excessively large on me, uniform or not. The shoulders, sleeves- everything is gargantuan.

 

[Doctor Damage]

The link below is for the US Naval Academy's uniform page for "reefers" which apparently they're allowed to wear:
https://www.usna.edu/UniformRegs/Chapter2-DescriptionOfUniforms/outerwear/reefer.php

 

[Fifty150]

The coat on the model is not tight. It appears to be comfortable, able to move in, and the sailor could layer under it. I don't understand the desire to wear tight clothes.

 

[BigBrother]

Well think about it: we’re not wearing these for handling the rigging on a ship. We’re wearing them as (ideally) flattering male clothing. Look at the military’s Class As from WWII. The purpose was the same- to present the man in a sharp, tight silhouette and flatter his form as much as possible. The intent was not to be able to perform physical work in them. The field uniforms were baggy and schlubby, as befit their intent.

Now, the pea coat in my opinion falls in the same category as the A2- a field/work item of clothing that just so happened to also look really sharp and flattering. So both were adopted for civilian wear. But the “mission” in that case becomes the same as the Class As- emphasize the male form and look good. Workwear repurposed, if you will. Which would you rather look like:

(At this point I was going to link to a sharp-looking civvie and yet the best example was a true Navy shot!)

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Navy-peacoat-768x512.jpg

or

https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/w...2/12/6x3-Double-Breasted-US-Navy-Pea-Coat.jpg

For me there is utterly no comparison, and only a size 32 has looked like the first example.

Unless I’m going for perfect reenactment, for me the “Class A”-ified version wins out. But then given, again, the first shot is Naval perhaps that would be right as well.

In short, my goal is to wear it as a dress item, not as a work one. But hey, taste is taste!

 

[BigBrother]

I’m pretty certain this is a fake, right?

 

[Peacoat]

I’m pretty certain this is a fake, right?

Don't know; it isn't a proper tag from the inside breast pocket. Or if it is from that location, I doubt it is an issue coat.

 

[BigBrother]

I had them scour the inner coat for other labels and they found this. Now I’m 90% swayed in the other direction!

 

[Peacoat]

I had them scour the inner coat for other labels and they found this. Now I’m 90% swayed in the other direction!

Yes, it is an issue coat. Unfortunately, it is the Melton shell.

 

[BigBrother]

Yeah, I looked up the contract number after posting it and it appears to be a 90s-era one. Still will probably get it as all the measurements check out. Thanks!

 

[O'DubhGhaill]

Yes it's issue. I have three of these: 38L, 40R, and 40L, all made by Sterlingwear and sailor-marked / issued.

 

[O'DubhGhaill]

Oops, didn't see the previous responses. Anyways, it's a 34 Short.