Questions About the United States Navy Peacoat

[Doctor Damage]

I wonder if it's possible to pin this thread for the winter season since it's one of this forum's most popular threads.

 

[Peacoat]

I bought a WWII Coast Guard coat a few years ago. I think it was a size 44, but fit me a tinch small. I resold it on ebay. The Kersey material on that coat was incredible - velvet like, very dense, and very strong. . It was even nicer then my vintage Navy coats. Definitely a different batch of material as compared to my vintage Navy coats. I also have one WWII coat which has great Kersey material, but still not the same as that Coast Guard coat.

Interesting. I have found the 1949 coats have the denser, more velvet like finish than the other years, but I haven't seen any CG coats to compare the finishes.

As the tags are the same, I would think the same manufacturers made them and obtained the fabric from the same source as the Navy coats. As far as I know, the only differences in the Navy coats and the CG coats are the embroidered CG emblem on the right sleeve.

 

[Doctor Damage]

As far as I know, the only differences in the Navy coats and the CG coats are the embroidered CG emblem on the right sleeve.

Was that emblem a badge that was sewn on or was it actually embroidered to the coat's sleeve?

 

[Peacoat]

Was that emblem a badge that was sewn on or was it actually embroidered to the coat's sleeve?

I've never seen one in the wild, but I have seen pictures of them and have seen descriptions of them.

The impression I have is that they were embroidered on the sleeve and not sewn on. One guy didn't like it, and wanted to remove it, but said that would be difficult because it appeared to be embroidered on the sleeve.

 

[Spoonbelly]

Interesting. I have found the 1949 coats have the denser, more velvet like finish than the other years, but I haven't seen any CG coats to compare the finishes.

As the tags are the same, I would think the same manufacturers made them and obtained the fabric from the same source as the Navy coats. As far as I know, the only differences in the Navy coats and the CG coats are the embroidered CG emblem on the right sleeve.

Peacoat,
It was a few years ago (5-7) but I'm pretty sure the inside tag on the WWII CG coat was different then the Navy WWII coat. I'm pretty sure it stated "Coast Guard" on it as opposed to "Naval Clothing Factory".
It also did not have the little emblem on the sleeve. The tag however was definitely different then the Navy WWII coat. I agree with you on the material of the 1949 coats. I had one but resold it on ebay as I bought it for my wife and that didn't work out. If I remember correctly the material on the 1949 Navy coat and the WWII CG were both superior but still not the same. The CG coat was more like velvet. The '49 was thick, and heavy yet soft.

Interesting. I have found the 1949 coats have the denser, more velvet like finish than the other years, but I haven't seen any CG coats to compare the finishes.

As the tags are the same, I would think the same manufacturers made them and obtained the fabric from the same source as the Navy coats. As far as I know, the only differences in the Navy coats and the CG coats are the embroidered CG emblem on the right sleeve.

 

[Peacoat]

@Spoonbelly: I wish you had taken a picture of that tag. If you should run across another one, please do so.

 

[ZenEdge]

Gentlemen, I have been searching for the elusive kersey wool peacoat in a size 40 Long or 40 Extra Long since, well, for a really long time and came upon this one, but the label does not resemble any labels I have seen in the past. What do you think? Is it the real thing?

It reads COAT MN'S. WL. KERSEY BLUE PEACOAT
CONT. NO.9167 FSN.8405-727-5643
100% WOOL
DSA, DPSC, DIR. OF MFG.

 

[Peacoat]

That one has me stumped as well, on several different levels. Looks like nothing I have seen before.

I would take a chance on it and see what you get in the mail. Might be a nice Kersey coat.

 

[Peacoat]

Another reason to get this one is I don't think I have seen a long or extra long in the Kersey. Perhaps in the mid to late 70s, but I just don't remember. I think this label is legitimate, even though I haven't seen it before (and I have seen thousands of them). You would have a one of a kind label. That alone should be worth at least $100.

So jump on it and let us know what you get.

 

[EmergencyIan]

I was just looking at the label before I read your responses. I agree that it looks legit. That was my first impression. However, my other first impression was: What the hell is this?

It will be interesting to find out what he gets.

- Ian

 

[ZenEdge]

Thank you gentlemen for your prompt replies to my inquiry. I am deciding between this coat and a couple of others. From what I read in your Peacoat Dating Guide, if I understand correctly, peacoats prior to 1980 were made of kersey wool with the exception of one contract in the '70s that specified melton wool and that fact would be noted on the label. Do I have that right? I've seen several '70s era peacoats that do not specify the type of wool. So, is it safe to assume they are kersey?

 

[Peacoat]

It has been my experience that all contracts that specify Melton are so noted on the label. Doesn't mean there isn't the odd miscreant running around out there that I don't know about, but this is a good rule of thumb.

 

[ZenEdge]

Did the US Navy specify the type of wool to be used? And if all peacoats were required to be manufactured to the same military specifications, wouldn't that imply all contractors had to use the same type of wool, whether it was kersey wool or melton wool?

 

[Peacoat]

Yes and yes. The contracts were (and are) very specific about not only the type of wool to be used in the shell but also everything else about the peacoat.

 

[ZenEdge]

So, one contractor could not decide to use melton wool while another contractor opted to use kersey wool in the making of their peacoats? They would both to have use the same type of wool that was specified for that year.

 

[Peacoat]

Yes. The type of wool used in the shell, as well as everything else, is, and was, decided by the Navy.

 

[Doctor Damage]

So, one contractor could not decide to use melton wool while another contractor opted to use kersey wool in the making of their peacoats? They would both to have use the same type of wool that was specified for that year.

If the manufacturer didn't follow the specifications their jackets wouldn't pass inspection and they wouldn't get paid.

 

[AbbaDatDeHat]

@Spoonbelly: I wish you had taken a picture of that tag. If you should run across another one, please do so.

Greetings All:
Here’s a pic of a couple Coast Guards i picked up recently showing the tags and patch. Interesting the one shows the contract number, seems many don’t.
These are very nice examples.
Be well. Bowen

 

[ZenEdge]

Yes. The type of wool used in the shell, as well as everything else, is, and was, decided by the Navy.

I came across a peacoat that was manufactured in 1973 of melton wool. That would suggest that if all contractors were held to the same specifications then all peacoats manufactured in 1973 would have been made with melton wool regardless of whether it was labeled as such.

 

[Peacoat]

I came across a peacoat that was manufactured in 1973 of melton wool. That would suggest that if all contractors were held to the same specifications then all peacoats manufactured in 1973 would have been made with melton wool regardless of whether it was labeled as such.

Not necessarily. The Navy could have changed the contract during the year. But it probably did not. Letting contracts and taking bids is time consuming. And for that contract there was probably only one company awarded the contract. If the Navy needed high volume that couldn't be supplied by one contractor, others might be awarded the work, but I think that would normally be unusual.