Reproductions: How do you know they're accurate?

[AdeeC]

Sometimes repo's go beyond the call of duty so to speak. Personally I can't see the point of Eastmans General Patton replica B3, would someone really wear it unless they were dressing up as General Patton for something. Same with those A2s of famous aircraft, the Hell's Angels jacket spring to mind. Would you wear it in public? The bike club have nothing to do with the jacket but may 'take offence' at you dressing up representing real American hero's so what do you do with these, were they made for display only as they can only ever have the same value as any painted up repro jacket.
Finally, would you want true accuracy of an original maker jacket if it was slapped together with wonky stitching, mismatched epaulets etc. I think the answer to that one is NO, not paying £800 for faulty work, no matter how accurate it was to an original, I would want a bit knocked off the price. Wouldn't you?
Oh yes, bike jackets. has anyone evr had a perfecto style painted up like 'Johnny's' from the Wild One? Yes I painted mine, but I only wore it to a fancy dress party with a bus drivers hat and got the paint off as soon as I was home.
Oh well thats just me.

Buyers like to imagine their expensive repro is based on a wartime original stitched up by the best seamstress on a good slow day and the cutter was sober and randomly selected the best hide in the pile that belonged to a thoroughbred and not a mule. I guess it did happen occasionally.

 

[Sloan1874]

But many were produced perfectly. Look at Andrew's collection!

 

[Superfluous]

I think that's the essential hypocrisy of the people who insist on 100% repro, when it's obviously not 100% repro. Don't sneer at my hand warmer pockets and I won't sneer at your perfect stitching, perfect pockets, perfect collar, perfect fit, too perfect everything, etc etc.

Buyers like to imagine their expensive repro is based on a wartime original stitched up by the best seamstress on a good slow day and the cutter was sober and randomly selected the best hide in the pile that belonged to a thoroughbred and not a mule. I guess it did happen occasionally.

A few years back, I purchased a RRL leather jacket that was a repro of a vintage railroad jacket from the early 20th Century. When I got home, I discovered that the stitching was wildly irregular (I failed to carefully inspect the jacket before making the purchase). The stitching was so irregular that it looked like the seamstress was drunk. Upon contacting RRL, I was told that the stitching was intentionally irregular to match the stitching on the original jacket that was being reproduced. Notwithstanding the greater accuracy achieved by the irregular stitching, I nevertheless returned the jacket because the stitching irked me. I prefer precise stitching, even if such precision requires deviation from the original.

The same holds true for the quality of the leather. I would prefer a superior quality horsehide as compared to the original, notwithstanding the resulting deviation from the original. Of course, this principle has its limits. I am not interested in some esoteric reptile skin, even if considered superior to horsehide. That would be too much of a departure from the original (and looks downright fugly -- Hermes, LV and others have perverted the originals in this manner).

Good repro jackets cost a bundle. Therefore, IMHO, the quality must be commensurate with the cost, even if that results in a better made jacket than the original.

 

[Dinerman]

But many were produced perfectly. Look at Andrew's collection!

My experience is similar. In the thousands of vintage coats and jackets I've sold, it's rare to see the oft-reported sloppy workmanship used to discount originals. The place I've seen odd stitching the most is on the work of custom leather jacketmakers of that period. Factory workmanship was generally pretty consistent, at least for major makers. In late-war production, where volume trumped all else, you do see more sloppy work getting out, but pre and post war civilian production was generally very good.

There was, of course, a gradient of quality. Just like now, there were disposable fashions made in substandard conditions. Let's take workwear as an example. There were higher priced, quality brands, just as there were no-name, made to a price-point items. One will have excellent workmanship and materials, the other will not, neither should be used to make broad generalizations.

Some ideas of quality have changed over the years. Neither high or low priced makers of plaid mackinaws of the 1920s-1950s seem to have cared much about plaid matching on the back panels the way we do. The slight pattern shift from these unmatched panels highlight the pockets or belt-back. On almost all reproductions I have had of these styles, this idiosyncrasy of the originals has been corrected and pains have been taken to match the plaids, causing the belt and trim to disappear into the coat, drastically changing the overall look.

 

[Dinerman]

When the accuracy of a reproduction is one of the major selling points of something, you hope it's not just a marketing line.
Sometimes it is. A couple of years ago, I sold a an original late '40s- early 1950s half-belt to a repro jacket maker from whom many people here have purchased jackets. When the reproduction based on my original came out, it was marketed as early 1930s and authentic to a particular maker's design (the original was not made by that company or in that era). From what I saw, it was an accurate copy of the original, but the marketing was entirely used to deceive.

What are people's thoughts on this practice? Or on making reproductions based on other companies reproductions, rather than from an original?

 

[Superfluous]

A couple of years ago, I sold a an original late '40s- early 1950s half-belt to a repro jacket maker from whom many people here have purchased jackets. When the reproduction based on my original came out, it was marketed as early 1930s and authentic to a particular maker's design (the original was not made by that company or in that era). From what I saw, it was an accurate copy of the original, but the marketing was entirely used to deceive. . . . . What are people's thoughts on this practice?

In this example, the culpability of the repro manufacturer depends on his/its knowledge of the origins of the original upon which the repro was based. If the repro manufacturer knew the identity of the original manufacturer (e.g., because the label remained on the original) and the period when the original was created (because you disclosed this information), then the repro manufacturer intentionally lied about the repro jacket being offered for sale and thereby engaged in fraud. On the other hand, if the repro manufacturer was unaware of the actual manufacturer of the original (because the label was missing), and likewise did not know the exact period when the original was made, the repro manufacturer still presented inaccurate information in the marketing of the jacket, but its/his misrepresentations might be unintentional/negligent and, therefore, slightly less culpable. In this scenario, the degree of culpability may depend on the basis for the inaccurate information proffered by the repro manufacturer -- e.g., did the repro manufacturer have a good faith basis to identify the original manufacturer and period of origin, even though the proffered information was inaccurate, or was the repro manufacturer simply guessing without any legitimate basis for the representations.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if a repro manufacturer elects to present information about the origins of the original jacket being reproduced, the repro manufacturer must endeavor to discern accurate information before making any such representations that will be relied upon by purchasers. If the repro manufacturer has an educated guess, but is not certain, it/he should qualify any representations accordingly. If the repro manufacturer does not know, he should not say anything. And, lastly, if the repro manufacturer knows the identify of the original manufacturer and/or period of original, it/he obviously should not misrepresent this information and thereby defraud his customers. Regardless of the product, consumers are entitled to accurate information.

 

[Dinerman]

The marketing was almost certainly deliberate as the era of the original was known. There was no label, but the detailing was not consistent with what the reproduction was later marketed as.
In the detail and label driven market of original jackets, a later production version of the style produced by a different maker can be had a lot more reasonably than the one the repro is supposedly of. The repro did change the zipper to an earlier style to back-date the design, as well as changing the lining material. Unless you knew the back story on it, it's likely no one would ever question that it is a reproduction of what it says it's a reproduction of.

Is the repro based on the 1940s-1950s jacket physically that different from the earlier 1930s jacket it's claiming to be? It's probably not that far off, probably no further than one actually based on a 1930s original that's had the proportions tweaked to fit modern tastes. Is the marketing false? Yes, but the degree to which the product is dishonest depends on whether you're thinking about the perception of the object or of the process of making it. Things get awfully fuzzy.

That's the tough thing with marketing- it can be so hard to prove whether it's true or not.
I have a RRL coat that I love. The blurb on it said it was based on a German hunting jacket, I think it said 1920s. It's a lot easier than saying that the body is based on a 1930s American hunting coat with detailing off a Railroad mackinaw, snaps based on a Brown's Beach Jacket, an inside pocket cribbed from a 1920s canvas hunting coat, the collar off something from the 1910s and fabric from something else entirely. A real mutt, but the overall vibe is very period. You look at it and you go, yeah, that's something someone would have worn out in the country in 1925. I don't care that it's not accurate to anything in particular, it looks the part, feels the part and fits well. But I knew enough when I bought it that I wasn't buying it for the marketing. There was no big reveal where I found out what it actually was, so I don't feel bad.

 

[2jakes]

What are people's thoughts on this practice? Or on making reproductions based on other companies reproductions, rather than from an original?

Sometimes the “boys from marketing” & the factory where the products are
actually produced are on different planets.

Such was the case with a Chicago based plant producing all-American material bicycles (1950s).
Making for many discussions/arguments as to what is genuine/original or otherwise.
The debates still continues.

 

[Seb Lucas]

What are people's thoughts on this practice? Or on making reproductions based on other companies reproductions, rather than from an original?

Well you can approach this as an ethical problem or as a customer. From a philosophical perspective I'm dubious of the process. As a customer I don't give a rats as long as it's well done. But you've got to wonder how some of these products are arrived at and who got ripped off so that we could benefit. If you're a company buying up vintage examples to reproduce it doesn't matter. If you're ripping off another compay's painstakingly reproduced pattern it's ethically fraught.

It can get strange. It's been flagged on COW that Wested's best Raiders pattern is actually a copy of a copy of a film used jacket. Tony Nowak was given a film used Raiders jacket to copy after he made the Raiders 4 movie jacket. Not long after Nowak's Raiders came out Wested released their first ever accurate Raiders jacket. Curiously it looked just like a Tony Nowak pattern. While it may be said that Wested originally made the jacket in the movie, it's clear that the patterns they had been selling were pretty off until Nowak's arrived. Some will reject this version but I accept it.

 

[Superfluous]

Great discussion with interesting twists and nuances!

 

[rocketeer]

Some ideas of quality have changed over the years. Neither high or low priced makers of plaid mackinaws of the 1920s-1950s seem to have cared much about plaid matching on the back panels the way we do. The slight pattern shift from these unmatched panels highlight the pockets or belt-back. On almost all reproductions I have had of these styles, this idiosyncrasy of the originals has been corrected and pains have been taken to match the plaids, causing the belt and trim to disappear into the coat, drastically changing the overall look.

Some years back I had a rayon (1940/50s)? Hawaiian shirt with an elaborate pattern on it. Each panel was matched to the other so that the pockets, collars and front left and right panels made one complete picture. I think the only panel that did not match were the side seams under the arms to the waist. Even the sleeves were a good match.
Must have been a hell of a lot of waste to make a shirt like that. I wore it till it was threadbare in places and so fragile in the stress points it was on the point of splitting so I sold it.

 

[rocketeer]

Buyers like to imagine their expensive repro is based on a wartime original stitched up by the best seamstress on a good slow day and the cutter was sober and randomly selected the best hide in the pile that belonged to a thoroughbred and not a mule. I guess it did happen occasionally.

For my next horse hide jacket I am going to insist on it being made from a stabled but meadow fed Suffolk Punch. No nosebag oats or rag and bone nags for me

 

[nick123]

Some years back I had a rayon (1940/50s)? Hawaiian shirt with an elaborate pattern on it. Each panel was matched to the other so that the pockets, collars and front left and right panels made one complete picture. I think the only panel that did not match were the side seams under the arms to the waist. Even the sleeves were a good match.
Must have been a hell of a lot of waste to make a shirt like that. I wore it till it was threadbare in places and so fragile in the stress points it was on the point of splitting so I sold it.

I've owned about twenty Toyo Sun Surf Hawaiian shirt repros. One of them had a pocket whose pattern lines did not match up with the rest of the shirt. So I think back then there were exceptions to the "if the pattern lines up, it is a quality shirt" rule you hear commonly advertised as a real aloha shirt today.

 

[rocketeer]

I bought mine second hand in the early 1980s, maybe it was up to whoever made the shirt. I am not a collector, I just liked the shirt and I could not tell you anything about it whatsoever really other than the label read "made in Hawaii" and a long forgotten makers name.

 

[Superfluous]

I thought Tommy Bahama invented the Hawaiian shirt.

 

[ButteMT61]

My brief take on copying is that if a company is kaput, it's all fair game. Borrowing heavily or just plain stealing a current jacket from a current maker = lazy and I won't knowingly buy such a thing.

Here's where it really makes a difference for me. I know for a fact that at least two makers and surely more spend a LOT of money on originals. Those originals take time to find and cost real money. Then, they are deconstructed (reverse-engineered) to make patterns. All extremely time-consuming and expensive. Then when someone else comes along and does a knock off, it bothers me. Or when people diss those aforementioned makers as "too expensive". Accuracy - true accuracy - comes at a price. Those are craftsmen (and women of course) and I choose to support them whenever possible - with dollars and posts, etc.

Sure, I've got some RRL and other maker's jackets in the closet. Nice pieces for what they are. But when I put on an Aero, GW, LW, it's really knowing that I have something special - even if 99.5% of those seeing me in it have 0% clue as to why it's so awesome.

 

[Superfluous]

My brief take on copying is that if a company is kaput, it's all fair game. Borrowing heavily or just plain stealing a current jacket from a current maker = lazy and I won't knowingly buy such a thing.

Here's where it really makes a difference for me. I know for a fact that at least two makers and surely more spend a LOT of money on originals. Those originals take time to find and cost real money. Then, they are deconstructed (reverse-engineered) to make patterns. All extremely time-consuming and expensive. Then when someone else comes along and does a knock off, it bothers me. Or when people diss those aforementioned makers as "too expensive". Accuracy - true accuracy - comes at a price. Those are craftsmen (and women of course) and I choose to support them whenever possible - with dollars and posts, etc.

 

[Dinerman]

Ralph's people may fudge the era of their repros in their marketing vs. what they've based it on, may do a lot of never-was simulacra, and may produce a lot of their things in China, but I'll give them this- they know their source material and buy a bunch of my originals.

 

[tmitchell59]

I don't think there is enough knowledge in the vintage civilian market for people to know what is or what was or what it is suppose to be. How many have the originals to compare? There are repros of Winwards, Hercules, California Sports Wear, Monarchs. Are they exact? I don't see a lot of interest in the originals. I don't read much discussion of the originals. I don't read people are offended by the reproductions or feel ripped off.

I've been working with a maker on some reproductions. I've sent pictures, measurements, jackets. They also have originals they are working from. I know the details of construction from one make to another is a big deal to him, not sure it would be to most others. He has also made changes that work for him and you would never know.

Dinerman is the only expert I know of. Lets have a vintage corner here. I'd like to hear more about the originals. I've got plenty of jackets to discuss. Unlike many vintage collecting I just don't see much interest in the originals. I've always found that a bit odd.

 

[ButteMT61]

Well, @tmitchell59 - originals are harder to find in wearable condition. Even harder to find in my size. And even though many folks out there today love old things, most folks probably don't like wearing old (used) clothing - even jackets. The fact that so many buy repops says there's interest in the style, but let's be honest, even if you do find something, it might be fragile, it might smell, or have other things making it undesirable to all but a small group.
This forum is great. Just the discussion in this thread is great reading.