Was Roughwear The Original Manufacturer Of The Iconic Hercules Jacket?

[RiteStuffBryan]

I have been skeptical of the 1935 pictured jacket to be the jacket we know, the jacket pictured in the 1936 catalog is the one we know.

The 36 description includes this key phrase side gussets. Why? because they are new.

The ‘35 illustration isn’t as clear but it does seem to have the Cossack-style low side straps and possibly the side gussets but it’s hard to say for sure. Features were sometimes played up or not depending on the space the item got it seems.

 

[tmitchell59]

Evidence is right at our foot, I just proved that above, though I no long own that barnstormer. Then I stumbled on a jacket pictures I forgot and a jacket I own that I hadn't thought about.

This is a Roughwear

This is my Hercules also the Iconic Herc in the last pic. No doubt my Hercules is identical to the Roughwear labeled jacket. Which have the same construction and quality of leather. Note: the leather on the double breasted Hercules is as fine a leather as I have handled, it is a step above.

 

[RiteStuffBryan]

The bottom 3 pics are incredible.

Speaking of adjustable collars, cutaway backing, and barnstormers, I just saw this one for sale:

 

[tmitchell59]

The Giant and Horsehead label may very well have existed at the same time. I have a short wool Hercules with the Giant label, of course no need for a horsehide label in a wool jacket.

The best dating of these jackets is the zipper type. There is one pictured here with a pot metal sunrise box, that would be the last of the jackets.

Both of these labels end during WWII.

Remember that @Claybertrand jacket is not labeled as a Hercules, just an unlabeled RW. Probably from the pre-war time. Should not follow the catalog

 

[tmitchell59]

The bottom 3 pics are incredible.

Speaking of adjustable collars, cutaway backing, and barnstormers, I just saw this one for sale:

View attachment 495614
View attachment 495615
View attachment 495616

Roughwear, buy it.

Mine showed up last fall and I jumped on it and it was not cheap. The Iconic back was easy to spot, I forgot I had it. It is also a nice size, 42.

 

[RiteStuffBryan]

Roughwear, buy it.

Mine showed up last fall and I jumped on it and it was not cheap. The Iconic back was easy to spot, I forgot I had it. It is also a nice size, 42.

This one is also about a 42, out of my price range for the time being though!

 

[tmitchell59]

This one is also about a 42, out of my price range for the time being though!

Interesting different back design then mine. A bit rough, but Roughwear.

 

[tmitchell59]

My exact jacket in the 1937 catalog

 

[tmitchell59]

There was an earlier question about the tanning of these jackets; Chrome/Vegetable. I was stumped, I original thought these were Veg tanned. I was going to use this double breasted Hercules as an example of fine tanned leather and it is Chrome tanned! Read in description below.

California Sportswear made many jackets with "California Chrome Tanned" on the label during the 1950s.

 

[tmitchell59]

I am at the point I believe all the Iconic Hercules we are discussing were made by Roughwear Clothing Co. One of the reasons is volume. Wards had at least 3 different suppliers in one catalog page, in part because they made very different garments. Block, California Sportswear, Roughwear all had the capacity to produce for Sears and others. Roughwear definitely made jackets for Montgomery ward while selling them under their Admiral Byrd label.

Roughwear was a large manufacture in the day. They reportable were making 12,000 A2 contract jackets a week at the peak!

So far there is little or no information on any other maker producing this jacket. It was one company and they tweaked their jackets through the years

 

[Canuck Panda]

Yeah definitely chrome tanned. Or at least combi tanned. There is no way full veg tan hides can survive the freezing test as advertised. If I have my info correctly chrome tanning was developed after the first war when the veg tan puttees deteriorated too fast in the trenches.

Also lots of intel in the pic posted above:
1/8" top stitched set in collar, for bulk reduction, no break in, comfortable from day one
1/4" top stitched structural seams
Can't quite see the bottom seam where lining meets the shell. Bummer.
1/8" top stitched french seams for all other seams
Basically every seam in this jacket has butterfly or some type of seam bulk reduction. It must have been easy to wear when brand new. That could also be a selling point, especially for the stiffer horse hides that came before it.
And it looks like there is only a 2" drop from chest to hem, much like the A2 jackets, so 30s?
And I swear it looks like 24" back length, from collar down, not including collar. 25.5" include front drop.
Also looks like normal arm hole, not high not low. Surprising, I'd thought the earlier jackets would have higher armholes.
A2 jacket like rounded shoulder with the sleeves going into the body at about 45 degrees but still forward rotated.
Interesting, the jacket owner removed the side cinches and added a throat latch on the bottom hem inside where leather would normally go. Wonder what that was about.
Greyish peanut butter color core, consistent with the vintage A2 jacket leathers.
And they didn't match clicking then. Surprise grain on one third of the fancy back, smooth on the other.

Picture do show a thousand words. Thanks Terry. Do you have a frontal shot of that jacket/pic? It might solve why the owner put a throat latch on the bottom hem.

 

[Canuck Panda]

12,000 A2 contract jackets a week at the peak

That's a lot.

2 jackets a day for each machinist during regular hours, 3 with OT, 6 days a week, that would still peg the factory at about 667 machinists, assuming every jacket passed QC. Plus supporting staff, it's easily a 1000 men/women operation. That's quite the size for a factory in the US then, just clothing.

 

[ChewingWax]

Do you guys think the “fancy back” was just a nice marketing ploy to sell the cheaper multi panel back? I generally dislike anything but a single panel back but the nature of the ”fancy back” is not without its charms.

 

[tmitchell59]

Yeah definitely chrome tanned. Or at least combi tanned. There is no way full veg tan hides can survive the freezing test as advertised. If I have my info correctly chrome tanning was developed after the first war when the veg tan puttees deteriorated too fast in the trenches.

Also lots of intel in the pic posted above:
1/8" top stitched set in collar, for bulk reduction, no break in, comfortable from day one
1/4" top stitched structural seams
Can't quite see the bottom seam where lining meets the shell. Bummer.
1/8" top stitched french seams for all other seams
Basically every seam in this jacket has butterfly or some type of seam bulk reduction. It must have been easy to wear when brand new. That could also be a selling point, especially for the stiffer horse hides that came before it.
And it looks like there is only a 2" drop from chest to hem, much like the A2 jackets, so 30s?
And I swear it looks like 24" back length, from collar down, not including collar. 25.5" include front drop.
Also looks like normal arm hole, not high not low. Surprising, I'd thought the earlier jackets would have higher armholes.
A2 jacket like rounded shoulder with the sleeves going into the body at about 45 degrees but still forward rotated.
Interesting, the jacket owner removed the side cinches and added a throat latch on the bottom hem inside where leather would normally go. Wonder what that was about.
Greyish peanut butter color core, consistent with the vintage A2 jacket leathers.
And they didn't match clicking then. Surprise grain on one third of the fancy back, smooth on the other.

Picture do show a thousand words. Thanks Terry. Do you have a frontal shot of that jacket/pic? It might solve why the owner put a throat latch on the bottom hem.


View attachment 495733

https://photos.app.goo.gl/n2J3p18MBdz3iGW77

 

[tmitchell59]

Do you guys think the “fancy back” was just a nice marketing ploy to sell the cheaper multi panel back? I generally dislike anything but a single panel back but the nature of the ”fancy back” is not without its charms.

Yes the Fancy back was a marketing strategy but not to sell a cheaper product.

A multi piece back is not a cheaper version of a one piece back, it is the opposite. It takes more design work, more piece cutting, more sewing to create. Many of the finest vintage jackets were know for their fancy multi piece back.

We are slowly answering the question of why this particular jacket is Iconic and you hit on one.

1. The fancy back, This did not exist before this jacket, hence the proclamation of the "fancy back".There are no back pictures of jackets in the Sears catalog prior to this. After this all manner of back designs explode, especially in the wool jackets.

Yes, I believe ever other fancy back jacket was in some way inspired by this design. The Hercules back is rather understated compared to others that shortly followed by a host of small shops, many in California Bay Area.

2. Side gussets: This jacket appears to be the first leather jacket with sides! Odd to think of, but the prior construction called for a back and front sewn together often with a Triangle piece that used cinches to adjust. This is the original Cossack style.

Note in the 36 ad the mention of side gussets, because they were new and unique.

The Hercules is Iconic because it is the first "Modern" leather jacket.

 

[tmitchell59]

I just bought this Roughwear jacket with a fancy back an hour ago. Amazing find.

 

[ChewingWax]

Yes the Fancy back was a marketing strategy but not to sell a cheaper product.

A multi piece back is not a cheaper version of a one piece back, it is the opposite. It takes more design work, more piece cutting, more sewing to create. Many of the finest vintage jackets were know for their fancy multi piece back.

We are slowly answering the question of why this particular jacket is Iconic and you hit on one.

1. The fancy back, This did not exist before this jacket, hence the proclamation of the "fancy back".There are no back pictures of jackets in the Sears catalog prior to this. After this all manner of back designs explode, especially in the wool jackets.

Yes, I believe ever other fancy back jacket was in some way inspired by this design. The Hercules back is rather understated compared to others that shortly followed by a host of small shops, many in California Bay Area.

2. Side gussets: This jacket appears to be the first leather jacket with sides! Odd to think of, but the prior construction called for a back and front sewn together often with a Triangle piece that used cinches to adjust. This is the original Cossack style.

Note in the 36 ad the mention of side gussets, because they were new and unique.

The Hercules is Iconic because it is the first "Modern" leather jacket.

Thanks! I really love this thread. The reason I thought perhaps a single piece back was more expensive was that Dave Himel says in at least one of his videos that single panel backs were rare because they required large unblemished pieces of leather and were expensive to do. The example above of one panel being mismatched with the other two would seem to indicate to me that in some respects the multi panel back let them use smaller mismatched pieces of leather which I can see being more economical. But obviously the extra cutting and sewing might offset that. Anyhow, you are the expert. Thanks again for your answer.

 

[tmitchell59]

Thanks! I really love this thread. The reason I thought perhaps a single piece back was more expensive was that Dave Himel says in at least one of his videos that single panel backs were rare because they required large unblemished pieces of leather and were expensive to do. The example above of one panel being mismatched with the other two would seem to indicate to me that in some respects the multi panel back let them use smaller mismatched pieces of leather which I can see being more economical. But obviously the extra cutting and sewing might offset that. Anyhow, you are the expert. Thanks again for your answer.

they used simple multi piece backs in many Goatskin jackets because it is difficult to find a Goathide the correct size, but horsehide? No, there was plenty of high quality hides.

The makers/creators of these early designs were creative people, just like we have today. The Hercules ushered in the Golden Years of leather jackets 1935-1942. I could post dozens of pictures of highly sought leather jackets and the fancy back is what stood them out of the crowd.

They were competitive, creative, craftspeople, with a sense of pride.

WWII ended most of the creativity and fancy backs began to disappear in search of cost saving construction. Jackets became very more standardized, much less creative. The Golden Year jackets ended.

 

[Canuck Panda]

Horsehide leather is quite large in square footage, at least 20 sf for a double front, the larger hides can be cut down into single fronts and they're still 13 to 15sf each. A normal jacket would only require 35 to 45 sf of leather.
I don't think the fancy back is a cost cutting thing. Labor always cost more.
Side gusseted bodice always fits the torso better than the two front and back like the A1/A2 jackets.

Here is a video showing the sizes and differences between animal hides from Horween. A whole steerhide side can seem smaller than the full double horse fronts.

 

[Claybertrand]

I l

Thanks! I really love this thread. The reason I thought perhaps a single piece back was more expensive was that Dave Himel says in at least one of his videos that single panel backs were rare because they required large unblemished pieces of leather and were expensive to do. The example above of one panel being mismatched with the other two would seem to indicate to me that in some respects the multi panel back let them use smaller mismatched pieces of leather which I can see being more economical. But obviously the extra cutting and sewing might offset that. Anyhow, you are the expert. Thanks again for your answer.

I love the Lounge but I gotta say I agree!!!! I am really really loving this thread!!!!!!!! Comparing theories, askin questions, solvin' mysteries..........and here @tmitchell59 goes and picks up a new piece of evidence with a FANCY BACK no less!!! That IS a Fancy Back too!!! I saw the listing and gawked at that back for awhile. I wish I wasn't working while this conversation/investigation has been going down here. I feel like I can't ENJOY it as much just checking in sporatically.

Thanks for all the contributions and comments on this thread. We got a reall THINK TANK goin here!!!!!!!!!!!