Jerkin Utility

[trenchtrotter]

Thought some of you may like to see images of the only Jerkin I have and I have never seen another Great War dated one on the market. If you have one in your collection would love to see it. This is a late war 1918 dated item. Heavy wear especially to left shoulder which is torn and shot. Nevertheless a nice item. Nice to see the paper label intact.

Regards

TT

[Grovetown]

Thought some of you may like to see images of the only Jerkin I have and I have never seen another Great War dated one on the market. If you have one in your collection would love to see it. This is a late war 1918 dated item. Heavy wear especially to left shoulder which is torn and shot. Nevertheless a nice item. Nice to see the paper label intact.

Regards

TT

On the road at the moment, so can't double check, but have a feeling that the Miller in question is Canadian; and that the London is Ontario.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Joe Sweeney]

TT,

Here are pictures of two types of Jerkins.

The first is the Leather Jerkin as introduced in 1915 with removal leather covered wood buttons. This actually dated 1918 with an inlk stamp pt in by the manufacturer--the paper label is gone.

This shows the Leather jerkin open and the back of the Cotton double twill introduced in circa 1917 and declared obsolete circa 1920.

Construction of the Double twill was identical to that of the leather only material change.

John in Minnesota had a nice one wth paper label.

I'm not at my resources or I could post far more information.

They also produced a leather jerkin for Russia with wooden toggles.

There was also one produced for RFC/RAF I think.

The buttons on yours is usually a sure sgn of post war manufacture and I believe the changing of the wooden button for those did not occur until circa 1924. Although similar vegetable buttons were used for wartime US jerkins and may have ended up on these. Were these added or are they original.

Also Miller of London is a Canadian manufacturer.

Joe Sweeney

[john in minnesota]

Here's my Canvas jerkin:

[john in minnesota]

...and the inside:

[tocemma]

TT,

Are the buttons on your example sewn on, or attached using rings?

Regards

Tocemma

[Grovetown]

I've examples of the British leather, canvas and RFC jerkins. The RFC version is the same as the 'general' one, although my example is very light in colour. The image below shows it being 'sported' by a Seaforth for illustrative purposes, followed by the label.

I also have a 1918 example of the US version, and What Joe Said about the buttons.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Wardog]

I would be interested to see close pictures of the type of buttons that were in use on these Jerkins. I expect there were more than one type , smooth and various football types? Probably the sort of thing you still might find in charity shop button jars etc. Regards, Paul. PS I would also like to see the reverse where it is held in place by a ring.

[Grovetown]

Had only viewed TT's thread on my phone until now; and have a couple of observations.

Apart from the buttons, I have always associated WW1 jerkins with a very 'flared' shoulder - a deal wider than the body. The shoulders on this one look too narrow to me.

Also: I have several items of clothing manufactured by Miller (and all, coincidentally, RFC). None of my labels has the company name abbreviated, and all state Toronto rather than London.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Wardog]

Am I correct I thinking that the arm holes are biger/deeper on Great War Jerkins compared to the 2nd WW version? Regards, Paul.

[trenchtrotter]

OK..

Buttons sewed on and of course may not be original to jacket. I suspect these had attractions to persons after the war. Label 100 % original to jacket. What are the conclusions drawn...late war jacket?

Certainly not a repro or post war as evidenced from label.

Regards

TT

[Peter Doyle]

Here's my version. Badly damaged on both shoulders (the fold back obscures the most serious damage), but has the typical lining and buttons. I'll look out my WW2 version for comparison, when I get the chance. I guess that if it didn't have the label, TT's jerkin would be a dead spit for a WW2 version, but there is no reason why it couldn't have been reissued/refurbished, I guess.

Cheers

Peter

[Grovetown]

I guess that if it didn't have the label, TT's jerkin would be a dead spit for a WW2 version

My feeling too; and - unfortunately - labels have attracted the attention of the reproducers too. They're always really nice to have on a garment, but still has to be treated in the round.

GT.

[tocemma]

Hello TT,

I'm not sure that the word 'Utility' was used during WW1 in the way implied by the label shown. 'Utility' as applied to clothing dates from 1941 when the government applied rationing and regulation restrictions on manufacturers.

I have never seen this word used in any contemporary WW1 document in relation to uniform. Perhaps Joe Sweeney could assist here, as his collection of period clothing regulations is far more complete than mine.

As GT has said, labels have been cleverly replicated in recent years, they do not always guarantee originality.

Kind regards

Tocemma

[trenchtrotter]

Hmmm..

Seeds of doubt truely sown...however bought from a dealer I trust and for a reasonable sum. Also bought about 10 years ago.

TT

[Chief_Chum]

Very pleased to spot this thread. This 1917 Great War jerkin is one of my favourite pieces of clothing in the Taff collection.

One of the Khaki Chums picked it up in a charity shop in Wales about ten years ago when he was working there. He had grand plans for selling it for an extortionate amount at a militaria fair but I persuaded him to let me have it for the princely sum of £100 which was still a fair chunk of money even then.

It is an exquisite piece of leather; even after 93 years it is still as soft and supple as the day it was peeled from the cow. It's a good deal softer than any modern leather jacket I can ever remember owning too. These quick photographs, laying on the bathroom floor, really don't do it justice.

Just as described it has the leather covered wooden buttons which are held on with rings. Close-up as requested.

The shoulders don't seem much wider than a couple of WW2 jerkins I have just compared it with and the slots for the arms are only one inch deeper than the second war one although that may, of course, simply be because it is such a large size (it fits me over a Service Dress jacket). However, the body is much fuller, and less tapered at the top, than the WW2 version (see pics of the size 3 Great War jerkin next to the Size 2 WW2 below). Joe's leather example looks the same.

There is no sign that it has ever had a paper label. It certainly has no sign that it has ever been worn, so it could not have worn out, and there is no sign that it has ever had anything glued in.

It does have a large stamp with the maker, size and date. A couple of others I have seen have had large stamps like this instead of paper labels.

The maker appears to be "Polikoff". Does that mean anything to any of you?

Here are a few pics and an unissued 1942 jerkin for comparison.

The label in TT's jerkin certainly looks convincing although I would agree with Paul about the use of "Utility". The other aspect of the label that rings alarm bells is the very un-British "Name, Rank and Number" but that's only my opinion...

Cheers,

Taff

.

[tocemma]

Hello Taff,

Alfred Polikoff was a Polish jew I believe. The company was active in London from the early days of WW1, having a factory in Marks Street. They made many items including large amounts of Servce Dress. I have had several examples over the years. In 1939 they opened a factory at Ynyswen in South Wales, and alll through the Second World War produced Battledress and other items of kit. They were part of a larger grouping after WW2 along with Burberry, but I can't remember the name of the parent group. I believe they ceased trading in the early 80s but you should be able to find out by googling.

I agree re the label thing. Nearly all the examples I have had have just the name of the manufacturer, date and size. Name Rank and No is odd for a WW1 label which is what makes me think the label is suspect.

I note your WW2 control sample jerkin is the cammo type. Theses with sprayed with black and sometimes green splotches, applied by a spray gun. Most of it wore off in use but it can be clearly seen in your photo.

Regards

Tocemma

ps forgot to add, the lining material offers a clue. They are usually, but not always, blanket lined ie thick, coarsely woven wool. Colour is less of a clue I have had these in many differing shades, including Horizon Blue serge (which was of course made in British mills as well) I also had a Salford Manufactured example dating from 1915, with a very large and elaborate makers cartouche stamped inside. The lining was of khaki service dress serge.

[tocemma]

Just found this by googling, my notes weren't quite correct

The East End clothing firm of Alfred Polikoff (d. 1943) had a plant in London Lane by 1915, when a factory was built at nos. 148-50 Mare Street which was burned down in 1932. New premises were opened in 1933 in Chatham Place, where part, used by a subsidiary called Sportown, was rebuilt after bomb damage. Polikoff's, which opened Welsh and Irish factories, was acquired by Great Universal Stores in 1948 but kept its own name in the 1970s. Amenities for its staff included a sports ground at Springfield park from c. 1955. By 1952 Polikoff's shared premises with Burberry's, which had had a London shop from 1901; Burberry's was also taken over by G.U.S. and employed c. 315 at nos. 29-53 Chatham Place in 1991. (fn. 69)

Mare Street not Marks Street

Regards

Tocemma

[uncle bill]

Hello

Here is something from my "oddities" box. If anyone can shed some light on it, I'd be most grateful. It has a rather odd stamp as shown. The sleeves are from a very stiff waterproof fabric lined with what looks like shirt cloth.

[uncle bill]

[Chief_Chum]

Hi Paul,

I didn't think it would be long before someone told me all I needed to know about Polikoff. Very interesting and thanks for looking up the details for me.

I have quite a few different WW2 examples including one which is labelled 'Camouflaged'. The one in the photo was a lucky find at a car boot one Sunday morning. A fella was just pulling one out of the remains of a tatty original bale, telling the buyer that it was a "dustman's coat" (which would be a fair description to anyone with no military knowledge as all our dustmen wore them when I was growing up!). I bought the last one from him for £10 and didn't notice that it was camouflaged until I got it home. This one doesn't mention the camo on the label.

Cheers,

Taff

[trenchtrotter]

Oh dear, all is not well with mine then. I paid £70 for it some time age. What would it be worth as a WW2 jacket. Not the point though as it will now be assigned to my duds box.We all live and learn I suppose.

The label is good though and looks old.

TT

[john in minnesota]

TT,

The label in your jerkin reminded me of a tunic I bought about 8 years ago (for much more than 70 pounds). Tunic was a '20s pattern but had this label glued inside:

Thanks to others on this forum I've learned how to spot some of the more obvious fakes.

The bogus coat was sold for what it actually was but I saved the label as a reminder of "Buyer Beware"

John

[Grovetown]

Just as an afterthought, I had a whizz through most everything I've got that features a paper label - from a Macintosh Cape, SD and coats through to KD, trousers and so on.

Not one of them - even those from the Royal Army Clothing Factory - features the Broad Arrow as part of the design.

Has anyone got anything with a label that does include the Broad Arrow?

Best wishes,

GT.

[Wardog]

Regards size on an SD jacket label-how did the size number relate to the measurements-is there a table? Still interested to see variations of button used on the Jerkin. Regards, Paul.