I just want to say...

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:45 pm

... that the armhole was too high (higher than modern Wested) and here's the proof

There is no "V" or "flying squirrel" effect as in modern jackets.

and I am incorporating this in my design specs for my next order.

Doug C · Post by **Doug C** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:54 pm

Platon, I get the feeling that you wrote the words "too high" by mistake because that would suggest that the original jacket was wrong. You did mean that the new modern versions are wrong because the arm hole is "too low", right?

Doug C

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:59 pm

Yes you 're right. That's what I meant, i.e. that the film jacket armhole was higher in comparison with the modern wested.

I didn't say it right but you get what I mean...

Doug C · Post by **Doug C** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:40 pm

Well, I could not agree more.. you are right - but of course the US Wings also are that way too, even more so.

Doug C

IndyBlues · Post by **IndyBlues** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:09 pm

I've been saying that ever since I owned my first Wested. I totally agree. G&B does make their Expeditions with the armholes much higher, and so does Todd.
'Blues

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:32 pm

My armholes are plenty tight enough.

3 yr old lambskin Wested with gussets

1yr old horsehide Wested without gussets

Note: Neither are made to measure. The lamb was bought in the shop off the rack and the horse was gifted to me by ProfWex.

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:31 pm

Kt Templar wrote:My armholes are plenty tight enough.
Note: Neither are made to measure. The lamb was bought in the shop off the rack and the horse was gifted to me by ProfWex.

KT. Dumb question from a dumb cowboy, but....could size of jacket have anything to do with it? Example-would a 42-44 be more prone than say a 36-38? I say this since I am under the impression that with the change in size (bigger or smaller from the average) things like the pockets and collars do not change etc.... I hope I made sense

ANZAC_1915 · Post by **ANZAC_1915** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:42 pm

Note to Gemma: "no FLYING SQUIRREL ARMHOLES!"

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:31 am

Cowboy wrote:
Kt Templar wrote:My armholes are plenty tight enough.
Note: Neither are made to measure. The lamb was bought in the shop off the rack and the horse was gifted to me by ProfWex.
KT. Dumb question from a dumb cowboy, but....could size of jacket have anything to do with it? Example-would a 42-44 be more prone than say a 36-38? I say this since I am under the impression that with the change in size (bigger or smaller from the average) things like the pockets and collars do not change etc.... I hope I made sense

I think the pockets and collars do change with jacket size.

But you might have one pocket size being used from 38-42, another for 44-48 etc.

At a guess the 'best' size jacket would be somewhere in the range 42-44 seeing as thoses were Fords sizes.

These 2 may have been speced as 80's fit... I don't know. I know that Wex found his too short and I was lucky. He probably put in a very detailed order. The lamb also looks like someone specced it quite closely, as it has gussets and back elastic, which are not standard features.

Satipo · Post by **Satipo** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:48 am

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does it mean to have high armholes or flying squirrel/V appearance? And the point is that the original Raiders had higher armholes, right?

Doug C · Post by **Doug C** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:12 pm

Satipo, the point here is that the movie used jackets were different than the ones being produced (by Wested and others but not all mfgs) in that the arm holes are higher - but what that really means is that the arm holes are smaller in diameter....because how could they be any "higher", right. Anyway if the sleeve diameter is larger (like the modern stuff) the underarm area looks baggy and non-taylored..like wings when you hold your arms out and up. Some manufacturers will correct that on a custom order, but most of us think this comfy "modern fit" looks terrible.

Doug C

ANZAC_1915 · Post by **ANZAC_1915** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:35 pm

Doug C wrote:Satipo, the point here is that the movie used jackets were different than the ones being produced (by Wested and others but not all mfgs) in that the arm holes are higher - but what that really means is that the arm holes are smaller in diameter....because how could they be any "higher", right. Anyway if the sleeve diameter is larger (like the modern stuff) the underarm area looks baggy and non-taylored..like wings when you hold your arms out and up. Some manufacturers will correct that on a custom order, but most of us think this comfy "modern fit" looks terrible.

Doug C

I was agreeing with this view, but I hadn't really looked at my Wested in this area since Peter fixed the sleeve/back issues, and now that I look at it again it is a pretty snug fit under the arms and when I raise my arms the jacket doesn't do the flying squirrel. The back panel and gussets are also much more under control. So, maybe not quite like the film versions but still not huge in the underarms.

BTW, my jacket is a 52 long, if anything is going to become a flying squirrel....

Satipo · Post by **Satipo** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:23 am

Thanks, Doug C, I get it now. Kind of reminds me of the "bingo-wings" term used over here to describe the appearance of certain women's arms.

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:39 am

You know, IMO, what we REALLY need the next time we order an Indy jacket is to specify what the circumference of your ideal armhole would be... Just some tape measure should do the trick...

whiskyman · Post by **whiskyman** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:00 am

I agree totally- getting proper armholes was one of the key reasons for my buying a new jacket!

Dre · Post by **Dre** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:30 am

Whiskey, is that a todd's?

whiskyman · Post by **whiskyman** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:33 am

No it's a Wested

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:43 am

_ wrote

But I agree with you Platon - the armhole is the key to a good fitting jacket.

I think this is the first time we agree on something. *joking*

CM · Post by CM » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:54 pm

SO guys,

What do I ask for in an armhole? My Wested (which rides up some) is around 27cm - do I ask for 24 cm? Any other adjustments?

Cheers - CM

junior · Post by **junior** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:34 pm

Indy Blues said:
"I've been saying that ever since I owned my first Wested. I totally agree. G&B does make their Expeditions with the armholes much higher, and so does Todd."

While this is true, I don't think G&B's sets their arm holes as high as what I see in the great screen grabs Platon inserted at the top of this page. Don't have a Todd's yet so not sure about the custom jacket.

My 4 1/2 year old Expo is great. The only thing I don't like is that if I have the jacket zipped up and lift either arm upward, away from my side, the bottom of the arm hole is located so low that the side panel pulls out away from my body wayyyyyy to early. It would be great if the bottom of the arm hole was postioned higher so there would be more "slack". This would enable the arm to be lifted higher before the side panel begins to pull away from the body.

This same "effect" takes place when the jacket is unzipped too; it makes the front panel pull to the side when you lift your arms. The bottom of the arm hole being too low resticts the movement of the arm when you raise above the half way point. The jacket wants to keep you from going higher up.

For example: my Expo is a size 40R and the length of the arm hole all the way around is 22" exactly (measuring through the middle of the gusset section). My guess is that, on my jacket, if this distance was, say, 19 or so, this problem would be helped significantly. The arm hole would be smaller and thus the top of the sleeve would have less slack in it. Great! I don't like all of the extra baggage anyway. My arms are about average size, like most people who wear a 40R, so the more narrow sleeve would be fine. Smaller arm holes are found on replica A2's by makers like Aero and others because that's how they were made - a slimmer cut. The pictures above look like the Raiders jacket had arm holes similar to the way the old Bronco A2 was made - small arm holes with narrow sleeves. BTW - if you're a slim person, this A2 is made for you.

Anyhow, curious to what some of you have to say. BTW Whiskey man, that is THE best Wested jacket I have ever seen. The main reason is because you requested the arm holes cut smaller....didn't you?

junior

PS - puppet boy, if you read this, let me know the distance of your arm hole seam. Are they exactly like the Expo, i.e., on a 40R is the distance 22" or is it smaller? I hope it's the later. No way the arm hole on the jacket Harrison Ford is wearing in a number of the pics above (a size 40R by the way) have a distance of 22". The top of his sleeves are much more narrow than what you get with the Expo. I know you said you used the patterns _ supplied to you; same as they used for the Expo. If this is the case, I would think your cut is the same as theirs. Maybe, aand hopefully, not.

junior · Post by **junior** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:53 pm

Platon,

This may also lend to the "arm hole" effect...

DougC made an interesting comment at this thread viewtopic.php?t=24568 when he wrote, "I think the width of the pleat itself is the same all the way down but on the screen jacket you posted, it's just opened up more (obviously) but there are two possible reasons for this (IMO). First the back panel is probably tapered more than what's being re-produced now. Second the width of the side panel is probably smaller than what's being re-produced now."

A smaller cut side panel would have less slack as well and would keep the jacket from being as baggy as they are now. Of course, if a smaller arm hole is used, the side panel will be a little taller so some of the slack will be stretched out.

junior

IndyBlues · Post by **IndyBlues** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:22 pm

Junior, this is the G&B lamb I bought last year. Mine is a size 46 regular, and there is virtually NO ride-up when I lift my arms.

See,...now squirrelage.

'Blues

junior · Post by **junior** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:54 pm

Thanks for the pic 'Blues. Yours doesn't seem to have as much of a problem as mine, but I see some of what I mentioned, albiet more slight. Actually, I had a phone conversation with PupputBoy (Todd of Todd's Costumes) a little while ago and he did a good job in explaining some of the things I mentioned. There's more at work here. Things like the strength or toghness of the hide used and the way the panels are cut in different areas play a role too. It's not just the size of an arm hole or the length of a panel, for example

It seems that Todd's jacket implements slight differences in various locations of the jacket and these all together supply a better fitted jacket and more to what we see in Platon's pics above. I personally can't wait to own one of Todd's custom jackets. This guy has an eye for detail. I remember how I used to drive some of the oldies here batty with this and that when the FS Expo was being made: top back panel anyone?

Todd has incorporated some things that were/are not so done in other offerings. These little things add up and is why his jacket has the "it" factor making it the most Raideresque jacket on the market. Good onya Todd,

junior

PS - my Expo was made back in 03 or 04 and my pocket flaps have much more of a pronounced scallop shape to them. I see that G&B has now done away with the shape they used to use for this jacket and currently have a more standard V design like on their A2's. I wonder why they changed? All said, they make a solid jacket don't they. You'll have that thing forever and so will your great great grandkids should you ever have any. LIke I said, I haven't owned a Todd's custom yet but to date, noone makes a more durable Indy jacket than G&B. They just incorporated a few things that keep it from being as Indylike as it could have been.