Eaglehurst

Apart from the fact the second button down on the third mannequin is the wrong month for 1943 I think they look bloody marvelous! 😉 

Also worth keeping an eye on ebay...

Sadly - I don't have anything that will pass for that. 

Might be mistaken but looks like a British air ministry zipper on a US air force jacket...

What is the length and manufacturer of the broken zipper? I have a box of older pattern zippers that I can take a look through...

Same here - I am wearing 94' pattern but take your pick of multiple patterns for the rest of the class...... 

It will be interesting to see what this rarity makes. I can't remember the last time one was up for sale. The cuffs appear slightly ragged but otherwise it looks in reasonable worn condition. I don't think I'm raining on anyone's parade by mentioning it here as it's clearly been well and truly seen already by Hosgpear's followers.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Paratroopers-1970s-DPM-Camouflage-Para-Smock-with-Wings-DZ-Flash-MSU-/351842617343?hash=item51eb7447ff:g:SpkAAOSwPCVX29zT

And it is Hogspear so hold onto your hats as if anything is going to sell big it will be one of his listings!

I just acquired this, with the 0 in front of the size is it Gurkha issue perhaps ?

No - there is an extra small series 01-04 which equates to sub size 1. Not exclusively Gurkha but could fit very small paras I guess....

WDBikemad had posted sizing descriptions on this in the past so just do a search on 68 pattern sizing.

I seriously thought I already had a set of pre-metric arctic windproofs in my collection but I appear to be mistaken. I have a few pairs of the cross over SAS type pre-metric DPM slacks but no examples of the windproof arctic pattern.

If you have some you are willing to move along please PM me....don't care about size but would like a decent and clear label.

Thanks!

They will get you much closer to an answer Lewis but there does not appear to be a listing of trouser sizes and commensurate actual measurements available. So a bit of estimation from available sources will be necessary....

And here is the more successful response that you are looking for...almost!

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?33446-1970-s-Tropical-dpm-trouser-sizing

This is as far as I got with the same question:

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?24810-Pre-Metric-British-Army-Tropical-Trousers-Sizing

I only ask b/c I would like to buy some English military garb to look the part when I drive my Saracen and Fox (when they get here to USA). I have absolutely no idea what would be authentic for the period, but it seems crazy to pay $100+ for a shirt, since the entire outfit would run hundreds of dollars. And only one person in 10,000 would know what you are wearing is or isn't "right".

Depends when you want the gear.....I will be moving to Ohio Summer 2017 and can kit you out in either 60 or 68 patt assuming you aren't built like the Hulk....and not for $100 a shirt! If you are happy with 68 pattern then I can probably do it a lot sooner....again depending on size.

And as for the second point you make....it is not about the fact that 300million+ Americans will not be able to recognise authentic or not.....it is that you will know it is not "right"....not acceptable in my book especially when you have gone to the expense of shipping in classic British vehicles.. :-D

Thanks all - very useful info and context.

Very useful - thanks. Key bit of info is RN use. Thought so but clearly modern enough not to be carrying any ref to RN Vocab numbers...

Don't recall seeing one of these before and my NSN listings (courtesy of Mr WDBikemad) are all in storage so if anyone has any background on this jacket I would be interested to know....

Nothing like resurrecting an old thread!:red:

Another example - same contract number but size 'Large'....label pic attached.

I'd put this at some time in the 80s, possibly nearer the latter end, as that's when Dashmore Clothing seem to have been most active. There is no contract number on the smock which means it's a private purchase example. These were made, often by the same companies supplying the Armed Forces, for sale to people who wanted a para smock but wouldn't normally be issued one, either service personnel or private individuals. Alternatively, some companies made visually identical garments but using better quality materials for those wanting "Gucci" kit.

Yes - although the 'made up' NSN is interesting as well. Nothing like the prescribed number for an 80's para smock and the country designation of '88' doesn't relate afaik to any NATO country either.

Superb Steve - been looking for one of those for ages...where did you find that?

Would be good to see a pic of the smock label as well.

There was a chap on evilbay (based in Canada iirc) that used to sell these for very reasonable money. If I was still in the UK I would send you a new set (currently living in Singapore so all my gear is in storage...) in any case via auction sites or folks on this forum I don't think you will struggle to find a replacement....might take a little while though...

Interesting formation from Singapore Air Force!

Either of these possible candidates?

Remember these were designed to tolerate squaddie 'boil' washes for min two hours following every stag - so a normal wash should be somewhat of a pleasure for said strides - and under no circumstances try to remove the lining otherwise you will just bu**er them up....

I will echo Steve's comments - some really nice examples of some of my favourite kit and in good sizes.

As 'luck' goes that was a god run...

Seriously?!?

:nut:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/351023925900?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT#ht_6868wt_933

Very nice indeed - don't often see then in that condition or size.

I suspect the 'HE 5' stamp is more likely the quality controller stamp number rather than a second guess at size.

You have a large sized smock and a small pair of trousers there - as the 01, 02, 03 sizes were smallest issue size available.

H E Textiles did seem to be a the better end of the makers of that era.