I can fully understand Jerry's concern's..and his point is well taken..The piece is either a fantastic original, or a badged up repro. However..it is IMPOSSILBE to tell with these caps withouth holding them in one's hand..and this is something ONLY Ken can do..thus..one must defer to his assesment of the piece. I have a tan/water para jump smock that is 100 percent original..and unbelievably MINT..there is not a stain...scratch..pul..stitch out of place..it it is as if it was kept in a time capsule....if I posted it.many would believe it to be fake..simply because of its "newness"..I still fall back on the premise that in the grand scheme of things..a garmet 60 years old is not that old...I have previously recounted stories of seeing items in museums purported to be hundreds of years old that are like new (obvioulsy one must accept the piece as original)..but if well taken care of..kept out of sun/dust/pollution and stored properly such a piece is entirely consistent with reality...of course it is not the norm..but I had a jump amock from the same maker as minE..same rb number..Dietzel out of Lodz ghetto..it had several mouse holes..soiled interior..pitted snaps..was unissued..but far from mint..I imagine a "stack" of these was found many years ago..the jackets on the bottom and top of the pile probably were worse for the wear..those the top..more suspectible to stains from moisture..consensation, subjected possilby to more light/dust..the ones at the bottom..more suspectable to bugs..rats..etc etc..and the ones sandwiched in the middle the most well perserved..this make sense. I never dismiss a piece simply because of "newness"..I will examine it very very closely..but one must do that with anything.
