Talk:Pea coat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notes (unsigned)[edit]

1/13/05 Created this page because it seemed that the venerable P Coat had no entry. Would like to add a non-copyrighted photo of my own, but don't know how, being a Wiki Newbie and all.

Any suggestions are welcome!


7/7/05 finally boned up on some Wiki-stuff and learned how to include that photo I talked about in the initial write-up.

Move from P coat to peacoat?[edit]

P coat is nonstandard spelling of the term, most commonly given as peacoat, where there is already a separate (though insubstantial) article. I suggest that this article be moved to peacoat with redirects from all of the following:

  • pea coat
  • peajacket
  • pea jacket

Furthermore, I am not convinced that p coat spelling is ever used. Can you point to one or more instances of this spelling in noteworthy literature or nonfiction?

Epl 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Doubts on etymologic accuracy[edit]

According to both Merriam Webster's Dictionary and Dressing the Man by Alan Flusser, the word peacoat derives from the Dutch word pij, which describes the coarse wool cloth from which these jackets were constructed

Epl 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is US-centric[edit]

Peacoats were widely used in European navies before the 20th century. This article should address this, or at least not imply that the peacoat is an American invention.

Epl 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

P Coat vs Pea Coat[edit]

With regards to the etymology dispute, this website refers to the coat as a "P Coat" in its item description.

http://www.armysurpluswarehouse.com/categoryDetail.cfm?catagory=29&start=26

Etymology is the question of the word's origin, not the word itself. Concerning the word itself, "p coat" vs. "peacoat", both terms may be used, but I have found that "peacoat" is the overwhelmingly more common in general use, even if "p coat" is preferred in certain circles, such as the US military. For this reason, I suggest placing the article under "Peacoat" and setting "P coat" as a redirection. By the way, don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~. --Epl 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree this article should be moved to either "Pea coat" or "Peacoat" with redirects as appropriate. Searches on Google produce the following results:
  • "P coat" - 85,000;
  • "Peacoat" - 989,000;
  • "Pea coat" - 1,150,000;
  • "Peajacket" - 899;
  • "Pea jacket" - 63,000.
Additionally, the American Heritage Dictionary prefers "Pea jacket" with "Pea coat" as an alternative; Random House prefers "Pea coat" with "Peacoat" as an alternative, and explains that "Pea jacket" was the original form. The U.S. Navy website has three (related) instances of "Peacoat" and none of any other form. Crebbin 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Argument Foundation[edit]

I'm not quite sure why it was necessarry to dispute the article (Pea Coat), per se. In the article, there is reference to "Pea (presumably an extended, phonetic spelling, as was common in the first half of the twentieth century with colloquialisms)," deriving from the common term for the fabric, "Pilot..." I don't see that being in direct contrast to "pij" being the origin of the term. Rather than replacing the article, why not add to it? Also, what European influences do you feel were inherent in the history of the "P," "Pea," or "peacoat?" I think that would also be a valuable addition. Combating an article for the sake of combating an article is certainly no means to promote education and open-mindedness. Wouldn't it be a much better resource if it included all of this information, as opposed to one of the many?

An article should in principle have the most appropriate name, which will usually be the most commonly used one. "P coat" is much less widely used than either "Pea coat" or "Peacoat". One of these should be used as the title, with "P Coat" perhaps cited as an alternative. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions - "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Crebbin 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

While you're splitting hairs about.........[edit]

what to call the garment you lost the beautiful sentiment of the article. The article wasn't meant to be a history lesson on the garment. You miss the whole point. Oh well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.247.7 (talkcontribs) 23:21, 25 January 2006.

It's an encyclopedia article, it's not meant to have "beautiful sentiment". Anyway, things seem pretty stable around here so I'm removing the disputed tag. FiggyBee 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wool weight?[edit]

What weight of wool are we talking about? "Heavy wool" must mean something over 20 ounces, but can we be more exact? I suspect it's more than 25 ounces, but I don't have any sources for that.

Historically, they used 30 oz. wool. Mentioned in the article. ALTON .ıl 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity amoungst Irish and otherwise[edit]

Removed this as it wasn't backed up by citations. Altough I'm Irish and I do have a peacoat, I don't think that's sufficient evidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaneendubh (talkcontribs) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reefer[edit]

heheh reefer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.92.41 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Color[edit]

When the US Navy calls something "dark blue", it isn't actually dark blue. It's black. It even says so on the label of the garment in question. Perhaps the article should be changed to reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.86.228 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Navy issue Peacoat is black, and would be considered such to any non-Navy individual. 209.234.17.244 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The US Navy, maybe. And I have a friend who used to work as a colorimetrist for Levi's (the paint company), and she assures me that "navy blue" and "black" are indistinguishable even by the most precise colorimetry machine. And yet… I own several approximately black two-piece suits, and in incandescent light they all may seem to be of identical tint, but under natural sunlight or under fluorescent light some of them have a distinct blue shine while others are simply of "the darkest of dark greys", making trousers of the one kind unmatched with the vests of the other kind. None of these garments is military issue of course, but I call the ones "navy blue" and the others "black" to tell them apart. Tonymec (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

History missing[edit]

It seems somewhere along the line, someone deleted the History section. See here, where the original Wikipedia article was referenced (copied): http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/PEA+COAT?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=PEA+COAT&sa=Search#936.

If the etymology is in dispute, why not just say that... instead of blasting the whole History section out of the article.

I would put it back, if I knew how to do the editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianolanboatright (talkcontribs) 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Karl Dönitz[edit]

Is it really necessary to use a picture of one of the sentenced criminals of Nazi-Germany to illustrate a pea coat? That is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.41.78 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It provides some historical context. (Hohum @) 20:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then ask millions of victims of the second world war and the holocaust. This is an example of the trivialization of the tyranny of Nazi-Germany. I am from Germany and you wouldn't find a picture like this in a content like that. If you have no idea of that time please read a book like "Alone in Berlin" by Hans Fallada. Maybe you change your mind then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.42.83 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the holocaust. Using that picture as an example of a Pea Coat doesn't trivialise it for me. (Hohum @) 14:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lapel button[edit]

Some pea coats (the best IMHO) have a button usually hidden on the backside of the right lapel, matching the buttonhole in the left lapel. In extreme weather, this button and hole attach together, closing the coat up all the way to the collar. If the Navy coat currently depicted (from File:US_Navy_p_coat_wiki.jpg) is of that kind, it would make it not only a 6x6 double-breasted for normal use as shown, but also an 8x8 with no lapels for use on deck in the worst of bad winds. — Tonymec (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. A pea coat with such a button (and an additional one to button the upturned collar by means of a short lanyard) can distinctly be seen in the foreground of File:Men in pea coats.jpg. IMHO this "buttoning nicety" deserves at least a passing mention in the article. — Tonymec (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Russian junior officers wearing leather jackets[edit]

Why is there a picture of this? What has it got to do with peacoats???? 81.147.60.7 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The article reads "A black leather version of the reefer jacket was worn by Kriegsmarine [...] It was also worn with a peaked cap by Red Army commissars, tank commanders and pilots" -- does that explain it? -- Evilninja (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No. Because what is a "reefer jacket" and what is its relevance to a peacoat? Also, where is it implied anywhere in this article that a peacoat can be made of leather? 81.147.60.7 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I mentioned the reefer jacket term now in the lede and added a reference, hopefully that makes things a bit clearer. -- Evilninja (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)