1974 Dated 59 Pattern Denison-Different in quite a few ways,zip,label,studs.

One of the many items dug out of one of my long forgotten stashes.

Different in quite a few ways which include label details and placement,non heavy duty zip,all brass Neweys and inside pocket of plain OD material and not cammo-any ideas????

Again I know didly sqaut about Denisons, but from a purely camo collectors point of view I really like this one.From a novice in regards to the this one, again the camo really appeals to me, looks very much like hand painted,very I find artistic in a strange kind of way,cool piece mate.

Hand painted? Please explain.

edstorey wrote:Hand painted? Please explain.

Clearly Not hand painted, as in someone took a brush to this garment,rather the original ww2 "hand painted" design,is apparent on this garment!

I bought one the same from Henery Dubora in Alder shop in the early 80's the only differance was that the lable was located inside the smock behind the bottom pocket. I wish i hadnt traded it away bloody fool.

I have heard this hand painted theory before. Has anyone actually done any research to find out how these garments were manufactured or what the rational was behind the patterns applied to them?

Love it.

edstorey wrote:I have heard this hand painted theory before. Has anyone actually done any research to find out how these garments were manufactured or what the rational was behind the patterns applied to them?

"The Denison smock bears the name of a Major Denison, reputedly attached to a military camouflage unit under the command of stage designer Olive Messel. Denison was largely responsible for the smock’s design as well as the development of the camouflage pattern itself".

Info courtesy of Camopedia

Unfortunately Camopedia does not really count as a source for accurate and reliable information. Unless the statements on that website are credited to primary souces, ie government reports, contract data and such, documents usually held in archives, libraries and museums; then all you are quoting is the usual babble that people repeat while sitting around having a beer.

If you really care about finding out the true facts behind the patterns, the manufacture and the reasons why things like Denison Smocks were produced with what appears to be several different camouflage patterns after WWII, then someone has to start doing some digging to locate the details. I am sorry but internet searches of hobbyist websites will not find those answers.

edstorey wrote:Unfortunately Camopedia does not really count as a source for accurate and reliable information. Unless the statements on that website are credited to primary souces, ie government reports, contract data and such, documents usually held in archives, libraries and museums; then all you are quoting is the usual babble that people repeat while sitting around having a beer.

If you really care about finding out the true facts behind the patterns, the manufacture and the reasons why things like Denison Smocks were produced with what appears to be several different camouflage patterns after WWII, then someone has to start doing some digging to locate the details. I am sorry but internet searches of hobbyist websites will not find those answers.

Ever so sorry,I have a life to lead outside of this forum, and if I had hours then maybe I would "dig" a bit more, sadly I do not know the answer to your question, so therefore had to quote the babble I found.

Perhaps you have more time on your hands to find some more information, that is not based on babble, I will of course be respectful and read it and enjoy the information you share, I will of course not "reprimand" you in return if your search turns out to be fruitless,like mine was it would appear.

Not happy with your patronising statements quite frankly!

Honestly, my intent was not to patronize you or anyone else, just to point out that there is a story to be told behind the Denison Smock and other garments used by the British military and the correct story has yet to be told. I fully understand that not everyone has the time, or the ability to do the research but we all have to realize that internet websites, as handy as they are for some things, are not the magic answer.

edstorey wrote:Honestly, my intent was not to patronize you or anyone else, just to point out that there is a story to be told behind the Denison Smock and other garments used by the British military and the correct story has yet to be told. I fully understand that not everyone has the time, or the ability to do the research but we all have to realize that internet websites, as handy as they are for some things, are not the magic answer.

There were some folks doing some serious research into the older war-time smocks, to alleviate rumours about the dying techniques, the various modifications and such, but I don't think anyone has found any convincing references to production methods/labour organization.

The 1st pattern Denisons were a sand coloured cotton drill with a hand (read brush) applied camo pattern. Fact. The 2nd patterns were done with rollers and on a more industrial scale and process.

I can't be arsed to back this up with a huge long list of references just to please you as I am already in possession of the facts and proof but there are references that have appeared in recent years on the internet which corroborate that fact that are much more reliable than camopedia. There is also a plethora of books. My personal info came from someone who was actually involved in making them at the time. Many others who have also had a LONG time interest in Denisons and access to people who designed and made them at the time (and who are sadly no longer with us) are in possession of the facts too.

And despite the fact that I lived in Canada for many years and understand the unfriendly way some Canadians can (unintentionally) come across as being and allowing for that, your response to Gary was patronising. However, your many other posts carry a similar attitude undertone and you don't come across as the sort of person I'd want to share info with to be honest.

I appreciate you comments and your back-handed remarks. Why you decided to add your comments a week after the last post is anyones guess especially as you have added nothing to the discussion.

My intent was not to bruise delicate sensitives but to highlight that there has yet to be anything published that fully describes the various processes involved in the production of this garment and that continuously quoting internet sites is not the answer.

You are saying that you already have the facts but could not be bothered to look them up and that there is a plethora of books on the subject. Well my previous posts challenged this, yet you have provided nothing to prove that I am wrong. You can make all of the wild claims you like about the facts being already out there and that the people who designed and manufactured these smocks told selected people these details, but prove it. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Give me the title of one book, or one report; not some internet site, that details the manufacturing process of the Denison Smock.

Looking for facts in campoedia is like trying to find love in a brothel ........pointless .


Thats a nice varient jacket !

owen

Cheers Owen,would be nice to find out more of the history behind it.

I reckon Camopedia is more-or-less like Wikipedia. In fact, I know that it is-- a great place for a topical survey of stuff, but not a scholarly source, by any means.

However, that said, if it gets people interested, or holds their interest for long enough to get them doing harder research, it isn't a terrible thing at all.

I suppose that one could make it a rule that nobody in this forum ever refers to it, on pain of ridicule-- or, maybe we could all be a bit nicer, and gently prompt others to look outside the box. This is, after all, a Hobby with Potential for Advancement. Not a war, in-and-of-itself.