 |
| My Heritage Fit Alpha Industries MA-1 Jacket |
The internet isn't always the best place for information about it, however. As with fragrances, online forums can lead me astray with flight jackets. I have two examples of this. The first involves what Alpha Industries calls their "Slim Fit" MA-1. When I first started getting into these jackets in 2018, people were posting ad nauseum about how preferred the Slim Fit version is over the "Heritage Fit," which is the regular cut. I fell for it and purchased a new olive Slim Fit Alpha on eBay for only a few bucks under retail.
When it arrived, I was mostly satisfied with it, but a little disappointed as well. It fit perfectly and I loved the color (olive is easily their prettiest color), but the garment wasn't very puffy. I wanted more puff. I was looking for the same puffiness as the sage green MA-1 worn by Steve McQueen in The Hunter. Slim Fit MA-1 jackets intentionally tone down the puff. In fairness, I had read that this is the case. I just didn't realize how much less puffy it actually is compared to the Heritage Fit. Despite my ennui, I still own and wear the Slim Fit, but its deflated profile bugs me every time. I would discourage anyone from buying one.
My second example of how the internet lied to me about this jacket type is a bit more complicated. Overall, the MA-1 flight jacket is more of a jacket genre than any one specific garment by a singular brand. The jacket has standard military specifications, and companies either adhere to them and manufacture a version of the spec jacket, or they tweak the specs and sell their evolved version. Alpha Industries is the most popular spec manufacturer because they held a US Air Force contract for its production, and they continue to make the jackets to a high standard for civilians.
Another manufacturer with wide distribution is Rothco. Here's where the internet comes in: Rothco MA-1 jackets are made to the same specs as Alphas, with only very slight variations. According to the internet, these variations break Rothco. According to the chattering class on the interweb forums, Rothco MA-1s, despite being made of basically the same materials to the same dimensions, are crap. I read all the time comments like, "I wouldn't buy anything from Rothco, their build quality is garbage," and "I'd go with Alpha over Rothco anyday." The message is clear from most that Rothco MA-1 jackets suck.
I believed this for many years, and avoided even trying Rothco jackets. Then one day recently I saw that a local Army/Navy store carried them and thought, what the hell. Why not take a peek and see what the whole Rothco thing is really about? So I went and tried them on. The shop had three colors—sage green, black, and camo. I gravitated to the sage green first, and as soon as I put the jacket on, I could immediately tell the difference between Rothco and Alpha. And, at first, I thought the internet was 100% correct about the disparity in quality between these brands.
The sage green Rothco in large and medium sizes did not fit correctly. The medium technically fit fine, but the waistline looked wrong. Too loose. So I tried the black medium, and I noticed something funny—the fit was very different. The black jacket had a better classic blouson profile, with the little taper at the beltline, and it just seemed to be cut better overall, including in the chest. Black just looked better, period. I didn't bother with camo, although maybe someday I'll take a look at those, too. I ended up purchasing a black medium for about a third of the price of a new Heritage Fit Alpha.
I took it home, steamed it to lose the wrinkles, and tried it on again. And here's the thing: despite years of comments saying Rothco jackets are garbage, I actually like my Rothco! It's very puffy, and puffiness is what I'm after with these jackets. Way puffier than my Slim Fit Alpha, of course, and it complements my middle-aged body pretty well. It looks warm, and it is warm. The quality of materials is not quite as high as Alpha's, but it's not garbage, either. Nylon is nyon, but there are different types of nylon, and Alpha uses a very soft and pliable (and quiet) material. Rothco's nylon is a bit thicker, not as soft, and considerably noisier, making shooshing sounds with movement.
The wrist cuffs and waistline fabric are different also. I have no complaints about the cuffs on my Rothco—they're a different style and the material is thick and warm—but the waist material is noticeably flimsier than an Alpha. It doesn't hug the waist the same way, although it does hold in well enough. It's a weird thing to see that they put money into the cuffs but completely cheaped out on the waist. But I'll be honest here and say that nobody will know that they cheaped out by looking at the jacket. Yes, the nylon is shinier and a little rougher than the competition, and the leather pull on the zipper is a joke compared to Alpha's, but otherwise the Rothco MA-1 is perfectly fine and looks great.
My sense with the sizing issue is that Rothco's quality control isn't up to snuff, and this is what gives it its bad reputation online. I'll wager most of the guys who shit-talk Rothco jackets only ever tried on one jacket, and it happened to not be cut well. Perhaps most of them aren't cut well. The sage greens that I tried in the store weren't cut well. I spent a good 45 minutes trying on jackets, which is how I came to the black model that I bought. The jacket I bought is cut well. So that's definitely a demerit for Rothco, with an asterisk. Rothco jackets suck. *Until you find one that is cut well, in which case Rothco jackets are very good. It's a brand that requires extra time to try on, which isn't a big deal.
All the other complaints about Rothco are untrue. Garbage builds? Poor material quality? None of this is true. The nylon and polyester fill are all perfectly fine. The zippers are fine. Stitching is fine. The cloth around the waistline is the only cheaper element, but even there, it functions fine. The cuffs are arguably just as good, and possibly better than the Alpha's, feeling snugger and thicker. So overall, my Rothco MA-1 is an inexpensive but quality jacket, and I don't regret my purchase one bit. I would recommend a Rothco jacket to any MA-1 enthusiast, with the one caveat that you need to spend some time trying on several jackets to find one that fits correctly and looks right.
I'll throw a bonus example of how the internet lead me astray with these jackets. I recently bought a black medium Heritage Fit Alpha, pictured above. Same dimensions as my Rothco, and puffier than my Slim Fit Alpha. People are constantly comparing their body types and asking about sizing online, and my body type has most suggesting a medium for Heritage MA-1s. My black Alpha fits fine, but once again, and to my total surprise, I'm disappointed in its puff! It's not as puffy as my Rothco. The puffiness is what I'm looking for with these jackets, and now I own two Alpha Industries MA-1 jackets that aren't as puffy as I want them to be. Now, granted, the black jacket is far puffier than my olive Slim Fit, so I prefer it over that jacket. But it's not as puffy as the Rothco. Dare I say, I actually prefer how the Rothco looks on me?
One remedy for this might be to ignore what people say about fit and try a size up with Alpha. I may or may not do that in the future. Not sure I can be bothered at this point. I could also lose a few pounds and see if that helps how the Alpha looks, and my guess is it would help a bit. Other than the lack of puff, I think the Alpha is a great jacket. It's well made, with much tighter stitching than the Rothco, far better beltline cloth (more spandex) and an overall warm and fitted feel. It's a quality garment, and it's certainly manufactured to a higher standard than the Rothco, but the difference isn't enough to justify the disparity in price. I was fortunate to buy the jacket on eBay for a steep discount, and also fortunate that it's a 2000s vintage instead of brand new—brand new Alphas are apparently not as well made as they used to be, if the internet is to be believed.
Is the internet to be believed? Well, clearly one needs to proceed with caution with MA-1 flight jackets. But one should proceed with similar caution with fragrances as well. I noticed recently that YouTube influencers are posting video after video about "Fragrance Addiction," a term I had not seen used much until this past month. Suddenly everyone is talking about it. There are videos with titles like, "I Spent All My Money on Perfume," and "How to Break Your Fragrance Addiction." All of these videos presuppose that fragrance addiction is a real thing that saps people of their finances and requires "breaking."
The truth here is not as clear cut as it is with my jackets. With the clothing, the claims are qualitative. You can simply go out and try the clothing yourself to determine how true the quality assessments made by strangers online are. But with "Fragrance Addiction" as a DSM-5-TR term, the situation is considerably murkier. First, what is "Fragrance Addiction" and how does one identify if they have it? It stands to reason that isolating the term "addiction" and using its known meaning is the first step in understanding, but how does it apply? Is it true that a person can become addicted to buying and wearing fragrances, to the point where they can't control themselves?
For some people, possibly yes. I can see how there could be individuals who compulsively purchase perfumes, wear them once, stick them in a closet, and then repeat the cycle, over and over again. Perhaps they blow hundreds of dollars a month. Maybe they're in deep credit card debt over it. Maybe their houses are bursting at the seams with bottles, and stepping into their homes is like stepping into an episode of Hoarders. There can be a material horror element to this, and it's not that hard to imagine. I could see how someone could descend into a certain level of madness by chronically purchasing fragrances, stashing them, and losing themselves to the financial cost.
I think my problem with this idea isn't the picture I just painted. After all, anything is possible, especially when it comes to people and their psychological issues. My problem with the idea of "Fragrance Addiction" as these influencers are portraying it is that "addiction" is the wrong word. They're describing the feeling of constantly needing to buy the next and newest thing, of never being satisfied with what they already have, and of spending a metric fuck-ton of their savings on this "hobby." What they describe isn't "addiction." What they describe is a lack of discipline.
If you're a fragrance collector, your collection exists, and it probably grows. This is the nature of collecting. You have the collection, and the act that creates the collection. With fragrances, there should be an overarching reason for it: you love perfume. This statement, "I love perfume," is abstract in its meaning. What does loving perfume entail? The description of the feeling is fine, but then how does that manifest in the real world? One entailment of that statement should be, "I love perfume, therefore I seek interesting and unique perfumes." The "interesting" qualifier is subjective, of course. What is interesting to me may be bog standard boring to many others. But my interest is all that matters here, to me, and to my collection. I'm not collecting for anyone but myself.
Finding interesting perfumes takes time and effort. I'm not a YouTube influencer. These influencers are all relatively young (under the age of 40) and they apparently have either plenty of disposable income, or, if you're an Eau d'Erica type, plenty of corporate admirers who ceaselessly send them free bottles to review. Their personal collections aren't growing because they're adding bottles of interest. They're growing because their chosen endeavor is fragrance influencing, and the only way to influence with any impact is to stay current with every new release. They have so many bottles because there are so many releases, and the danger there is very real. Some of these influencers must have their own distribution system. Guys like Ash from Gents Scents have thousands of bottles but must also have a way to either give away or sell thousands of bottles so as not to literally drown in them. They're collectors with no growth controls. They control for loss instead.
In other words, they exist in a discipline vacuum. There can be no discipline against acquiring the newest, hottest thing when reviewing the newest, hottest thing is your bread and butter. The only way to make money as an influencer is to exist in a reality where money doesn't matter. You can flash the latest Amouages at literally $375 a bottle and it doesn't matter to you. You got the bottle for free or your system involves selling two or three other bottles to swap out with the new Amouages (an Ash tactic). The collection recycles itself, and this is where the discipline comes in if you're interested in having any. I don't know if Erica has a system for managing her bottles, and I imagine it's difficult. Companies send Ash free stuff, but I believe Erica gets way more freebies because many corporate media managers are young men with boners.
My view is that these influencers are living in a self-made bubble, which creates the illusion of fragrance addiction for them that isn't shared by the majority of collectors. When I look at myself in comparison to these people, I consider how obvious the visible differences are between us. Erica only started out in this "hobby" in the last ten years. When she first started, she had something like forty bottles behind her, and she was often sticking to the smallest size bottles she could find. Then, after hobnobbing with Mr. Smelly and several others in that sphere, her popularity skyrocketed, and now she has hundreds of bottles behind her, and by her own admission, hundreds of bottles behind the camera as well. She's been a serious YouTube presence for all of 6 years, and in that time her collection has exploded. By the way, the bottles are all niche and high-end designer.
Compare that to little old me. Putting aside that I'm obviously not a 25 year-old blond bombshell, I've been at this now since 2008. Nineteen years. Almost as long as Erica has been alive. My collection started in earnest in early 2009, and in the time since then I have seen it grow to about 260 bottles. This is a large number, and it's massive compared to any normie. When you put me next to the average guy who owns one or two bottles, I'm a total freak. And I know this about myself. I'm obsessed, and I'm okay with it. If you were to ask me why I'm obsessed, I'd give you my love line, and I'd mean it, but it wouldn't matter. Why I own so many bottles is irrelevant to anyone but me.
This gets to the crux of my issue: I'm in this now for nearly two decades and I'm averaging about fourteen bottles a year at that pace. My collection, compared to Erica's, is tiny. She easily has four or five times as many bottles. Maybe more, and I'll bet she's averaging around 100 a year. Ash? Same thing. He's been in this world for longer than Erica, because he's older and a little more intellectual about it, which in a weird way slows him down some, but at this point his collection is also outrageously huge. But if you walk into my house, you won't find a room dedicated to the collection. You won't find shelving from floor to ceiling on all four walls with LED lighting and "showcases" for my most valued pieces. When you walk into my house, don't really see any fragrances at all. Your first thought wouldn't be, "He's a frag freak."
My collection is small enough that it fits into a few built-in cupboards in a corner of my basement. Doors closed, you can't even see it's there. You could walk through every area of my house, and potentially not even know I have a fragrance collection. It's not because I'm not obsessed—I spend nearly every waking hour thinking about perfume—and it's not because I'm not already far gone, because even with only 260 fragrances, I'm in the danger zone for what is reasonable. But I've kept my collection manageable and relatively modest because I'm disciplined about what I buy, and why I buy it.
I buy fragrances that intrigue or interest me. I only buy what I think I'll wear. I only own things that are desirable to a collector of my age. You won't find me buying trendy designers like Sauvage or Legend because I'm not in this to be trendy. I buy what I like. You'll find me pursuing rose fragrances, violet fragrances, green fragrances, vanilla orientals, and either American or Italian drugstore classics. Some niche, but only wearable niche. Some designer, but only because of historical relevance. Some luxury, but only when it's truly "luxurious." Creed when I can afford it, because I personally love the brand. And that's it.
I know I'm not addicted because I stop when I want to, and I stay "stopped" for as long as I want to be. I don't just purchase willy-nilly. I don't curse myself for compulsively purchasing another $80 fragrance that I know I don't want or need. I don't even own a credit card. My money is spent on what I've researched and developed an interest in, and in some cases I go years wanting a perfume without buying it, even though it's affordable and readily available. For example, I've wanted Mancera's Amber & Roses for a decade, and only recently purchased a bottle. The same with anything from the La Petite Robe Noire range. I've wanted Jicky since 2008, and didn't get around to buying it until this year.
The moral of all this is that the internet is a dodgy place for the truth. With perfume, as with flight jackets, you get people who just spout ill-informed or utterly uninformed opinions en masse, and it's wise to take it all with a grain of salt.