# LL Bean Original Field Coat



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

Does anyone have one? How do you like it?

Anything else like it out there that I should consider (at a similiar pricepoint)?

What color do you like best?

Thanks in advance!

https://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fieldcoatok8.jpg

https://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/s...ry=3523&cat4=6348&shop_method=pp&feat=3523-tn


----------



## jml90 (Dec 7, 2005)

My mother has one she likes quite a bit. I have an alternative coat my father's Woolrich Black Powder Coat. I like it quite a bit.


----------



## HL Poling and Sons (Mar 24, 2006)

Odd. I have what Bean used to call their Field Coat, probably 25 years old by now, got it while in prep school. There are shell loops lining the inside of the bottom pocket, loops at the back collar from which to hang a hunting license, and, of course, a rubberized game pocket in the back which could be let down for cleaning. 

Have they restored those features in this new, "original" model?


----------



## sunnisalafi (Feb 20, 2005)

The "Hunter's Field Coat" is the real "original"......includes shell loops, game pouch, ect.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I had the field coat with the shell things etc. in high school and college. Disappeared somewhere along the line.

I've had the new field coat with the liner for seven winters now, and used it for all sorts of things. Which reminds me, I need to give it a Scotch-Guard treatment. It's very handy and once the original "saddle" color gets a little grimy the thing takes on a truly disgusting look now matter how much it's washed. So if this doesn't please you get a darker color.

I also have an old unlined Dux-Bak coat that's very similar to my original Bean model. It was my father's. I don't remember him ever going duck hunting but it has some white paint on the sleeve so maybe he painted the shutters one fall.
The water repellant stuff on the canvas still works, probably 35 years later.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

I own the coat in question, in your preferred color to boot. NO complaints from me. In fact I can't think of a better functioning piece regardless of price. It is a very casual garment, however and without the fashion cred of say an equally casual yet much more fashionable Barbour coat. Should you decide to limit its use to casual situations I think you found a winner.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

sunnisalafi said:


> The "Hunter's Field Coat" is the real "original"......includes shell loops, game pouch, ect.


Thanks for posting that. Funny how they call the newer, presumably "improved" version, their "Original Field Coat," when it's this one on which that coat is modeled.

I note, however, that the "Original" coat comes with a button-out wool/nylon lining. I suspect the Hunter's Coat is more trad, but I wonder if the new version isn't a bit more practical? It seems tradly to prefer the original -- shell-loops, game pouch, and all -- but perhaps that's an affectation.

For what it's worth, Mrs. Egadfly has the newer model coat and wears it all the time.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

egadfly said:


> Thanks for posting that. Funny how they call the newer, presumably "improved" version, their "Original Field Coat," when it's this one on which that coat is modeled.
> 
> I note, however, that the "Original" coat comes with a button-out wool/nylon lining. I suspect the Hunter's Coat is more trad, but I wonder if the new version isn't a bit more practical? It seems tradly to prefer the original -- shell-loops, game pouch, and all -- but perhaps that's an affectation.
> 
> For what it's worth, Mrs. Egadfly has the newer model coat and wears it all the time.


The "original" (not really, it's actually been suburbanized w/ all the hunting features removed) FC also comes unlined or w/ a polyfill removable liner. I have the unlined version in the butternut (I think LLB calls it "saddle") shade. It's quite serviceable. The zipped breast pocket is just the perfect size for my Motorola Razr cell phone and holds the phone in a secure yet easily accessible place.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

PJC in NoVa said:


> The "original" (not really, it's actually been suburbanized w/ all the hunting features removed) FC also comes unlined or w/ a polyfill removable liner.


Sadly, "suburbanized" seems a pretty apt description for Bean's overall direction. As a brand, they've become hugely popular (ironically, with many of the same people who disdain PRL's "plagiarism") but largely at the expense of the quality that made them successful in the first place.

This year, I bought a new pair of made-in-Maine gumshoes, and they're pretty much the same construction as my circa-1985 Bean Boots. I've also got a couple of late-vintage "scotch plaid" flannel shirts that don't seem to have changed from earlier years. Other than that, though, I've been unhappy with and/or returned probably half the things I've bought. Their OCBDs, which used to be a very good deal, are now of inferior construction; their khakis, sadly, are a joke; and I wouldn't even consider buying blutchers or boat shoes, when higher-quality, US-made versions are available from Quoddy and Russell for not much more money. In a way the resurrection of the Norwegian sweater in a dumbed-down version is a perfect illustration of what's happened to the company. _Caveat emptor_, I'm afraid.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

egadfly said:


> Sadly, "suburbanized" seems a pretty apt description for Bean's overall direction. As a brand, they've become hugely popular (ironically, with many of the same people who disdain PRL's "plagiarism") but largely at the expense of the quality that made them successful in the first place.
> 
> This year, I bought a new pair of made-in-Maine gumshoes, and they're pretty much the same construction as my circa-1985 Bean Boots. I've also got a couple of late-vintage "scotch plaid" flannel shirts that don't seem to have changed from earlier years. Other than that, though, I've been unhappy with and/or returned probably half the things I've bought. Their OCBDs, which used to be a very good deal, are now of inferior construction; their khakis, sadly, are a joke; and I wouldn't even consider buying blutchers or boat shoes, when higher-quality, US-made versions are available from Quoddy and Russell for not much more money. In a way the resurrection of the Norwegian sweater in a dumbed-down version is a perfect illustration of what's happened to the company. _Caveat emptor_, I'm afraid.


I fondly recall the LLB gear that carried me through colleage and grad school several decades ago, but like you I'm unthrilled w/ most of what they sell now and w/ the mall superstores.

In a previous job, some colleagues and I studied how LLB goes about coming up with new products. The examples we dealt w/ were mostly in their specialty lines (such as the stuff you see in the dedicated "LL Bean Hunting" catalogue). To be fair to Bean, they did do quite a bit of field research with people who actually used their products in field conditions (real Maine guides, park rangers, and such).

As a whole, of course the company is run by squadrons of Harvard MBAs, and not a passel of down-East rustics like old "Mr. Leon" as their image might suggest. I'm still glad I have an original Norwegian sweater that must be 25 years old now and still goes strong (of course it's so thick and warm I only wear it a few days a year, but you know what I mean).


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

PJC in NoVa said:


> To be fair to Bean, they did do quite a bit of field research with people who actually used their products in field conditions (real Maine guides, park rangers, and such).


That's exactly what made the Bean of old so great: they designed their clothes for specific uses (hunting, fishing, extreme cold weather, etc.), which meant that they were generally quite sturdy and didn't look like what everyone else was wearing. The current equivalent would be Filson, I guess.

In addition to the boots, I've also got an old-school Norwegian sweater and a down vest I bought around the same time. At 20+ years they are still among my favorite clothes. I don't see anything being there sold now that's likely to last as long. Ditto Lands End, sadly.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

egadfly said:


> That's exactly what made the Bean of old so great: they designed their clothes for specific uses (hunting, fishing, extreme cold weather, etc.), which meant that they were generally quite sturdy and didn't look like what everyone else was wearing. The current equivalent would be Filson, I guess.
> 
> In addition to the boots, I've also got an old-school Norwegian sweater and a down vest I bought around the same time. At 20+ years they are still among my favorite clothes. I don't see anything being there sold now that's likely to last as long. Ditto Lands End, sadly.


You beat me to it. I was going to suggest Filson for some good looking American hunting/outdoors clothes that look traditional and would keep you warm and dry. While I'm sure there are some old crocks lamenting the styling Filson has recently added to its clothes, I do like that they have changed to more of a hunting/fishing style from the logger look. But, perhaps that's just me.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

egadfly said:


> That's exactly what made the Bean of old so great: they designed their clothes for specific uses .


In our research, we actually watched a short film that Bean made about its quality-improvement and product-development programs. LLB staffers fanned out and visited people who actually used the products (the items in question were a parka and a type of boot, IIRC) to get detailed feedback on prototypes, features desired, etc.

This was not ancient history; I saw the film in 2001. But again, this was stuff you'd find in one of the specialty catalogues, not necessarily in the general run of their merchandise.

If I had to bet, I'd lay money that there are more soccer moms than serious duck hunters in America, which would be a statistic that might tell you something about why Bean has taken the direction it has. (And the American economy being what it is, there are "niche-ier" companies like Filson and Cabela's to sell the serious rig to the still not-inconsiderable number of serious duck hunters out there [who in absolute terms number quite a few people, I'm sure].)

I'm an occasional recreational shotgunner myself (sporting clays mostly), and have considered getting a shirt with a padded right shoulder. Beyond that I can't claim to need anything like "real" gear, alas. And my paintball days are over, so no more excuses to buy surplus camouflage fatigue pants . . . sigh


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Good points, all. Beyond a certain point, "authentic" field wear starts to look not so much "outdoorsy" as "out-of-place." Bean used to do a good job straddling that line; a lot of Filson's stuff is still a little too rugged-looking for everyday wear, at least here in the not-so-wilds of the Delaware Valley.

One of the things I like about my Barbour is that it manages to be very durable without looking too rural for city wear.


----------



## Clotheswatcher (Dec 2, 2005)

egadfly said:


> I've also got a couple of late-vintage "scotch plaid" flannel shirts that don't seem to have changed from earlier years.


I also have two of these shirts and am really impressed. Thick, sturdy flannel in really nice colors. I'm very happy with them.

Regarding Filson, I went to their website and the majority of their clothes are made outside the US. However, a quick look through the hunting coats showed that all of them were made in the USA, if that means anything to anyone.

Regarding Bean, I am kinda scared that the company is attempting to be an REI competitor. It seems they are really on a road to expansion, as their website shows their growing number of huge retail stores. I just hope they don't let anything slide even more. Let's all just pray they don't go public, because then it's goodbye for good.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

A.Squire said:


> I own the coat in question, in your preferred color to boot. NO complaints from me. In fact I can't think of a better functioning piece regardless of price. It is a very casual garment, however and without the fashion cred of say an equally casual yet much more fashionable Barbour coat. Should you decide to limit its use to casual situations I think you found a winner.


Thanks for the input everyone.

Squire - I know how much you hate to post photos of yourself, but do you think you could possibly post a photo of your field coat if it's not too much trouble?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

I have one from the early 80s - wore it through high school and college - actually used to shoot with it on (unlike most). Honestly, I don't wear it anymore for two reasons: 1) for serious outdoor work I wear a Filson Upland Field Coat which is far more durable and less common – for about town stuff I wear one of my Barbours; and 2) with all the "barn" jackets/coats that came out in the late 80 and the 90s (from J. Crew, Lands End. Brooks, etc.) which looked so much like the Bean Field Coat, I came to view that style of jacket as a bit of a cliché, i.e. every yahoo seemed to have one. That's the same reason I won't wear Sperry top-siders anymore also; too many middle aged men in white socks wore them around shopping malls in the 80s. I guess fewer people wear them now but I just see them as clichéd.


----------

