Para Beret Odd

[Kiwi Ric]

Ello fellows,

yet another beret, lol in fact I found this odd little issue when looking at markings on the 50's dated beret

OK here we have a nice txt book para Kangol beret, nice floating thread,vents,badge and weave. I wont worry about posting the piccys regarding those,

Now here is the whammy,



Now here we have a nice honest looking 1945 date and Kangol stamp etc, but if you look at the top of the beret, take note of the little upside B arrow :P

Now the super whammy



1942 anyone?

The only reff I have on this beret, is that the WD stamp is E/212 now after doing some hunting around, ol Ade has a very nice early vet given no question beret with a E/212 on it, so Im taking thats an early date, I dont want to go to much in to the Date codes as well know that mums the word on that, but a 45 beret with the current WD marking on it is not quite right from what I recall, but an early date say 1942 It might be a bit closer on the mark?

anythoughts guys

[Adrian Stevenson]

I think it reads 1942 in both cases. I agree though, it does look like a malformed "5". It would fit with the other marking for 1942.
Cheers, Ade.

[Kiwi Ric]

Thanks for that Ade, now that I look at the first date, it does look like it has a marking above the 5/2 and I can see the curl on the bottom of it,

well, thats much better news than the mr bloody floppy 50's dated Commando beret

[lnijherald]

I'm not too keen on the stampings. I only have 65 pictures of Kangol berets but somehow they don't match any of them.

Luc

[JEROEN1944]

I agree, i not fancy this one. Looks like someone tampered with the date and manufacturer.

[Greg B]

Hey Ric,

How about some nice clear pics of the W/D markings and codes, wouldn't mind seeing this in its dry state as well.


I didn't realise the "E" 212 code stood for 1942? ...is that correct? I was under the impression E was late war postwar. Although in saying that I know the one Ade got direct from Don Turner was E - 212 marked.

Greg

[Kiwi Ric]

ok guys first off, thanks everyone for having a look, now do remember in those photos the markings are under about 3 ml of water, so it is going to slightly distort the image,

but I guess with out the rest of the beret its hard to make a call like Greg said, so here is the rest of the beret

[Kiwi Ric]

WD markings

[Kiwi Ric]

other details

[Kiwi Ric]

Ok what I will do later on is wet the wd markings to show them so they are more clear,

I'm happy with the feed back so far, but I don't understand why someone would fiddle or fake such worn markings, eg as you see they are not visible to the naked eye?

and again the wd markings on this are the same as early model berets, like Ade was talking about, but again its up for discussion that way we all learn some more about some nice head wear

[jelle]

Stamp does not look right,for instance the A in WEAR.Also Kangol stiching of the stiched daimond tends to cut corners on all I have seen.On yours the corners of the daimond stiching are pointy.Will post pictures later.Other features look ok though,but I am in a hurry so...

[Kiwi Ric]

Hello Jel, thanks for that mate,

I would have to disagree with you on the corners tho mate,

I have another 42 dated kangol tankers beret, and the edges are pointy,

and I did just do a good hunt on the forum searching Kangols, to see what you were talking about,

I did see the rounded corners on afew berets, thats for sure, but most from what I can see have the edge type? or am I reading your post wrong?

[jelle]

Hi Ric

You are right,I have looking through my files found ones that have the pointy stitching too.Still do not like the stamp though,compare it to the nice 1942 ecsample in this thread,also note the wd stamp

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=kangol&page=2

[Greg B]

Hi Jelle,

Here is my 44 dated example that has a cutters lable as well. Comparing this one to the 42 dated one in the link you attached is also quite different especially the A as you mentioned. The lable font I show here I think is more similar to Rics one especially the kangol word however the Wear and Limited appear to be in a thicker font .


I think whats making Rics beret font strange is the water he's applied to bring the markings to the surface.

Thats not to say the 42 one in you link is bad just a tad different! Of coarse different years could very well be different and also some rubbers stamps over the period of use could also be showing age and ware due to prolonged use and effecting the stamping fonts.

I still think the answer is in Rics WD markings on his beret...I was always under the understanding that 1942 WD is "O" not E or is it both?

Greg

[Greg B]

pic1

close up