Can you identify this camo cap? Similar to early BW

[NKOMO]

It looks to me like the ear-flaps are unlined, so it should be easy to tell whether the print is double-sided. If the flaps ARE lined, then someone really went all out to put together this unusual hat!

Judging strictly from the construction details, I would say that this hat is far better made than the typical "field-made" or home-made examples put together using Zeltbahn body parts. And if the "rain streaks" really are absent from the printed pattern (rather than simply faded), the question then becomes why would someone who is either talented with a sewing machine or has access to such talents bother to go through the trouble of making a fake deluxe M-43 hat using a custom-printed fabric that is so obviously non-standard and visually "wrong" for WW II even from a moderate distance?

My gut feeling here is that this is an early ('60s - '70s?) custom tailored piece made for an enthusiast who had more money than sense, using repro fabric available locally at the time (perhaps in some place like Japan or Taiwan?).

There was also Bud O'Toole, who produced some interesting silk-screened camos before the repro business went global, but I am pretty sure his Splittertarn would have had streaks.


Gene T

Gene has summed up what I was thinking pretty well. Throught the 70's, 80's, and 90's...tailors/sewers made up some really oddball camoulfage hats and smocks for the German WW2 reenactor crowd. To me, this hat fits well into the above category. I could be wrong, but I've seen similar hats at the gun shows since the 70's. Just my two cents worth.
Arch

[interested part]

Gordon,

Please do view this in bright light - you will see the feint remnants of rain streaks in the pattern.

After seeing the cap on your uniform set up, if you wish, the cap is yours. I know that my step father would agree that it should belong to someone who would appreciate it for what it is.

I am not in the collecting business for money - just to enjoy them for what they are.

Better for it to be displayed that sit in a box in my home.

Two caveats:

I ask is that someday if you are able to determine what it is, please drop me a line.

If are not interested in adding it to your collection, please let me know what I owe you for your time and trouble.

My stepfather was not into collecting reproduction items, and it was in with items that he had brought back from the war and stored - I have many other pieces with stitching that has not faded over the years - for reference, just look at many World War One and World War Two Division Patches - stitching thread is much less likely to fade. I also have a TR Pilot's patch, Panzer Grenadier's Eagle, and other period peices that are still vibrant in color - dirty, but not faded per se.

As I have said in previous posts, he spoke of most all items in his "box of treasures" in past stories, but never spoke of this cap.

[Collectinsteve]

Sorry, just catching up.

Gordon, thanks for the follow up comments. As you rightly point out, when facing a mystery item (like this), having it in your hands can often take the guessing in an entirely different direction. Thanks for the follow up information as it is quite useful.

Let me say that I still have no doubts, at all, that this is a post-war construction of some sort. This material is extremely faded. Not just a little faded. There are only two ways I know of that fabric can be so extremely faded through natural (non-chemical) means:

1. Exposure to sun
2. Badly printed cloth that "bleeds out" when washing

Chances of #2 for a military cloth are very low. Especially to the degree this hat shows. Which means if this is genuine military cloth, then #1 is the most likely case.

It is physically impossible for cloth to be so evenly faded by the sun unless it is full time equally exposed to the sun. Folds for the ear flaps and under the brim, therefore, would not be faded to the same degree. I know Gordon has said there is a slight difference in fading, but all this indicates is that this hat was faded further after construction. The fading difference should be exceptionally extreme in this case, not subtle.

There is the possibility that this hat was made during WW2 from cloth already exposed. No doubt this happened as many caps worn in WW2 were field made, not manufactured. However, I doubt it because the only cloth likely to be faded this badly, and also the cloth most commonly used for hats, would be a Zeltbahn. All Splinter Zeltbahns, except BGS, are double sided and should be easily identified.

With all that said, all I feel I can do here is say what it isn't, not what it is. The BGS zelt cloth guess was my best one based on the pictures. If Gordon said it doesn't have the right feel or can't find a match against a BGS zelt, then I believe he's correct it isn't BGS cloth.

Gene, the name of Bud O'Tool brings back unpleasant memories of getting samples from him one week and an anonymous packet of vile "apologist" and Holocaust Denial crap. Subsequently I found out that was no coincidence, not that I thought it was. Good quality reproduction cloth, though, so if this is from Bud's production the shapes should match up with a WW2 piece.

OK, with all of that said... my theory is this hat was made from post-war cloth that had some quality issues. It was made for the collector's market or a movie. Further fading happened after significant use under the sun.

Of course I could be wrong. But if I am I think it's only in detail and not in ultimate conclusions that this isn't WW2.

I wonder what the Wehrmacht collectors would have to say about this.

Steve

[Collectinsteve]

Hmmm... I just saw the detailed pictures posted in an earlier thread over in the Wehrmacht section. That changes some of my guesses about the details, but still not the overall conclusion. At the very least, this is interesting

First, this is obviously a pattern directly based on a pre 1945 German Splinter design. I have never seen such a pattern that lacked rain strokes. I don't think even a bad reproduction cloth would lack rainstrokes. It could be that the cloth is so badly faded that poorly printed rain strokes are effectively gone now. 1940s Bulgarian Splinter (exceptionally rare) doesn't have rainstrokes, but it also isn't the same pattern in general.

Second, there is a portion of the hat's pattern shapes which are 100% identical to Wehrmacht Splinter and BGS Splinter. The problem is the hat's shapes are inverted left/right. I'm not sure if inverted printings ever saw their way into WH/BGS service, however I personally haven't noted any.

This evidence alone seems to make it highly unlikely this hat was made during WW2 or using BGS cloth after.

Looking at the other pics, it is clear the hat was worn quite a lot after it was assembled into a hat. There are distinct signs of that in several places. However, as I said before it doesn't explain the overall, fairly even fading even in areas that would not have seen sun. The two best places to see that are where the Edelweiß was sewn on where the underside of the brim meets the forehead:






This picture shows an indication of badly printed cloth:



Look at the brown shapes on the left side (of the picture) towards the top of the hat. Note incomplete printing, usually associated with a clogged screen or not pressing down hard enough when printing. These are defects that I have not seen on military items. A section of cloth with such a defect would have been rejected.

Honestly, I really don't know what to make of this thing. It's old, it's been worn a lot, and yet it doesn't appear to be related to military service. A movie prop wouldn't have received so much sun as to fade to this extent, yet I also find it hard to imagine a reenactor wearing it so much that it would fade this much either. Especially since reenacting wasn't huge until fairly recently and this hat looks quite old.

As I said before, it seems we can say what this hat is not (WW2 or BGS), but so far not what it is.

Steve

P.S. Yes, that image linked to on Kamouflage.net is from my collection. It was a poor resolution scan I did back when downloading a page full of 50kb images took forever. For you children out there, who might be reading this for a history lesson, those days the Internet was accessed by something called "Dial Up". We are all grateful the world has moved on since then

[SprogCollector]

My first thoughts about the overall fading (aside from actual use) was exposure to chlorine/bleach. I've seen artificially aged gear before and washing/dunking in diluted bleach solution will result in a number of reactions, including overall softening of colors.

[chiffonnier]

..

[Collectinsteve]

The French used captured stocks of Splinter and Waffen SS camouflage cloth for square shelter/ponchos. The Swiss also produced a TON of square shelter/ponchos for their own forces before, during, and probably immediately after the war. One source says they were actually producing the cloth for the 3rd Reich under contract.

Here are pictures of the French items:

http://iacmc.forumotion.com/t4364-fr...s-shelter-half

The French examples there, as well as Swiss, are double sided.

There is a much earlier French shelter, from the 1930s, which looks like this:



http://iacmc.forumotion.com/t3784-fr...e-shelter-half

This one is in my collection. It is hand printed and not the same pattern as the German type. It is also double sided. It can't be the same as the hat.

Steve

[chiffonnier]

re