Textbook......are we making our own rules?

[Ernst-H]

Often you see terms used as "Textbook" to describe an item being original and conforming to the "rules"

What are those rules? Are we making our own rules 60+ years after the war ended?

-
Most of us were not even allive when WW2 ended. From the few collectors among us that were actually "there" I would guess none, or maybe one or two, were actually involved in cap-making during the war.

Most collectors I have met do not own period regulations, inventory books, tailor-patterns, or other documentation from the period describing how a cap or a uniform was made.

Caps, and other militaria, were not made to last 60+ years. All the stuff we handle today probably had a life-expectancy of one year, maybe two. I believe combat gear even had a shorter life-expectancy. Of course the higher end stuf, bought by officers and men that could afford it was a bit better.

The guys back then probably did not care much about regulation. Looking at period photographs you see so many non-regulation items being worn that one wonders if regulations even existed. Of course we know that regulations were there but also that regulations were often not followed. Then of course items existed that were experimental or according the commanding officers wishes, of which no regulation survives apart maybe from a piece of correspondence that probably never will be found in the vast archives accross the world.
Also items were upgraded, changed, altered in those days. Collars were removed from tunics and replaced, stuff with wrong color schemes worn for years after schemes changed, Insignia worn when different patterns were ordered for.

Does the fact that an item does not follow regulations make items bad, postwar, replica, fake or how do you name it?
-Is it possible to speak about "textbook" items ?
-Does speaking of a particular item as being "textbook" make many people question perfectly good items ?

-Are we making our own rules?

I would be interested to learn what other peoples opinions are on this matter.

thanks

[NTZ]

To me the term textbook applies when you see 300 or 400 examples of something and they were all done the same way. Then all of a sudden you see something that does not fit or make any logical sense. Especially if that odd out of the box detail can be readily found on known post war production.

The term textbook really does not exist but you have to use common sense and have the ability to spot something that does not seem right. Too many collectors try and use the “late war” theory to explain away everything. This is pure BS. Yes there were changes during the war and yes there were many of things that were out of regulation. You have to use your own brain to determine if something was possible or very improbable. I think the term “late war” has been over used more than the term “textbook” to describe something.

In the end when fakes out weight originals 100 to 1 why try to justify something that does not make sense? The odds are not in your favor. JMHO & 2 cents.

[schirmmutze]

Now this is interesting Ernst,

I******180;m collecting for more than 10 years now,and yes,I sometimes have trouble with the term `textbook`

For example: I have a Luftwaffe EM/NCO visorcap with an army style visor on it.
When I bought it,a couple of years ago,some collectors I know said to me that it was a fake because it didn******180;t have a Luftwaffe type visor on it (green,crosshatched underside with a small sewn-on edge at the front.)

They mentioned the term `textbook`

After some research on war-time pictures I discovered that these types of visors were used on luftwaffe visorcaps!!!

I have seen many war-time pics. showing luft.soldiers wearing caps with these visors,so I ******180;m convinced now.

There are also guys on this forum who agree with me,and have no problems with army style visor on Luftwaffe visorcaps.

I also agree with you that in the last year of the war there weren******180;t much regulations anymore concerning clothing/headgear.

Sometimes people say: `this is not shown in this or that book,so it******180;s a fake`
Not everything shown in the well-known books is 100% o.k!

Let******180;s hear what they other guys think about this......

Regards,

Theo

[NTZ]

[QUOTE=schirmmutze;1917774]There are also guys on this forum who agree with me,and have no problems with army style visor on Luftwaffe visorcaps./QUOTE]

I am one of them.

[schirmmutze]

Thanks NTZ

[Dave Kane]

I apply the 'test' of TEXTBOOK only to the manufacturing techniques, materials and styles found in the different producers of materials. Any variation of the above causes me to look much closer and often results in a negative finding.

Items of clothing ( leaving out combat wear )were made to last much longer than 1-2 years thus the 'acceptance stamp and year date' associated w/ a clothing allowance.

The differing 'personal' choice of shaping or even items added or deleted shouldn't hide the original manufacturing technique thus allowing the question of 'textbook' to be valid!

[sturmbannfuhrer]

[QUOTE=NTZ;1917791]

There are also guys on this forum who agree with me,and have no problems with army style visor on Luftwaffe visorcaps./QUOTE]

I am one of them.

Good point, I've seen a Luftwaffe Visor on an Army cap at a show. I walked away from that combination. Some people use the term textbook when they really mean "conforms to accepted collector preference".

In my view when making a purchase you have to think about selling it later and any anomolies will possibly have an adverse effect on resale price and in extreme cases, getting anyone to shell out the green at all.

[stonemint]

For just about every TR regulation, there is an exception.
However, when discussing manufacturing techniques, "excetions" are extremely rare--and I am talking about the peculiarities of each maker--Schellenberg, Erel, Pekuro, CW, etc--they all have their own "tells", as we demonstrate time and time again.

The only thing I considered textbook that was dispelled for me on this forum was overlapping piping--I had never seen it on a TR visor until recently.

The other non-textbook issue is untreated pasteboard--and I believe Albert's medical is pre-May 1945 (although NTZ has his doubts.)

I'll bring up my old "Lets Define Textbook" thread, for others to add to.

[sturmbannfuhrer]

The only thing I considered textbook that was dispelled for me on this forum was overlapping piping--I had never seen it on a TR visor until recently.

The silk piping (in lieu of wool) is rare also. I have a Robert Lubstein Panzer Grenadier officer visor with this type of piping. It is exquisite and bloody rare.

[Chris_Werner]

My philosophy is that you have to have a starting point for your analysis of originality. I agree that there is an exception to every rule, but there are enough commonalities in material, construction, manufacturer styles of construction, etc of a "typical" war date cap that deviation from those norms, although not automatically branding it as a fake, should raise red flags.
Whew! That was a mouthful.

[NTZ]

One good thing that does come from all “textbook” debates, if you find the exception and prove it is right we all can open our minds a bit. It helps in the hunt.

[Jerry45]

-

[NTZ]

[B]Is there a standrad way things are made, yes..........Do sometimes items vary from this technique yes, for variois reasons. Does that make an item being different fake , no. Does it make it real, no. You really need to know how to go beyond that and form your own opinion based on known consruction techniques. And even then, anyone can still be wrong & learn something new................/B]

I agree completely. Common sense also helps. When you look at all aspects of something you have to ask yourself the final question. Does this make sense? This applies to all areas of collecting.

[John Pepera]

Text Book (a)

I guess that one could classify this P/L hat as 'Text Book'

[John Pepera]

Text Book (b)