Alter Art on e-stand.

[jacquesf]

This is exactly the type of discussion that I was looking for. I am with Nick on my assesment and interpretation of the cap. Is it really an "old style field"alter art cap or is it what is commonly reffered to as a crusher style cap, in other words a converted/ crushed schirmutze? The issue is not with regard to originality, but rather clarification on an interesting variant and the origans there off. Jacques.

I agree that from the pics the cap looks good and most likely is all original. The problem I have is just the term “Alter Art” or crusher. In the collectors sense the only “true” crushers were the prewar, soft frame, flat wire insignia visors with leather visors. These “crusher types” come in different configurations and were produced until wars end but value wise do not realize the same values as a true crusher.

[Luca Ongaro]

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that this cap could be a late 'crusher'. I have owned several visors of this type that were purpose made with flatwire insignia, using both plastic and other composite materials for the visor and with late quality grades of wool. This style of cap remained popular and was manufactured until late in the war.

I am agree with you Mike and I will continue to call this type of cap "late crusher / late Alter art" because IMO has the same characteristics of the early type. Just my opinion.
Luca

[phild]

This is exactly the type of discussion that I was looking for. I am with Nick on my assesment and interpretation of the cap. Is it really an "old style field"alter art cap or is it what is commonly reffered to as a crusher style cap, in other words a converted/ crushed schirmutze? The issue is not with regard to originality, but rather clarification on an interesting variant and the origans there off. Jacques.

Jacques, In the end we all will believe what we want. Many false notions in this hobby get perpetuated in books and within the collector community in general until they become accepted facts.

As I tried to explain earlier there are many differences that set apart real alter art caps from any type of modified or converted peak cap and the visor is just one of those differences.....others are really impossible to change.

The cardboard visors are unlike those that were normally used in peak caps in they were thin and very bendable.

Many of these alter art caps with carboard visor show characteristics of being later wartime caps...like the one Mike posted. I have also seen a few that certainly were not later war and may have been pre war. Like Ben stated, I don't believe that the cardboard was a substitute for leather...I believe that many preferred it and in may ways it was better. I can tell you that it would take tremendous abuse as I have inspected caps show very hard treadbear wear with the carboard very intact ...more so than a lot of the leather visors.

The problem is that one really has to handle and study in person a lot of alter art caps to have a chance at understanding how they truly differ from standard peak caps. Until that happens many will fall back on the superficial differences of the visor material to distinguish what they believe to be different.

[aardvark]

Jacques, In the end we all will believe what we want. Many false notions in this hobby get perpetuated in books and within the collector community in general until they become accepted facts.

As I tried to explain earlier there are many differences that set apart real alter art caps from any type of modified or converted peak cap and the visor is just one of those differences.....others are really impossible to change.

The cardboard visors are unlike those that were normally used in peak caps in they were thin and very bendable.

Many of these alter art caps with carboard visor show characteristics of being later wartime caps...like the one Mike posted. I have also seen a few that certainly were not later war and may have been pre war. Like Ben stated, I don't believe that the cardboard was a substitute for leather...I believe that many preferred it and in may ways it was better. I can tell you that it would take tremendous abuse as I have inspected caps show very hard treadbear wear with the carboard very intact ...more so than a lot of the leather visors.

The problem is that one really has to handle and study in person a lot of alter art caps to have a chance at understanding how they truly differ from standard peak caps. Until that happens many will fall back on the superficial differences of the visor material to distinguish what they believe to be different.

I agree 1000%. The criteria collectors of today have assigned to caps, I believe, doesn't necessarily jibe with the criteria of the period. If I had the money I'd buy this premium visor...looks great to me.

-Mark

[Richard P]

Phild On Crushers

NTZ, Mike Davis, Luca and others are very knowledgable collectors and often offer great assessments and insight. I'm not saying that isn't the case here, all discussion can be profitable, especially with an open mind. I just want to draw some special attention to one persons postings.

I want to stress what PHILD has written is worthy of being pinned. I can't stress enough that collectors of every level should pay close attention and possibly even print out the comments he has written. They would then have a key reference for helping them make decisions concerning "alter art" and "crusher caps". There is a lot of collector BS attaching itself to these caps. Every judgement call he made is RIGHT ON. There is no grandstanding or claims of I know better than every one else. It is more of a plea for a balanced understanding of the German crusher cap genre.

I have a Paul Kapps generals crusher or alter art to a general that retired in 1941 because of old age. It has by choice a pressed paper visor and is a true alter art. There was no attempt at a chinstrap, nor is there flatwire insignia. He seemed to prefer bullion which is also in silver as dictated at that time period. I have had several crusher types with the pressed paper visors...they have lasted a hell of a lot longer than most leather visors and stayed in better shape. They are very flexible despite their outward appearance. I don't think 1941 can be defined as late war.

The term crusher was coined by American airmen. The look and name came from the appearance of their 50 mission "crush caps" as officers wore their caps with headsets after removing the stiffeners. The caps formed a droopy melting appearance. The caps actually began being manufactured as such due to their popularity. The American term got applied to German caps that bore the same used. crushed appearance. They were manufactured as true crushers in India. The term was passed on to collectors as the former owners called them "crusher caps". Here are photos of two "real" crushers.

[Richard P]

2.

[Richard P]

3.

[Richard P]

4.

[Richard P]

5.

[Richard P]

6.

[aardvark]

Well put Richard...and not trying to jump your train but I was thinking the same about the "crusher" appelation. Crusher to me has always meant the stiffener-less caps of US airmen and not the myriad variation of the German caps.

-Mark

[NTZ]

I agree with all that it is our own designation and the pressed papers I have seen based on materials look more late war to me but I don’t doubt they were made earlier. There is one thing we can’t deny though. The leather brims will always bring significantly more on the open market. With that said I think the subject visor is well priced.

By the way Richard, great caps. I do like my US caps as well.

[NTZ]

To add further to collector confusion where do we put this type? I always looked at these as crusher “type” caps even though they do have the soft frame.

[NTZ]

Inside

[phild]

The guys above are right on the mark as to the real origin of the term crusher, ain't that India made CBI cap a killer!

Nick, you made be right about the current market favoring leather visors but, at least some of the reason for that is the widespread mis-understanding as to what the cardboard visor caps really are.

I made an absolute fool of myself back in the mid-70s (one of many times) slamming one of these cardboard visored alter arts made with a tight weave canvas like body (I think like a SS tunic John Pic once posted) it was worn to all heck with about 50% of the black remaining on the visor and it must have weighed about 1 ounce! It had a felt (not badge cloth) band that was about 30% eaten away. I really made fun of that cap as a fake to some friends because I felt it was a fake and could not be right..it looked at a joke. I would pay 2k for that cap if I could find it now, it's memory talks to me like no other 3rd Reich cap that I have seen since.

The cap you posted is interesting and I will not pretend to have all this nailed down. My take is this: The cap is in fact an alter art with period added bullion insignia and chincords. The inside shows the classic alter art construction (light weight no need for pressure free sweat band) and I would think that the cap has minimal padding and a thinish flexable capband. If not for the bullion insignia and chincord it would be real light weight.

For whatever reason many Heer officers and even a higher % of W-SS officers added chincords to alter arts! Kind of a reverse conversion! I've seen cardboard visor alter art done the same way and the most famous of dealers selling these as leather visored peak caps for a fraction of what they are really worth, another reverse trend!

My guess is that many officers liked wearing the lighter weight more comfortable alter art and when stationed in areas like Germany and places where regs were more enforces that sometimes had nice condition (New) alter arts converted to pass as peak caps. I have also seen a number of these in photos being worn in the field. Some units and some commanders were no doubt more and less tolerant of what was worn as they are in all armies.