Alter Art on e-stand.

[jacquesf]

This cap is being sold on the e-stand as being an Alter art( crusher). I believe it is non standard and would appretiate some other opinions. Jacques
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=245745&page=2

[NTZ]

Here is what I posted on estand

Here is my opinion on this piece for what it is worth. The visor does look to be original but it is definitely not an “Alter Art” by its true terms. It appears to be a late war visor that the owner (period or post war) chose to add bevo insignia to. I have seen period pics of generals and officers wearing this exact type cap with the pressed paper visor and bevo insignia. There is no doubt in my mind that this configuration did exist pre 1945. Does that make this cap a crusher? No! Does it make the cap bad? No. A hands on is the only way to tell if this was period done. A good sign is no visible holes for chin cord buttons.

[Mike Davis]

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.

It is difficult to determine from the photos if the insignia is wartime applied or not. If I were convinced that the cap had original insignia, I'd buy it. I just can't conclude 100% from the owners photos and would have to handle it.

[Luca Ongaro]

Here is what I posted on estand :
The cap has a compressed cardboard peak, correct hand stitched woven insignia (original stitched) for this style of cap.
This Alter art shows sign of wear and has no sign to let me think is a frankenstein visor.
Just my opinion gents not by pictures but by in hand inspection

NTZ I can assure there are no visible holes for chin cord buttons, metal eagle and cockade.

Luca

[NTZ]

Here is what I posted on estand :
The cap has a compressed cardboard peak, correct hand stitched woven insignia (original stitched) for this style of cap.
This Alter art shows sign of wear and has no sign to let me think is a frankenstein visor.
Just my opinion gents not by pictures but by in hand inspection

NTZ I can assure there are no visible holes for chin cord buttons, metal eagle and cockade.

Luca

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.

[solo]

Nick ,I agree with you.
The question is not the originality ,but if is a crusher or not.
The cap in question is not a 'real' crusher
this is a' real' one:

[solo]

inside

[DonC]

I am with Nick and Solo on this one - "crusher style" may be more accurate as a description.

Don

[Mike Davis]

The question is not the originality ,but if is a crusher or not.

Actually, I think the question was more about originality (is it a standard type or a modified visor?). Whether we call it a 'true crusher' or 'crusher type' wasn't really the point I don't think. Certainly we know that these late syle 'crushers' were made, no matter what we want to call them. I'd like to see this one in person.

Attached is a scan of an old print of another late cap manufactured to mimic the classic 'crusher' style. Notice the inferior materials. I have seen quite a few made like this.

[NTZ]

No question the cap is period in my mind.

[phild]

The term crusher not to mention "real crusher" are pure collector inventions that have no meaning in the context of cap types worn during WWII as viewed by the Germans.

If we are talking about alter art officer field caps the answer is that the one starting this thread is the real deal. The visor material was just one of several characteristics that defined an alter art field cap and these visor can be found in a few different materials and slight variations.

As one poster stated, the visor on this cap is a type of laquered carboard or laminated paper and is very different from vulcan fiber...although it is made to have a similar look.

Based on wartime photos a lot of GD officers wore old style caps with this type of visor as did many other officers in other units.

Some visors like this (of this material) were made with no raised edge.

We can argue all day about what some collector wants to call something but the truth is these caps were made in the shape of the 1930s alter art, were very flexable, very light in weight, had little to no padding in the front, MADE with flatwire insignia, came originally with no cap cords (some had them owner added) and had simple interiors regarding sweatband mounting. They also had thiner cap band backings that can be found in several different materials..some lend themselves to being wadded up better than others but in my opinion any officer who made a habit wadding any crusher up and craming it in his pocket was pretty foolish as it WOULD eventually tear up!

[NTZ]

Actually, I think the question was more about originality (is it a standard type or a modified visor?). Whether we call it a 'true crusher' or 'crusher type' wasn't really the point I don't think. Certainly we know that these late syle 'crushers' were made, no matter what we want to call them. I'd like to see this one in person.

Attached is a scan of an old print of another late cap manufactured to mimic the classic 'crusher' style. Notice the inferior materials. I have seen quite a few made like this.

Mike, is this a Schellenberg by chance?

[Mike Davis]

Search me, this is a photo from 25+ years ago - belongs to a friend...

[phild]

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.

I think that the above is is little over simplistic. The visor material was in many cases the only difference between two alter art caps. Plenty of leather visored alter art caps have frames that are more rigid (but still much less than a peak cap) than some of those found with the thin cardboard visors. I also am about 99% convinced that these cardboard visors were used on pre-war alter art field caps....so I do not consider them as two distinct variations.

If a collector says that they like the crushers with the leather visors more and will pay more than for those with cardboard visors that is fine but, I don't think it is accurate to pretend that these visor materials define two different types of cap, they were all alter art and all "crushers".

[BenVK]

It's also probably safe to assume that a lot of collectors think of the paper/cardboard type of peak as a leather substitute and therefore a later war feature due to shortages. I don't believe that this was the case at all. As has been said, this type of peak was around in the early 30's.