WSS Yellow Piped Crusher

[BenVK]

Let's start again shall we.

Please keep your comments on track and only about the cap and it's construction etc. I'm going to ask Glenn here and now that anything written relating to the seller or past history etc etc gets deleted straight away as it serves no purpose in evaluating it.

In the same vain, let's not get into the whole discussion of the existance of piped caps, the regulations regarding them and that whole area again. It's been covered.

Anyone with similar caps so we can make a comparrison? your input would be very welcome. Jacques, hoping you can chime in here?

Peter, I'm hoping you will be able to respond to requests for more photos as needed? This is a must if we're going to get anywhere and I'd like to ask straight away for some close up shots of the sweatband stitching and the buckram material.

Ok Gentlemen, start your engines. Let's see how we get on.

[BenVK]

2

[BenVK]

3

[BenVK]

4

[BenVK]

5

[BenVK]

6

[BenVK]

7

[BenVK]

8

[jacquesf]

If I compare it to mine, the obvious difference is the amount of wear (mine has a lot more wear then the one of Peter). That impacts as far as I am concern in four areas. The way the velvet band sits on the pasteboard, the softness/rigidity of the paste board, condition of the pasteboard, the shape of the top of the cap and the condition/fading of the piping. This should be taken into account when assesing this chrusher

The way a crusher was used put a lot of strain and and wear on the cap/ paste board. That showed on the velvet band, especially with a buckram pasteboard. The top op this cap has got a lot of shape to it. It could have been caused in two ways, heavy wear and use (in which case it would show on the cap band) or it it could have been fashioned to have that shape by the owner (in which case it would not have affected the cap band). This cap imo reflects the second.

The piping differ quite substantially from mine. Mine is thinner and less fluffy. Mine is also made of a different fabric (tricot), which I think is more in line with a general issue cap. The visors are very similar.

I would like to hear Phil's comments on this one, but I a hands on from a really knowledgeable individual would be required. Jacques

[Robin Lumsden]

Well, for what it's worth, I cannot see any glaring faults in the construction.

As regards the 'VIII' pencilled mark, I know it was common in Imperial times to mark cap sizes this way. I have an old Leibhusar cap with a pencilled in 'IX', denoting size '59'.

The one thing I wonder about is the eagle. It looks to me as if it has been removed from another (M40?) cap and resewn on to this one. OK, I know they could have done this 'at the time', but I have a little doubt there.

[jacquesf]

comparison with post 7

[Robin Lumsden]

Interesting and valid comment about the piping, Jacques.

Here's the piping on mine, for comparison. Mine is Italian made, though, so it's quite a bit different from German manufacture.

[jacquesf]

The one thing on this cap that looks strange and unnatural to me is the shape of the top, espescially if you look at the side view. The back overhang does not look anything like my crushers or other schirmutze. It looks for the lack of a better , description, very long and pointy. Jacques

[Robin Lumsden]

It's worth a mention that, as the crusher that started this thread is not maker marked (which is correct for most crushers) it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Each manufacturer had his own characteristics, as long as the caps conformed to the general regulations. This was especially true with private purchase pieces, where individual budgets played a part.

It might be worthwhile extending this thread to army crushers as well. A lot more collectors have these and a few pictures of the inside areas of army crushers would show the variations as well as the areas of commonality. These differences and similarities were as applicable to the W-SS as they were to the army.

[jacquesf]

Robin the problem with that is that the vast majority of army crushers did not have a buckrum pasteboard. I have only ever seen one army crusher posted on the forum with that feature. The presence of the buckram pasteboard, which this one have, give totally different characteristics to the crusher and especially the way it worn.

It's worth a mention that, as the crusher that started this thread is not maker marked (which is correct for most crushers) it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Each manufacturer had his own characteristics, as long as the caps conformed to the general regulations. This was especially true with private purchase pieces, where individual budgets played a part.

It might be worthwhile extending this thread to army crushers as well. A lot more collectors have these and a few pictures of the inside areas of army crushers would show the variations as well as the areas of commonality. These differences and similarities were as applicable to the W-SS as they were to the army.