90th Light wrote: "The point I was trying to make however and you reinforce this with more detail, is that collectors incorrectly often discount the cardboard visor version of the "crusher cap". Collectors will pay a premium for leather visor yet walk away from a cardboard one saying that it is not a "crusher." As I have already stated, the thing to understand is the internal construction of the cap to determine if one is holding a true crusher or a look a-like."
I agree with you in all of the points above. Many collectors will walk away from the non-leather visored crusher or not pay as much, although I have seen several in common branch colors bring 2k and above in recent years. I know some crushers bring much more than that these days, but at least some are reconizing the cardboard fitted type crushers as the real deal.
I made a bad mistake the first 10 to 15 years that I collected by passing on these pressed paper/carboard visored crushers because I did not know any better and followed the herd. There are still many great buys in a lot of areas of militaria. Even even new collectors without a lot of means can obtain real "sleepers" for a fraction of what (I beleive) they will one day be worth, if they do some independent research and thinking.
I agree with you in all of the points above. Many collectors will walk away from the non-leather visored crusher or not pay as much, although I have seen several in common branch colors bring 2k and above in recent years. I know some crushers bring much more than that these days, but at least some are reconizing the cardboard fitted type crushers as the real deal.
I made a bad mistake the first 10 to 15 years that I collected by passing on these pressed paper/carboard visored crushers because I did not know any better and followed the herd. There are still many great buys in a lot of areas of militaria. Even even new collectors without a lot of means can obtain real "sleepers" for a fraction of what (I beleive) they will one day be worth, if they do some independent research and thinking.
Comment