M35 field side cap opinions

[actionoke]

Can you say wether this is a good repro or original Infantry sidecap?There was not a makers stamp as far as I can make out.It does not glow under uv.

[actionoke]

3

pic 3

[derka]

seems to be another "open beak" eagle with white/cream lining and no sweatband :

http://70.87.163.50/forums/showthread.php?t=438133

http://70.87.163.50/forums/showthread.php?t=572895


derka

[actionoke]

grommets

[derka]

just observed another one from the same "family", actualy for sale on estand,
althought impossible to say with avaible pics if it ever had or not during a period a soutach now removed.
but eagle, with the feather default (red arrow) and "open beak",
lining's material and grommets look identical to the 3 other sidecaps :

http://70.87.163.50/forums/showthread.php?t=575120





those sidecaps realy puzzle me...
derka

[Michael Kuligowski]

personally I wouldn't feel comfortable with this cap in question.... I don't like it...

[Daniel.S]

The wear on the first caps insignia and soutache is obviously faked....

[actionoke]

mine does not have break in line on eagle like others

[actionoke]

thats because they all aged away ha ha

[derka]

mine does not have break in line on eagle like others

your eagle is damaged in this exact area of default at the wing's feather junction, so it does not appear clearly,
but considering other details, imo it is exactly the same than the 3 others.
derka

[90th Light]

The wear on the first caps insignia and soutache is obviously faked....

From what I can see in the images. The eagle shown in post number 1 & 8 on the cap which started this thread appears to have insect damage like moths eating it or perod wear from goggles being worn.

I have seen this several times on caps which I have purchased directly from veterans but I have never seen it faked in any way which would pass as original.

The moths or insects seem to love some of the threads which the eagles and cockades were woven from. Equally some eagles or cockades were not durable over a prolonged period of having goggles pushed up and down during service/ combat wear,

Chris

[Daniel.S]

The moths or insects seem to love some of the threads which the eagles and cockades were woven from. Equally some eagles or cockades were not durable over a prolonged period of having goggles pushed up and down during service/ combat wear,

Chris

Chris, you are absolutely right about this, and with the better shot of the eagle it sure looks like moth damage.

But its still fake wear on that cap...no moths can save it.

[90th Light]

Chris, you are absolutely right about this, and with the better shot of the eagle it sure looks like moth damage.

But its still fake wear on that cap...no moths can save it.

Hello Daniel,

my posting was restricted to the eagle and cockade at this stage. That type of damage i.e. insect or goggles is certainly a sign of real age. Is this an "early" type of eagle ? ( 35 to 37 ? ). I have never had an eagle like that from a veteran source however.

I have not made up my mind about the cap itself yet. My only observation is that one does see lighter colored liners a lot more in the period 1935 to 1937 i.e. "early". The type of grommet also fits this "early" period but I would like to know if they are made of brass or are magnetic ?

The soutache ??? needs to be discussed in its own right and looks to be re-applied post war ???

Still pondering this cap at this stage,

Chris

[whatthecrunchyo]

I'm curious as to why the insignia is so aged, yet the inside liner has very little dirt, grime, or wear to it?