I know these are controversial so wanted to share these pics. The cap is not mine and these are the only pics I have. Comments welcome.
-
HC -
2HC -
3HCComment
-
4HCComment
-
Harry,
There are a couple of good threads on these - Tim O'Keefe (and I) started one which stirred up the debate again a year or two back.
One collector with superior knowledge (who is now no longer active here) provided good intelligence on an example with history...
I will watch where this goes with interest.
Regards,
MarkComment
-
Yes, I will watch were this one goes with interest also. I have just put up for discussion, a "Willy Sprengfeil" officers tropical M40. No-one has had any hesitation in telling me it is bad. And I agree with them.
What is interesting however, is that those who have collected long before I did. Have told me that the Willy Sprengfeil fake tropical M40's caps appeared at roughly the same time on the market as the Clemens Wagner tropical M40's.
When you compared them panel by panel, pattern by pattern and stitch by stitch, they are the same cap. Who ever made the fake Willy Sprengfeils trop. M40's made the Clemens Wagner trop. M40's. Same shade of red coloured lining, same weave to the material that the lining is made from.
The very first Clemens Wagner trop M40's to appear, even had the fake cockade the same as the Willy Sprengfeil officer trop. M40 that I have put up for discussion.
I have no bone in this fight about these and was only told all this yesterday by those who got in touch with me about the Willy Sprengfeil.
Just an interesting coincidence that you should now put up for discussion a CW example of such a cap,
ChrisLast edited by 90th Light; 07-05-2012, 06:17 PM.Comment
-
Just building on my previous post, I would like to add a couple more points as I balance up the indicators;
On the "plus side", this looks to be a 1941 dated cap. This is an interesting point because the other examples observed to date have been 1940 dated. (The 1940 examples came from Manions in the 1980's which is not a plus)
On the "negative side", compare the font of the size 60 in the CW example with font of the size 60 in the WS officer example. They are the same. This is not the style of font seen in CW tropical sidecaps from the time. The CW tropical sidecaps show the use of a completely different set of stamps for sizing.
Also the square box stamp of the CW maker mark seems to be the same dimensions as the WS officer MM stamp. Have these 2 been made by the same stamp maker ???
On the "question mark side", we have the same steel grommets in a zinc washers as we have on the fake WS officer trop. M40. Yet on the CW trop. M40, the grommets shows corrosion. Now steel and zinc corrode very quickly in salt water. In fact the corrision of the zinc slows up the reaction of the steel. To my eye and others, that corrsion does not look natural. Lots of zinc going off, not much rust on the steel. Is it artifically induced ??? Do you get steel in zinc grommets in 1941 dated caps ??? or is it something usually encountered in caps 1942 dated and after ???
This is a cap that I would really like to have in hand to study closer,
Chris
p.s. heavily worn/ damaged soutache yet no damage what so ever to the threads of the cockade or eagle. Just a bit of carefully applied soiling. They would have done better to have remove the soutache and just had the ends showing but then there would be no faded mark of where it had been.......... Whoops !Last edited by 90th Light; 07-05-2012, 06:14 PM.Comment
-
Some good comments and observations Chris, especially regarding similarities between the 2 caps you mention. I'm not sure I agree about the wear of the soutache vs. eagle etc. Different types of material wear differently and we have seen soutaches like this before without much damage to bevo items I believe.
Here is a question for you. If this cap had a different maker stamp in it, say Lubstein, would it be acceptable as is, or would it still raise suspicion?HCComment
-
This is going to be very interesting Harry.
This doesn't look to be made by the same maker as the Willy Sprengfeil that Chris has mentioned. I also believe the fonts of the size marking to be slightly different but would have to compare them side by side to confirm.
I'll say it now, I have extreme doubts about the 'early' Clemens Wagner tropical caps but am always willing to learn. The 1940 dated examples shown in the past have serious issues and the arguments for them weren't absolutely convincing. Ralph had photos of a later example posted which looks pretty good but this one you've shown needs really close scrutiny as I've already seen a couple of things that have me questioning it.
If this cap had a Lubstein stamp in it I would be calling it a fake immediately for reasons that I will not discuss. But it doesn't so no need to go there.
MarkComment
-
Harry,
Is there any chance that you would be able to get some more pics of this one?
After spending a bit of time looking this cap over (as much as you can with pictures), I'm actually liking it and think it has a really good chance. It certainly is different to Clemens Wagners shown previously (construction, material, markings) but has similarities to the later cap posted previously by Ralph and a number of CW sidecaps.
Some of the questions that I had regarding this cap I've cleared up when comparing it to a large selection of caps. With the proliferation of bad caps produced post war with Clemens Wagner markings, each cap really has to be looked at.
MarkComment
-
Well I'm no M40 guru by any means but I really like this cap. The material, stitching, grommets, wear, insignia, soutache and for lack of anything intelligent to say the general vibes of it
As for stamps, aren't these just purchased by the cap manufacturer from local vendors? I work in an engineering office and we have stamps to put on shop drawings which become clogged with dried ink, wear out, etc. The next stamp we purchase may or may not be produced by the same stamp maker and of course fronts may vary. Hopefully in 70 years or so someone doesn't think we didn't do the drawings because the stamp fonts are different. Certainly not trying to stir the pot here just wanted to mention. I've been in the market for a high end fake of one of these caps for a long time and all I can find are one looker fakes. Whoever is making and selling these perfect fakes I would sure like to find and buy one.
RichardComment
-
The grommets appear to be brass or at least brass plated on my screen. The zinc pest does look a bit odd IMO
JerryComment
-
That was definitely one of my major concerns Jerry and is still in the back of my mind. I really do prefer seeing zinc grommets.Originally posted by Bond View Post
Is it possible that there has been an attempt at cleaning these some time ago?
MarkComment
-
My gut is telling that there's something not right with this cap. The staining to the lining looks contrived. The corrosion on the interior of the grommets looks authentic enough but it hasn't spread to the surrounding lining in a convincing way IMO, it looks like it's been brushed off and onto the lining instead, if you know what I mean? The exterior is very convincing in comparison, especially the way the insignia is bedded but yet the eagle wing slightly loose. I'm still doubtful of the entire cap though based on these photos.
Ink stamps are something that I've chosen to ignore to a large degree. Handled too many IMO, authentic caps that have got the thumbs down on forums based on stamps that others didn't like for reasons that are never fully explained or proven.Comment
-
More good observations, thanks for the input. Mark, I may be able to get some more pictures, but not anytime soon. And the cap may be sold before then. It is definitely an intriguing cap. I must say that I was leaning heavily toward it being good before I did the research on this maker. But that past evidence is based on limited availability of caps with this marking.
Not sure what kind of metal the grommets are made of; I do see some brass coloring in the pics, but that was not my impression with the cap in hand.HCComment
Comment