Announcement

**90th Light** · 12-06-2012, 04:45 AM

The hat which started this thread looks to be a real "crusher" with a pressed paper visor but it is in fact leather which has been folded.

The determiners are what the visor and band ( type of material the caps circumference) is made out of. Plus a lack of padding in the top. Thus the hat can be folded in half to fit in a pack or suitcase.

There are perfectly legitimate crushers made with a " pressed paper visor " as opposed to the more desirable leather visor. This one however has a leather visor and appears to a legitimate crusher in all aspects except for may be the badges which are what one would find on a regular visor ( seen in period images sometimes)

Can not say why the cords have been changed. May be they did not have the correct type for this maker ?

Chris

**DonC** · 12-06-2012, 10:48 AM

I have always held the opinion that a true "Alter Art" crusher has the pliable leather visor. I am not sure the GJ visor pictured has that, although it is hard to tell from two pictures. The peak looks far too high for a true crusher, as well. I'll be interested to see pics of the interior tonight when the update posts. It's a personal pet peeve when people advertise a visor as a "crusher" - and price it as such - when it is simply a regular Schirmmütze that has been mashed down and maybe had flatwire insignia placed on it in some instances. From the pic below, the visor itself looks fairly stiff. I am a sucker for fat cords, so I too wish they had left the originals on there.

Don

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="******45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

**kuratorium** · 12-06-2012, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by BaselA View Post

Side note - What I, for the life of me, can't understand, is why the original chincords are described as "not matching"and were changed to a pair that looks quite bad. The patina on the original cords matched the bullion wreath and imho were 100% original to the cap. I suppose the dealer felt it more appealing from a marketing perspective to have a newer looking cord on there? I know it comes from a respected dealer, but I just hate to see original, seemingly untouched, pieces like this modified so they look "prettier."

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gebirgsjager...vip=true&rt=nc

The Edelweiss was probably replaced for the same reasons - the original was probably aluminum variant...

**stonemint** · 12-06-2012, 12:03 PM

It will go on sale today...

Attached Files

update01.jpg (129.6 KB, 253 views)

**BaselA** · 12-06-2012, 01:23 PM

Good catch kuratorium, it looks like the edelweiss was changed as well!

All this cap needed was a nice aluminum bird and it would have been complete. Instead, it now has a new edelweiss, chincord, and eagle. Might as well replace the wreath while he's at it. What a shame

**90th Light** · 12-06-2012, 01:42 PM

The edelweiss has not been changed. Peter has just taken his pictures under brighter lights. There would be no reason to change that.

It is definitely an original crusher when you see the inside & underside of the visor you will see what I mean,

Chris

**BaselA** · 12-06-2012, 02:23 PM

There was absolutely no reason to change the chincord either, it was 100% original and correct on the cap. The edelweiss does look different to me. I can tell by looking at the arrangement of the "stigma" in the center of the flower, but better photos would be needed to really confirm.

**stonemint** · 12-06-2012, 02:24 PM

If it sells, he will make a nice profit:

http://www.military-antiques-stockholm.com/

**kuratorium** · 12-06-2012, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by BaselA View Post

There was absolutely no reason to change the chincord either, it was 100% original and correct on the cap. The edelweiss does look different to me. I can tell by looking at the arrangement of the "stigma" in the center of the flower, but better photos would be needed to really confirm.

here you go:

Originally posted by 90th Light View Post

The edelweiss has not been changed. Peter has just taken his pictures under brighter lights. There would be no reason to change that.

It is definitely an original crusher when you see the inside & underside of the visor you will see what I mean,

Chris

I have my doubts, note for example the gold/yellow Edelweiss center:

Attached Files

edelw.jpg (95.2 KB, 219 views)

**Peter v L** · 12-06-2012, 03:30 PM

I will just chime in and explain.

The fat chincord did acctually not look original to the cap, it was pressing so hard on the leather bill and the buttons it almost broke. There are no marks what so ever on the leather bill after a chincord which a cord with this preassure would have made after 65+ years on the cap, it matched the bullion but did not math th wear of the cap. The Aloy edelweiss also was replaced after war in our mind, the way it was attached and the fitting to the ghostmarks was not perfect, which this is............now all insignias are matching to the cap which they where not before. And as one can not know for sure what was original, it is in our mind better it have what would have been period and matchjing to the cap.

We do not hide we have replaced them as it is obvious. Naturally we have saved the other insignias and a buyer who rather wants them and a aloy eagle could naturally get that to the cap if wished.

The bullion cocade was the only thing which for sure had been on the cap since the war.

Bill is 100% leather and fully foldable as well, it will just brake or creaze even more if we fold it totally

Regards

Peter v L

**pauke** · 12-06-2012, 03:46 PM

GJ "crusher"

Opinion--- while the cap may be crushable if it never came with standard flatwire bevo insignia and is decked out with standard metal insignia AND chincord I wouldn't call it a crusher. As I stated in another post the several Gebirgsjaeger officers I knew wouldn't be caught dead without their Bergmuetzen, the ultimate uniform item for GJ. This visor I would call a crushable visor, but no Feldmuetze alter Art.

**BaselA** · 12-06-2012, 06:52 PM

Peter, thank you for taking the time to explain. I certainly wasn't trying to pass it off like you were not disclosing it, and I commend you for being completely honest about the modifications you made. I'm not going to go on about the chincord/edelweiss as I have already stated my opinion. At present, the cap belongs to you and you have every right to do with it as you please. I would merely suggest that, next time, don't be so hasty to make changes to caps and perhaps post it here for opinions from collectors before making changes - I believe it would definitely pay off for you in the long run. Either way, congrats on a very impressive update.

Announcement

GJ Officer's Crusher Question

GJ Officer's Crusher Question

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread