Heer sidecap

[derka]

I would be interested to have opinions about this sidecap :

http://www.military-antiques-stockho...roducts_id=114

derka

[LuckyStrike23]

I have never ever seen a Lago-stamp without an exact taylor number (nb 4 and 7 in these examples):

[OSS]

I'm a bit leery of the mid-war cockade.

[derka]

I'm a bit leery of the mid-war cockade.

Luckystrike23, i agree about your observation on lago stamps in sidecaps.

OSS, AFIK, dark green background for cockade was adopted june 19th, 1937.
The feldgrau background subtitute was officialy adopted june 4th, 1940.

Any opinion about those insignias and their appliation ?

[Glenn McInnes]

I would be interested to have opinions about this sidecap :

http://www.military-antiques-stockho...roducts_id=114

derka

What was your initial reaction when you first viewed this hat?






Glenn

[derka]

What was your initial reaction when you first viewed this hat?






Glenn

Well,
as already pointed, unapropriate "lago" stamp, located in uncommon (althought seldomly observed) area of the lining for a sidecap,
no Bekleidungsamt stamp and date of year for issue, and one and half size error (3 cm, wich is noticeable imo)
machine ssewn appliation for pre/early war insignias (possible, but not my favorite combination),
grommets made of two different metals, of course possible, but not typical of early quality manufacturing :



apparently smooth soutache material seems not to be the pattern i prefer to see :



no signs of wear inside lining, no internal bias material for sweatband visible.
And i don't like the 2 threads for securing the front of the flap.


So if i had to sum up my initial feeling, at least not a "one looker", if i compare to some sidecaps i have seen or been able to touch and i felt imediatly were original.
Maybe i'm wrong or geting just paranoiac, and i never forget pics can be tricky and can't replace a "in hands" scrutinization.
Hence my ask of further opinions about his sidecap.
I don't want to trash this sidecap, and would admit an error of appreciation without difficulties, but i'm just curious to see if my doubts about it are shared.
derka

[mayer]

I dont know why, but i will not sleep soundly with it at home

[Glenn McInnes]

Well,
as already pointed, unapropriate "lago" stamp, located in uncommon (althought seldomly observed) area of the lining for a sidecap,
no Bekleidungsamt stamp and date of year for issue, and one and half size error (3 cm, wich is noticeable imo)
machine ssewn appliation for pre/early war insignias (possible, but not my favorite combination),
grommets made of two different metals, of course possible, but not typical of early quality manufacturing :



apparently smooth soutache material seems not to be the pattern i prefer to see :


no signs of wear inside lining, no internal bias material for sweatband visible.
And i don't like the 2 threads for securing the front of the flap.


So if i had to sum up my initial feeling, at least not a "one looker", if i compare to some sidecaps i have seen or been able to touch and i felt imediatly were original.
Maybe i'm wrong or geting just paranoiac, and i never forget pics can be tricky and can't replace a "in hands" scrutinization.
Hence my ask of further opinions about his sidecap.
I don't want to trash this sidecap, and would admit an error of appreciation without difficulties, but i'm just curious to see if my doubts about it are shared.
derka

Excellent analysis.


Now compare the similarities (sewing,markings etc) with this fake black Pz wrapper...I know it is apples to oranges but...http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=lago+munchen






Glenn

[90th Light]

And then there was the recent discusion by "Stonemint" about a visor cap with this type of "Lago" marking in it. The question was floated, did "Lago" only make the component part and not the entire hat ???

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=Lago+Munchen

In other words, was only the lining on this sidecap made and purchased from Lago-Munchen or in the case of the visor in the link above, the leather sweat band made by Lago-Wien ?

We have established beyong doubt now that the linings in many tropical billed M40's were made and stamped before the cap was assembled. This means for example that one could have a cap dated 1941 that was not assembled and completed until early- mid 1942.

The same can also apply to sidecaps and may explain why one sometimes sees a perfectly original black panzer sidecap cap dated 1939.

If we take this finding and apply it to the "Lago" system of conglomerate sub-contractor manufacture, individual sub-component manufacturers and cottage industry production. Then it is quite fesible.

Thus did Lago-Munchen make the entire cap or only the liner ???

Does this explain why there is no Lago specification number or date because they are not the final assembler of the cap under their system ???

Lago- Munchen after all is not a factory, it is a logistical center that organised and brought together what was needed to make caps/ uniforms so that small & cottage manufacturers could compete/ deliver order sizes on par in terms of economy of scale with the larger factories like Carl Halfar,

Chris

p.s. have also added an image of the inside of a black panzer sidecap also with this type of marking and nothing else

[derka]

I have never ever seen a Lago-stamp without an exact taylor number (nb 4 and 7 in these examples):

Another stamp from to illustrate this point :



Another stamp in a feldgrau pz sidecap i owned :



And for comparizon and record, the stamp in the sidecap i gave the link in #1 :



Chris,
I have nothing against "what if" hypothesis and deep research.
There were interesting discussions about Lago system.
But there is just too much "odd" points on this single sidecap for my taste.

[90th Light]

Another stamp from to illustrate this point :

Another stamp in a feldgrau pz sidecap i owned :

And for comparizon and record, the stamp in the sidecap i gave the link in #1 :

Chris,
I have nothing against "what if" hypothesis and deep research.
There were interesting discussions about Lago system.
But there is just too much "odd" points on this single sidecap for my taste.

Hello derka,

no problem, good discussion. Research before conclusion is what it is all about and that applies to more than just sidecaps.

So what is the difference between "-Lago- .Mutzen. Munchen" and "Lago-Munchen" ?

There will be a reason. The Germans would not have been flippant at the time, about adding the would "Mutzen" which implies a specilisation in caps only.

Are we comparing stamps from the same Lago ???

or are these two different Lago ???

or is "Lago-Munchen", "Lago-Wien" without more information used only on component parts supplied to other Lagos or cottage makers ???

Chris

[90th Light]

So what is the difference between "-Lago- .Mutzen. Munchen" and "Lago-Munchen" ?

There will be a reason. The Germans would not have been flippant at the time, about adding the would "Mutzen" which implies a specilisation in caps only.

Are we comparing stamps from the same Lago ???

or are these two different Lago ???

or is "Lago-Munchen", "Lago-Wien" without more information used only on component parts supplied to other Lagos or cottage makers ???

Chris

The same question applies to "Lago-Wien" and some other Lago's.

Why do some have the "Mutzen" designation ???

Below are images of a "Mutzen-Lago-Wien" and a faded "Lago-Wien"

Same Lago or not, why the difference in title ???

Chris

[B. N. Singer]

...Hence my ask of further opinions about his sidecap.

derka

It would appear to me Sir that you have already drawn the correct conclusion regarding this example.

B. N. Singer

[werner]

It would appear to me Sir that you have already drawn the correct conclusion regarding this example.

B. N. Singer

In this case, somebody should drop an email to Peter v Lukacs to let him know.