Heer Artillerie M40 cap for discussion

[afrikasandman]

Mark is quite right and confirms what I said in an earlier post. This red art'y soutache has been hand applied without disturbing the visor. They tried to get the stitch length right but, as you can see, they didn't....though its an admirable job! You can see the holes where the original soutache was in the cap body.
This newer soutache was added by snipping a couple of threads near the visor, pushing the soutache in and then carefully handstitching up the cockade and down the other side. Olive thread was then used to make it look original to the piece but they still missed a row of stitching....oops!

I still like the cap though, you seldom see the Frankenstein stamp as clear as this one.

Robt.

Robt,

I think you see dead on! Looking at the pics really closely you are dead on. Matt

[Mike Davis]

Er, no. There are no simulated hand stitches.

The thread stitched over the soutache is a continous machine sewn length - same stitch length, same color, same twist. USB microscope photos are included, lighting a bit garish as it is now dark.

The soutache material is machine sewn to the front of the cap. The interior of the cap has a one single continuous line of stitching around the inner circumference.

[RGD51]

Its the "machine stitch" that is being replicated by hand.

There is only one possibility if you feel that strongly about the machine applied issue and that is that the cap was in fact opened up, the visor removed, the soutache sewn, and then the visor resewn and the lining restitched around the circumference. That soutache could not have been 'machine applied' with the visor on and without the stitching coming through the liner.

Robt.

[Mike Davis]

Its the "machine stitch" that is being replicated by hand.

There is only one possibility if you feel that strongly about the machine applied issue and that is that the cap was in fact opened up, the visor removed, the soutache sewn, and then the visor resewn and the lining restitched around the circumference. That soutache could not have been 'machine applied' with the visor on and without the stitching coming through the liner.

Robt.

Except that it wasn't replicated by hand, as the photos should make pretty clear. But, after much closer inspection, I do think you are on the right track about what may have happened. There is an extra line of machine stitching that extends end to end from the points where the bill meets the cap body - and that is the line of stitching that goes over the lower portions of the soutache. It may be visible in this photo.

There is yet one other line of stitching that follows the seam between bill and cap and it is those stitches that go over the very bottoms of the soutache arms. Otherwise this line of stitching is not visible without bending the bill a bit.

[Mike Davis]

And then note the single line of unbroken stitching that extends along the entire circumference of the cap. There is no other stitching nor are there traces of previous stitching.

[Mike Davis]

So, why this was done I cannot say but I am quite sure that person I bought it from in the '70s could not possibly have executed such an alteration. The scans of the old photos I posted shortly after question about the cap was raised were not just created for this thread. If necessary, I could ask the collector and sometime WAF participant to whom I traded this cap circa 1984/85 to confirm the cap is now as it was at that time. I don't think I can add much else unless someone has specific detailed photo requests.

[RGD51]

Still a fine cap, as I said, but 'if' the soutache is machine stitched, it had to get opened up to do it....there is no other way to do it. There are indeed about 4 rows of stitching towards the bottom edge of the cap. I'm pretty sure it got opened and resewn....sometime. The high line looks like it would come out if pulled by tweezers. That was probably the original visor stitching or the first line of stitching done after the original soutache was applied.

Robt.

[pauke]

cap

The cap looks just the same to me as it did back ca. 30 years ago. I always liked the slight separation in the soutache and nothing has changed in appearance in the intervening decades.

[OSS]

For those readers who regularly follow DAK items on the "Collections" forum, this cap may appear familiar. I posted it a while back for comment (post #s 3272-74) and described the atypical (for SMF Frankenstein) soutache application. As you can see from Mike's excellent photos, the (machine stitched) soutache passes over the usual entry points and passes between the cap body and bill, like many of the other tropical caps from the various manufacturers. I have examined this cap closely and believe it would be practically impossible for it to have been tampered with since the war as there is no evidence of the interior line of stitching having been disturbed. Obviously some person with the skill to flawlessly simulate machine stitching would simply have pushed the soutache through the usual points and worked his magic and perhaps we would not be discussing this cap today.

[RGD51]

Collectors 30 years ago were aware of the perk of having a soutached DAK cap however, a previous owner may have simply missed the fact that there were two small, inconspicuous, holes in the cap body where the original 'was' at one time and, when they decided to restore, made the choice to do it incorrectly for a Schlesische. Maybe too they didn't have the know how to get it back in the original holes(?)
That soutache is not commensurate in wear to the rest of the cap as evidenced by the liner and the already whitening visor....it was added at some point and most likely by someone who had it maybe before it arrived in Atlanta at whatever shop....and it was done to increase its value for rarity and sale.

Robt.
PS....still a great piece but buggered.

[OSS]

I am presenting two images of caps identified as SMF Frankenstein manufacture, taken from the Kurtz DAK book and Daniel Fisher's book "Afrika Korps", which focuses primarily on headgear. Both show the method of construction and soutache application that are associated with this maker. Both examples appear to show two rows of stitching which pass under where the ends of the soutache are inserted, one presumeably to attach the bill to the front of the cap (this line only runs for half the circumference of the cap) while the second, which attaches the bottom of the red lining to the cap ( this line runs the entire circumference). The subject cap has these two rows of stitching, plus two more that secure the soutache that was (presumeably) replaced. I think I am in agreement with the skeptics that the soutache was changed ( or added as they (he) see(s) it), only I think it is clear from closely examining the interior stitching that this change was wartime made:

[RGD51]

Sorry, your summation implies a reversal or contravening of military protocol from the era, which was adhered to by the soutache removal ca. late '41.
There is no proof whatsover that it was reapplied 'during' the war but, far more evidence prevails to support that this soutache was restored 'post war' .... to make it more sellable and appetizing.

Robt.

[OSS]

Sorry, your summation implies a reversal or contravening of military protocol from the era, which was adhered to by the soutache removal ca. late '41.
There is no proof whatsover that it was reapplied 'during' the war but, far more evidence prevails to support that this soutache was restored 'post war' .... to make it more sellable and appetizing.

Robt.

The Schleicheses Mutzenfabrik cap would be amoung the simplest of the Heer caps to "restore", simply because there is NO practical reason to open up the cap simply to perpetrate your imagined fraud. I'm reasonably sure you would not have done so were you of a mind to. Why would you need to open up the body of the cap if your sole purpose was to represent an unmolested cap? There is absolutely no incentive for a faker to involve himself with that area of the cap as the soutache terminates above the stitchlines on this and several other makers as evidenced by the holes. I have seen these phony applications many times on non soutached caps ( notably the "beehive" caps), where two holes are punched above the stitchline, but I don't recall a case of someone opening up the front of the cap. I can't imagine that being done without leaving traces. However why this was done on this cap I cannot say. I suspect the alteration was made prior to issue, but possibly simply a change of branch. At any rate it was accomplished by someone who wanted it machine sewn, not just appearing to be so. And as I said before, I can see no sign of tampering after the cap was worn. I believe this cap is just as it was souvenired.

[OSS]

Sorry, your summation implies a reversal or contravening of military protocol from the era, which was adhered to by the soutache removal ca. late '41.


Robt.

I'm sorry if I appear disagreeable, but soutaches were discontinued in July '42. (ca.)

[RGD51]

I'm equally disagreeable unfortunately, and much more cynical. I do understand your reasoning but quite simply don't believe that's what occurred on this hat. If I had a choice to make for a DAK cap, as a collector, I do know I'd prefer a soutached cap. And the person that owned this cap previously knew they'd make more money with that branch color on there.

Robt.