another "unknown" M40 tropical cap name

[Lodsworth]

But you are not one of us and have a different agenda.....we know

Like that is.

Here's a second pattern eagle with a scale (on a black soutache-removed 1942-dated Gebrüder Alm, which happens to be in my house at the moment). Its a scan so there should be no parallax. If any of you have earlier or later eagles you could scan and put side by side with it, that might contribute to this thread — in the context of what Robert said. (I have a few photos of insignia with scales but they're taken on cameras with different lenses and I don't know how useful comparing them would be).
Mike

[Alex Ciavaglia]

Thanks Alex

Searched for the thread & the Pz wrap but could not find them ? Can you provide the link ? Seem to remember something about this and would like to followup.

Thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=488942
unfortunately the links i posted have been removed by the webmaster...

[RGD51]

Behind that eagle, running the verticle length of that seam is an inner stiffening strip which can be felt with your thumb and forefinger. Could be cloth or a thin strip of visor board like Frankensteins have. This gives the cap its rakish profile or forward lean. Another strip of buckram should run the lower circumpherence of the hat. This kept the cap from changing size as it went under the presser foot. Sometimes difficult to feel but had better be there.

Robt.

[90th Light]

When one finds the eagles still on a roll, having never been sewn on a cap. The early tropical cap eagles are not necessarily any smaller in size than the later tropical cap eagles. However, there is another reason why some may appear smaller. But I do not want to say it here because exactly how much do we want to pass on to those who fake these caps or are trying to make the perfect fake to trick people out of their money ?

Same with cockades, it is very easy to say that this maker should have this particular type of tropical cockade. But again this can become challenged in reality. We recently questioned the use of a certain type of tropical cockade machine sewn to on a certain makers tropical cap. At first, some collectors said it was not right, they did not use that type of tropical cockade. Again, further study revealed that the did and in fact a third model used by that maker was also found. Thus there are three possible tropical cockades known so far that can appear on tropical M40 caps by that maker. The other interesting revelation was a different type of tropical eagle also used by that maker. Again this posses the question, do we want this revealed here to help those who fake ? My strong feeling is that we do not.

This also brings to light another danger. It can be dangerous to generalise. While it is good to have a clear understanding of which maker did what or used this and that, exceptions to the rule can sometimes emerge. It was after all a war and these were businesses under pressure to keep production going and meet production dead-lines. Thus at times they had to use what they could get their hands on and some batches of production could vary slightly. In fact that is the real key, what batch of production from which time frame are you trying to work out as real or fake ?

Again, I raise the question, how much do we want to reveal here, to what purpose will this detailed study of tropical caps be used and by who ???

Keep in mind, "the road to hell is often paved with good intentions"

Chris

[RGD51]

Sounds to me you may be rethinking things and previous notions and criteria may be getting a revamp. I think the world wide web in its own inimitable way is changing many preconceived beliefs regarding these hats. If we’re calling out these latest trop caps then its apparent to me that the jig is up and the fakers are making some beauties... no need to keep anything under lock and key anymore. The thing about the perfect fakes is that once they get outed, theyre no longer so perfect.....eh?

Robt.

[90th Light]

Sounds to me you may be rethinking things and previous notions and criteria may be getting a revamp. I think the world wide web in its own inimitable way is changing many preconceived beliefs regarding these hats. If we’re calling out these latest trop caps then its apparent to me that the jig is up and the fakers are making some beauties... no need to keep anything under lock and key anymore. The thing about the perfect fakes is that once they get outed, theyre no longer so perfect.....eh?

Robt.

I am not rethinking things Robert, because I have never given my permission. However, my permission in the matter beyond my collection and postings is probably not important.

What is important is 3 fold;

1/ This paper on tropical M40's helps bona-fide collectors in their endevours to determine good from bad. No problems with that, in fact it is noble

2/ It provides fakers with a form of manual. This manual points out lesser known differences between good and bad. Even worse it offers advice on how to improve existing known fakes. Thus producing fakes closer to the real-deal and less detectable. On this point number 2/, I have major issues. Up until now fakers have had to do a major, time-consuming search of on-line sources/ references. In many cases, they have only had images to work off. We all know how limiting computer images only can be. Not all fakers are capable of such research. Now it is being offered to them by a qualified academic on a plate.

3/ The collecting community becomes hard and fast in their beliefs. They make constant reference to the examples quoted in a paper like this as though it is the one and only gospel. Thus the danger, unknown and lesser known pre- May 1945 originals or manufacturers variations from the norm, are instantly condemned rather than studied with an open-mind. A situation where diamonds get thrown out with the dirt. I have always believe in this approach as I know you have. In fact you began this thread with such an approach which is commendable.

I suppose some will say, the paper on tropical M40 caps can be up-dated with time and the lesser known makers/ variations added. However, again I warn that this provides fakers with an instant ongoing manual from which to improve their next generation of reproductions.

IMO there is a serious need for caution before the gene is fully out of the bottle,

Chris

[dakcollector]

Fake DAK M40 caps

Gentlemen,
A quick dip into this thread, which I have been watching (along with the three also posted) with interest. I agree with Chris regarding the three other m40's also up for discussion. The same copper thread to attach all three late pattern cockades in exactly the same method...? Let alone the other red flags (grommets, sweatbands).
These are very well produced fakes - no doubt - and these WILL sell as original in time to someone who has not done their homework.
Mark.
NZ

I completely agree with Mark, Chris, Ramsey (OSS), Mr. Singer and other well respected collectors on this Forum that all these M40 DAK caps are well made reproductions. Period. Several points of concern have already been highlighted with these caps that don't need repeating. Sharing all this information is one of the greatest values of the WAF yet also a great liability when used in nefarious ways.

[Tim O'Keefe]

Thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=488942
unfortunately the links i posted have been removed by the webmaster...

Hi Aex, thanks for the link & no thanks to the webmaster. But i do get the picture

[Tim O'Keefe]

I am not rethinking things Robert, because I have never given my permission. However, my permission in the matter beyond my collection and postings is probably not important.

What is important is 3 fold;

1/ This paper on tropical M40's helps bona-fide collectors in their endevours to determine good from bad. No problems with that, in fact it is noble

2/ It provides fakers with a form of manual. This manual points out lesser known differences between good and bad. Even worse it offers advice on how to improve existing known fakes. Thus producing fakes closer to the real-deal and less detectable. On this point number 2/, I have major issues. Up until now fakers have had to do a major, time-consuming search of on-line sources/ references. In many cases, they have only had images to work off. We all know how limiting computer images only can be. Not all fakers are capable of such research. Now it is being offered to them by a qualified academic on a plate.

3/ The collecting community becomes hard and fast in their beliefs. They make constant reference to the examples quoted in a paper like this as though it is the one and only gospel. Thus the danger, unknown and lesser known pre- May 1945 originals or manufacturers variations from the norm, are instantly condemned rather than studied with an open-mind. A situation where diamonds get thrown out with the dirt. I have always believe in this approach as I know you have. In fact you began this thread with such an approach which is commendable.

I suppose some will say, the paper on tropical M40 caps can be up-dated with time and the lesser known makers/ variations added. However, again I warn that this provides fakers with an instant ongoing manual from which to improve their next generation of reproductions.

IMO there is a serious need for caution before the gene is fully out of the bottle,

Chris

Completely agree 100% Chris this post is Brilliant and by far the most important post on this entire thread.
Besides post#79 that goes along with it. As usual you are more elequent than i.
Permission, not the only one. This paper only helps the fakers, there is no good reason to do that. They never had it easier & this paper is not something that collectors should swallow as the bible of M40's either. But the threadstarter has a different agenda.

We must be very careful that the diamonds don't get thrown out with the dirt...

[Bekora]

All a faker has to do is just buy an original hat copy it and resell the original. All this about a manual from which to improve their next generation of reproductions is rubbish if they want to copy it they will. Better to help collectors knowledge to what’s out there now, and try to get a take on what’s to come. That’s my opinion. <?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

[msteve21]

Originally Posted by Bekora, All a faker has to do is just buy an original hat copy it and resell the original. All this about a manual from which to improve their next generation of reproductions is rubbish if they want to copy it they will. Better to help collectors knowledge to what’s out there now, and try to get a take on what’s to come. That’s my opinion. >>

Agree, research far out ways the risk of some one attempting to make a fake cap. We should be grateful to those who undertake the time and effort to produce such documents or books.

Several years ago a collector sent an original early model tropical to cap to India to be copied. They simplify deconstructed the cap, made a pattern and reproduced it. These copies were then sold on to the Reenactor market. By far the most convincing copies I've ever seen except for the eyelets and they came without insignia. He didn't need a research manual to get it right.

Mark S