First tunic

[I Marotto]

This is my first tunic and they are not my forte I picked it up for a combat display. I do know that the boards do not match and are for an earlier tunic and have the cyphers removed and the eagle is early and its on what looks to be a green felt backing it is not sewn through the lining. I was told the tress is luft/SS style and was not uncommonn on late war tunics it looks to be original to the tunic other than a resewn button which all have the same mark and a couple of moth nips it is in good shape and retains most of its nap other than this I know nothing about it I look forward to your opinions.
Thanks
Ian

[I Marotto]

more pics

[I Marotto]

couple more

[CSP]

The tunic itself is alright. However I believe all of the insignia would most likely have been added post war. The Luftwaffe tresse in and of itself is not a big problem...it did sometimes appear on Heer uniforms. However, it is not positioned correctly (should be along the lower collar edge and along front edge more than it is). It is also an unusual breast eagle for such a uniform.

[I Marotto]

The tunic itself is alright. However I believe all of the insignia would most likely have been added post war. The Luftwaffe tresse in and of itself is not a big problem...it did sometimes appear on Heer uniforms. However, it is not positioned correctly (should be along the lower collar edge and along front edge more than it is). It is also an unusual breast eagle for such a uniform.

Scott can you explain a little more to me about the eagle is it that it is not right because of eagle or the felt backing also I was wondering which mark identifys the size
Thanks
Ian

[Chris Taylor]

Ian,
The tunic itself looks good to me.
I have to agree with Scott that the positioning of the tress is a bit off, which could mean that it's a post war addition. Does it look like the collar tab is stiched over the Tress?

Your correct that the boards are an early variety. The eagle looks original, but the blue/black material underneath it doesn't look right to me for this type of tunic.
So it could be that these are indeed post war additions.

Also, if I'm not mistaken the size marking is the number in the middle. In this case 96.

[I Marotto]

Ian,
The tunic itself looks good to me.
I have to agree with Scott that the positioning of the tress is a bit off, which could mean that it's a post war addition. Does it look like the collar tab is stiched over the Tress?

Your correct that the boards are an early variety. The eagle looks original, but the blue/black material underneath it doesn't look right to me for this type of tunic.
So it could be that these are indeed post war additions.

Also, if I'm not mistaken the size marking is the number in the middle. In this case 96.

Chris
Unfotunately my picture shows it to be black but it is the same color green as the boards and same type material maybe felt? As far as the collar tabs the tress passes over the tab in a couple of spots it looks like they tried to but the tress up against the collar tabs. I will attach photos for you to look at I actually found a scrap of paper with some pencil writing to faint to tell what it says along with old tobacco and cigarette paper in the pockets?
Thanks for everyone ones help so far
Ian

[John Pic]

Having examined this tunic in hand when Ian made his choice I would offer a word of caution to him regarding purist opinions of insignia placement.The tress appears original to the tunic and was possibly a field upgrade which concern for position wasnt an issue as they werent planning on pleasing the eye of a collector later on.
The eagle is in fact a later war version that was sewn to a piece of bottle green backing cloth as seen on alot of earlier tunics.Probably done as a personal preference and not in the least suspicious or dubious in nature.
The boards are early and mismatched but both are in the same state of wear.Period photos found in many books show soldiers in the period of 1944 wearing such mismatched uniforms so nothing is out of place here.The tunic itself was manufactured in 1944.No its not a textbook M36 or 43 with texbook matching insignias but more of a real true representative of what the German Soldier was wearing in 1944-45. you have a real combat display piece Ian.No one can tell if insignias were added post war by looking at this there is no such expert,The only way to tell is by examining the materials in hand,if the insignias were outright fake,or if it was sewn over moth tracking.Stitching styles and oddities like the tress sewn on a bit off kilter can be found in all sorts of wartime photos so it is proof of nothing except a possible field promotion.

[CSP]

Ian:
You have a variety of opinions here to cast your lot with, so we are providing what you sought in the thread . This is both a challenge and an attraction of this hobby - so much is in the eye of the beholder. You have to be satisfied above all else. It is hard to argue that this piece conforms to the norm - and no one is - so you at least have consensus there. With enough caveats, anything can be deemed possible and explained to the point where it starts being believable. In the millions of Germans that wore the uniform, there are plenty of examples of a variety of deviations in an otherwise standardized army.

What I meant about the eagle is that it is atypical of the type found on such uniforms. Such a practice was more common on a service uniform or a dress uniform I believe. The fact that it appears as a later version of the field-type breast eagle versus the earlier silver "Bevo" style more commonly found on such a backing is curious to me. Not impossible...just not standard in my experience. However, it looks professionally applied to the backing...yet somewhat less professionally sewn to the garment itself. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that it is the original breast eagle to this tunic. Having it in one's own hands is always best, but not necessary to form an opinion. I'm just not of the opinion it is original to the tunic from what I see.

As I take everything in to account regarding the insignia on this uniform, it is my conclusion that it is all probably all post-war replaced...and not very well done at that. That may be my tendancy toward not liking to have to append a lot of "could-ifs and maybes" to account for deviations on something in order to explain what does not otherwise appeal to my own experiences and research in collecting. It is always easier to measure against a standard or norm...but not in and of itself definitive.

John could just as well be right and the other opinions wrong. He's handled the uniform, so you have at least one eye-witness opinion. There is always room for error either way. I've given yo the best I can.

[John Pic]

Well I could be wrong to but to me the eagle appeared to be period applied but I wouldnt know without a scientific analysis of the thread used to sew it on.The boards are probably added post war or the guy was just using what he could get.You could fetch a nice matching set and fix that.The tress once again without analysis its not possible to tell when it was done.It is not standard that is correct,but leaf through the Davis book you will see alot of that in late war photos.