here is a close up of the (moth?) damage to the elbow area. I am starting to get depressed. 
-
-
If I compare the tunic to the pants it get's pretty obvious to me that they come from the same source. It features the same fabrics, grey thread and buttonholes. The inside of the collar was almost always made of thick, rough, unbleached linen canvas and not what appears to be white cotton twill, probably the same fabric used as pockets in the trousers. It's also very suspicious that the moths mostly only ate the linen hbt and not the all so tasty wool the tunic is made of. And of course, the stamps look identical, looking at the 'Reitz' and '104'.Comment
-
Not for me either,don't like the lining,markings etc.
Here is a real one from this maker. http://www.virtualgrenadier.com/sale_item.php?iid=2680
Glenn"A Man's Got to Know His Limitations"Comment
-
not original ,cut looks strange reitz stamp looks bad ,mothing on hbt under collar looks like made with a knife .Comment
-
wowza...fooled me. I will keep this one in the memory for future reference.
Regards,
Chris G.Comment
-
Probably no need to pile on here, but I too have some REAL doubts about this tunic being original.
I don't care for the fabric of the tunic or the lining....nor even the stampings. The big problem for me is the way those shoulder seams (one visible) in the top half of post #5. Real ones (on issue tunics) are overlapped with the raised edge facing front. This was always done. This one appears to have an inverted seam here.....it would not have been made like that on an issue tunic.Comment
-
Chris, you and me both! but I dished out $1200. for it!
I love your statement "friends don't let friends buy zinc",... nice one!
Glenn, I respect your opinion the most, as I and collector friends of mine, consider you the expert on cloth. hcliffe a friend and forum member will check it out tomorrow in hand and compare with an original M43 of his. we know the outcome, but will report on it and hopefully no one else makes the mistake I made.
Thanks for everyones input. / lesson learned; do this before buying.
the seller, Igor has 100% feedback (lesandfield), and seems to be a standup guy so far. Hopefully he dosn't do the old "they don't know what they are talking about" crap that defensive sellers cling to when questioned.
Thanks again everyone!
Comment
-
I also thought that the jacket is original, copies are now very tricky!
A question, but the eagle is original to me, I'm wrong?Comment
-
This one is actually a pretty bad fake.Originally posted by U-21 View Post
The tricky ones are 100 times better than this one.
Daniel.Comment
-
-
The eagle and Litzen are likely real. But of course there are plenty of real eagles on fake jackets, just as there are real jackets with fake insignia.
I do agree with Daniel that this one is a fairly easy call and that more dangerous fakes exist.Comment
-
Thank specification, this is true! Many replicas are manufactured with original signs.Comment
-
this is the response I got;
hi Norman, the tunic is original and GREAT. The motenholes was cleaned by me from the rest of dust made by insects (enimals).The hook was the same on the greatcoat from Reitz (with leather parts on the sholders). All opinions the theard parties for me are not valid, I never speak on forums anymore, because on good things somebody say bad, and to bad - good. I accept only my OWN opinion and I think it is the best way.
Kind Regards,
Igor
Comment
-
I do not recall ever seeing this type of ribbed sateen lining in original enlisted tunics or caps but it appears quite regularly on the forum in caps and uniforms posted for comment. It seems to be one of the "go to" materials used by modernday replica manufacturers.Comment
-
also the eagle replica?
Comment