Heer cut off breast eagle..

[Welsh RS]

Just added this great cut off breast eagle to my collection, wanted to post it up to show you guys..








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lloyds]

not a great fan of this one looks a bit home made

[Welsh RS]

not a great fan of this one looks a bit home made

That’s disappointing to hear... thanks for your thoughts Lloyd’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lloyds]

this is more of what you should expect to see not always zigzag stitch i also have a few straight stitch ones but the one you show is a bit crude even for a hand stitch one

[Welsh RS]

this is more of what you should expect to see not always zigzag stitch i also have a few straight stitch ones but the one you show is a bit crude even for a hand stitch one

Awesome cut offs mate... have you been collecting them long ? This is only my second cut off, the other I have is this luft -






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darth2a]

Eagle itself looks okay, but I agree with the stitching method being wonky. Looks like some one "made" a cutoff with a legit eagle.

[WalterB]

this is more of what you should expect to see not always zigzag stitch i also have a few straight stitch ones but the one you show is a bit crude even for a hand stitch one

The ones Lloyds displays are nice factory-issued (or at least, competent tailor produced) examples, no doubt in my mind about their authenticity. So is Welsh's lovely LW eagle cutoff! Hand-stitched examples are more iffy, but authentic examples definitely exist.

As far as the existing example from Welsh, the hand stitching is so crude, it could be authentic. In my view, a faker would probably take more care in applying a better stitch application. But this is admittedly, a leap of faith on my part. By the way, a couple of things that I like in Welsh's example are:

(a) the machine stitching at the bottom of the cutoff (see picture of the reverse of the cutoff). That was the stitching of the top part of the breast pocket -- nice little detail that supports the idea of authenticity (as opposed to the notion that a faker stitched the eagle on a random piece of cloth).

(b) the worn portions of the cloth in the exterior (front) side of the cutoff (compare it to the less worn area in the interior (reverse) side of the cutoff). This makes sense since the exterior of a jacket would be exposed to more "wear and tear" than the interior.

Based on all this, I would say "maybe -- probably ok" on Welsh's cutoff. If I had to guess, the eagle could be a field-applied replacement to a worn jacket. I know that to many collectors, a "maybe" or an educated (hopefully!) guess is not good enough -- me included. That is why, unless you are comfortable with the provenance of a particular piece, it is probably better to stick to textbook, factory/competent tailor-stitched examples.

This is just my $0.02 and I have been wrong many times before and will, undoubtedly, be wrong many more times in the future.

The area of cutoff collecting is fascinating because authentic pieces often talk to you. Some even scream! But you often have to play detective and focus on the details. That makes it challenging, but worthwhile, as well. Keep on collecting cutoffs gents!

[Darth2a]

The ones Lloyds displays are nice factory-issued (or at least, competent tailor produced) examples, no doubt in my mind about their authenticity. So is Welsh's lovely LW eagle cutoff! Hand-stitched examples are more iffy, but authentic examples definitely exist.

As far as the existing example from Welsh, the hand stitching is so crude, it could be authentic. In my view, a faker would probably take more care in applying a better stitch application. But this is admittedly, a leap of faith on my part. By the way, a couple of things that I like in Welsh's example are:

(a) the machine stitching at the bottom of the cutoff (see picture of the reverse of the cutoff). That was the stitching of the top part of the breast pocket -- nice little detail that supports the idea of authenticity (as opposed to the notion that a faker stitched the eagle on a random piece of cloth).

(b) the worn portions of the cloth in the exterior (front) side of the cutoff (compare it to the less worn area in the interior (reverse) side of the cutoff). This makes sense since the exterior of a jacket would be exposed to more "wear and tear" than the interior.

Based on all this, I would say "maybe -- probably ok" on Welsh's cutoff. If I had to guess, the eagle could be a field-applied replacement to a worn jacket. I know that to many collectors, a "maybe" or an educated (hopefully!) guess is not good enough -- me included. That is why, unless you are comfortable with the provenance of a particular piece, it is probably better to stick to textbook, factory/competent tailor-stitched examples.

This is just my $0.02 and I have been wrong many times before and will, undoubtedly, be wrong many more times in the future.

The area of cutoff collecting is fascinating because authentic pieces often talk to you. Some even scream! But you often have to play detective and focus on the details. That makes it challenging, but worthwhile, as well. Keep on collecting cutoffs gents!

Well said Sir.

[upbeek]

Agree the material it’s sewn to looks better than some machine sewn examples,
It’s bad diy sewing but where did it come from?

Kind regards Chay

[Lloyds]

[QUOTE=Welsh RS;8500940]Awesome cut offs mate... have you been collecting them long ? This is only my second cut off, the other I have is this luft -

I have a few cut offs most of my eagles are unissued but i pick up any cut offs that i like the look of so far about 20 your luft eagle is a nice example and textbook but the army one will always be open to speculation

[Mark_K]

Hi Welsh RS,

With apologies, I am not convinced by your army cut-off. The stitching is not typical of the period. However, the eagle itself is a 100% good M36 example.

I collect eagles, and there are many original examples that exist in their unissued form, on strips of backing cloth. I love those, but some people try to bump up the value by taking an unissued eagle and stitching it to a piece of field-grey cloth. Once you learn the 'red flags' to watch out for, it becomes easier to spot the post-war made 'cut-off' eagles.

I went through my collection, and found that I do not have a lot of cut-offs. However, I do have a few, so here they are.

The first is an army M40 eagle, with pale zig-zag thread that is - apparently - typical of the Belgium-based Reitz uniform factory.

[Mark_K]

And this is the only Luftwaffe cut-off that I own.

Note the little bit of tunic liner on the back, which matches what is on yours.

[Mark_K]

And here is one that I bought from the stand, but which I think is probably a post-war creation.

The eagle is an original second-pattern waffenrock eagle, of the type that was often applied to standard army issue tunics to customise them and make them look better, such as happened with 'walking out' tunics.

So why do I not trust it? Well, the cloth is wrong for a waffenrock, but right - possibly - for a field uniform. However, if this eagle was laid on top of a factory applied eagle, you would see the normal stitching on the back. There is no stitching on the back, which indicates that there is not a factory-applied eagle under this one.

So what exactly is this eagle?

In my opinion, it is an original waffenrock 2nd pattern breast eagle that has been sewn to a piece of field-grey cloth to make it look like a tunic removed example.

It might - if we really stretch our credulity - be a genuine cut-off from a tailor-made walking out army field tunic, but my credulity does not stretch that far!

[Steve Sherlock]

Actually all the nice examples of machine sewn eagles don't do us any good here. The OP's eagle doesn't pretend to be a machine sewn eagle. As we all know, many of the earlier field blouses had hand sewn eagles. So, stick with those. There are good arguments made both ways above on this piece. As had been mentioned above, one thing I find compelling in favor of the piece is the mark where the pocket flap once was.

Steve

[Lloyds]

[quote=steve sherlock;8501517]actually all the nice examples of machine sewn eagles don't do us any good here.

I think they do serve to show what a factory finished looks like to collectors who havent got or seen one


the op's eagle doesn't pretend to be a machine sewn eagle.

???? The guy put it up so it can be discussed

as we all know, many of the earlier field blouses had hand sewn eagles.

This is nothing like you would expect from 1930s-40s original sewing


so, stick with those. There are good arguments made both ways above on this piece. As had been mentioned above, one thing i find compelling in favor of the piece is the mark where the pocket flap once was.

Dont you think that 2 lines of machine stitching cant be faked

the big problem with this one for the owner is when it comes up for resale





1