Depot queen or wartime used Attic Queen?

[Daniel.S]

Which ones do you guys prefer? and why?

Both are untouched since war , still the used one is something many would never buy.

Its quite interesting how an actual battle used tunic is unwanted....

[The Other Brian]

Salty dog field tunics are best. But for waffenrocke and geschonten you want them clean and bright. I like field tunics that show a few scars....

[jacquesf]

The history of a warehouse or the history of a war. Real history for me any time. J

[AntiqueWW2]

Nothing can beat a Battle worn Tunic. Personal, i would always take a worn Tunic over any other unused Depo Crap.

[NickG]

The history of a warehouse or the history of a war. Real history for me any time. J

Both represent war time German soldiers...a true "alte hase" and a recruit.
or in occupation service duty and (HKL) during front line service...
Of course soldiers also renewed uniform while pulled from the front,
on leave, convalescing, in barracks etc...
Used and mint/near mint uniforms both make fine representations for display purposes.

[phild]

The issue with damage and to degree even wear is when did it occur? Rough condition does not always mean wartime inflicted and in my observations rough condition is usually or mostly not wartime.

I’ve seen a lot of damaged rough condition tunics over the last 45 years. I’d venture to say that maybe 1 out of 10 or 20 of those were more or less as worn heavy used combat tunics.

I can not say about the damage on the example shown, but I would have to account for that kind of lower pocket damage happening in service. My guess right now is that it is rodent damage getting to crumbs or seeds left in the pockets.

[OSS]

The issue with damage and to degree even wear is when did it occur? Rough condition does not always mean wartime inflicted and in my observations rough condition is usually or mostly not wartime.

I’ve seen a lot of damaged rough condition tunics over the last 45 years. I’d venture to say that maybe 1 out of 10 or 20 of those were more or less as worn heavy used combat tunics.

I can not say about the damage on the example shown, but I would have to account for that kind of lower pocket damage happening in service. My guess right now is that it is rodent damage getting to crumbs or seeds left in the pockets.

I agree, signs of genuine wear is appealing but most "salty" tunics presented on the forum usually show evidence of postwar neglect. Rodent and insect damage and rust, mold, fading and water stains acquired in barns, garages and attics is hardly combat wear.

[AntiqueWW2]

I am not talking about a Tunic with 100 Holes from mooth or what ever, i am talking about a Combat Worn Tunic, with real WEAR, and real wear you simple can't fake, impossible. I have seen countless ways the Idiots try to do it, but that simple is not possible.

Take a look at one of my Tunics what is worn, and noone messed with it after the war, all Insignias are period on it, and here you really can see it. Comes like this from the Hands of the Vet himself. Look at the left Sleeve. It was seewn into the Pocket because he lost his Arm at the end of 1943.

And then look at any Depo Tunic what is unworn and never was a Day in Combat. Not for me, i need to see it was there.

[Lloyds]

Combat worn is probably the most over used description on this forum to discribe a sexed up worn out rodent damage and bad storage But really how can anyone prove this statement of combat worn

[JasonA]

Also important to think about the ratio of combat soldiers in relation to all those who supported the front lines. Just because a uniform shows what most collectors would conclude to be honest, period wear, doesn’t mean it saw actual combat.

There’s history associated with any piece, regardless of whether it was worn abundantly or infrequently, associated with the man who owned it, or the unit or branch of the piece.

J-

[phild]

I agree with posts 9 and 10 and I was going to make those points earlier. A lot of items saw up to 10 years or so of service but necessary in combat or even in a operational area, except by 1945 it all was an operational area.

Some wear and tear can be pretty well determined to be combat use related, like shrapnel holes with bloodstains but other wear and damage can be more difficult to call.

[AntiqueWW2]

There are something called Nametags. 90% of my Tunics have it, and then you know if it saw Combat or not. And there is no History associated with any Piece, as long as you are not able to tell it. What i have from the nicest Tunic when you don't know nothing about it? A Piece of Cloth, not much more. Same goes for Medals or anything else. Just my Opinion, but i want to know who owned it and what was the History behind my Items. A Tunic what comes out of a Depo and is unworn? Whats the History of that? The Tailor sew it together?

Also important to think about the ratio of combat soldiers in relation to all those who supported the front lines. Just because a uniform shows what most collectors would conclude to be honest, period wear, doesn’t mean it saw actual combat.

There’s history associated with any piece, regardless of whether it was worn abundantly or infrequently, associated with the man who owned it, or the unit or branch of the piece.

J-

[Lloyds]

There are something called Nametags. 90% of my Tunics have it, and then you know if it saw Combat or not. And there is no History associated with any Piece, as long as you are not able to tell it. What i have from the nicest Tunic when you don't know nothing about it? A Piece of Cloth, not much more. Same goes for Medals or anything else. Just my Opinion, but i want to know who owned it and what was the History behind my Items. A Tunic what comes out of a Depo and is unworn? Whats the History of that? The Tailor sew it together?

A name tag is,nt proof of combat each man had more than one tunic normally .a lot of wear on tunics is probably on some from post war film use and bad storage a few years back some of the militaria shops in islington had hundreds of tunics some striped of insignia from German film studios and just a few years back lots came ot of Angels costume house in london now all re done and probably now combat worn but in the real world how do you really know unless there is some evidence

[AntiqueWW2]

??? u funny right?Of course it is. It just depend where you get your Stuff from. Most Tunics i own, i got from the Vet himself, out of his Hands or the Family, together with his Story. And now tell me what more proof you need and what is better? Some Depo Crap or unnamed something with no background or history at all, or something where you are able to tell who was wearing it in the War. I can only talk about myself, what i have from the best looking Tunic, or the best looking KC....when i am unable to connect it with the Person who was wearing it? Nothing is my Answer to that. I can tell about almost every Item i own the History behind it. And to me that is why i collect. Not much of interest for me to walk into a Store put 12K on the Table and walk out with a KC ect.

A name tag is,nt proof of combat each man had more than one tunic normally .a lot of wear on tunics is probably on some from post war film use and bad storage a few years back some of the militaria shops in islington had hundreds of tunics some striped of insignia from German film studios and just a few years back lots came ot of Angels costume house in london now all re done and probably now combat worn but in the real world how do you really know unless there is some evidence

[rbno]

This is an interesting thread. It may get ugly very quickly. Everyone will have his own opinion, and many will be quite passionate about what they consider to be the only real way to collect. That’s why I don’t discuss religion.

My personal preference for garments, headgear, etc. is for “gently used” with slight REAL age and wear. In other words, the way it was when it came into possession of the GI that sent it home or the way it was at the end of the war if it was not a war souvenir. Naturally, living on my side of the pond, I have limited access to items that remained in German hands after the war. On the other hand, for smalls such as insignia and badges, and for field gear, I normally prefer depot queens. It really depends on the item.

I get tired of seeing insect damaged, rust stained insignia dirty on both sides, and with no hint of having been sewn on, being proudly presented as salty combat used treasures. For the most part, the only battle most of these items have seen is the battle of the basement. Yes, it’s a pet peeve!

For me, true depot queens are somewhat devoid of real character, but do show what the item really started out looking like. In the case of uniforms, most depot queens have at least lost paper tags and acquired shoulder straps through the years.

Just my thoughts, and I know many will dissagree.

Alen