U-170 visor cap to Gerold Hauber

[ratisbon's]

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate your comments on the visor cap of this grouping which is of course not the one showing on the photograph.

Thanks!
Klaus

www.ratisbons.com +++ www.ratisbons.com

[Michel]

Hello,
An atypical one but probably good. Pictures Under the sweatband welcome.
Best regards.
Michel

.

[km-spain]

Hi, from pictures no big red flags with this one, but very atypical maker and lining, and really strange chinstrap, never seen one like this before.

[stonemint]

The bullion scallops are not flush with the leatherette visor trim as we like to see, but this may be a maker variation.


I have never seen a wartime Marcker (just postwar ones) but this is not like those.


I think it has a chance, but I need to see under the hood.

[R.Beck]

Scallops were the first major red flag. Only true test is to see what lurks behind the sweatband

[Kurt]

I have never seen a wartime Marcker (just postwar ones) but this is not like those.

One clue might be that Wesermünde changed its name to Bremerhaven in 1947.

Kurt

[ratisbon's]

One clue might be that Wesermünde changed its name to Bremerhaven in 1947.

here are the pictures as requested.

[R.Beck]

Your photos are appreciated, but the support structure of the cap is needed which is located behind the liner. For example, is it cardboard, plastic, a fiber resin material? I believe that would satisfy any doubts anyone here may have

[ratisbon's]

Sorry, I don't want to risk damaging anything but there is certainly no plastic.

[Michel]

Hello,
Even if the support structure is not visible, construction and materials seems to be correct.
Michel

.

[R.Beck]

Hello,
Even if the support structure is not visible, construction and materials seems to be correct.
Michel

.

"Even if the support structure is not visible" interesting how you drew that conclusion. Since when has it not become important to look at the composition of the support structure???

[Michel]

"Even if the support structure is not visible" interesting how you drew that conclusion. Since when has it not become important to look at the composition of the support structure???

Sorry, I reply on a edited post

Quote
Oh really..So you'd be absolutely ok if Ratisbons says that the support is cardboard? And your ok with the scallops not touching the edges as well? And you have no problem with the chinstrap?? Ok, well I guess we're re-writing KM visor construction 101.
You can't even use the excuse that this is French made etc as it clearly has a German manufacturer label, so essentially this theory flies in the face of years of postings and thread discussions and most importantly KM literature.
I confess Michel, your final conclusions have me scratching my head.

Perhaps, you could indulge us all here and enlighten us as to what exactly besides correct badges and a seemingly ok underbelly on the visor itself , leads you to believe this is KM period headgear? Was there some advancement in KM authentication that I'm not aware of where its no longer important to look behind the lining to see the type of support structure?? You've given the here for years on caps with far less negative attributes, but for some unknown reason your willing to go out on a limb with this one without seeing the entire cap

My mistake Mr. Ratisbon, your visor cap is a great example of KM headgear
End quote


Do not say what I did not say, indeed if the stiffener strip is made of cardboard this will be a big problem.
For the scallops, you must think that some visors sometimes have fairly wide borders, this small shrinkage is not an absolute copy critera.
For the chinstrap it is atypical but does not resemble the copies encountered usually. One of my attributed cap has a similar one I think. Maybe a replacement.
I am almost persuaded that the stiffener band of this cap is in black rhodoid.

There are textbook caps and time to time there are caps made by small manufacturers that differ somewhat. Making and materials can change but some characteristics still present. At the collector to like or not.

This cap can not be bought on photos only, a hand inspection will be required to be 100% sure.

Finally, I have my criteria and do not think I have done a lot of mistakes in the past. I can be affirmative in positive or negative when I am 100% sure. For this cap I can't be so affirmative. It will be up to the buyer to form an opinion, but it is not logical in the state to break that cap definitely.

I think this thread will once again be a lesson to keep me out of forum discussions.

Sorry for my English.

Michel


PS : I have no interest with Ratisbon, look my position on the Hauber's reefer tunic.

.

[ratisbon's]

Just one more thing I would like to add.

We contacted the granddaughter of the factory owners. The factory is still excisting today. She confirmed the factory was bombed during WW2 and production has stopped. Her grandparents startet again in 1950. It makes no sense to me they would have used old labels with their old address to make new caps. Exspecially, if we keep in mind that the name of the city has changed in 1947.

[Michel]

Wartime pictures, the true information.

Again, it is not a 100% validation for the "Hauber's cap", only an indication for an element.

Klaus, take precautions of course but look the material stiffener, certainly a good thing for this cap.

Michel

.

[R.Beck]

I believe once the material is identified regarding the interior band , we could probably put this debate to rest. At an 8,000 Euro starting bid for the lot, I think it'd benifit the auction house