Announcement

**BenVK** · 05-11-2006, 05:16 AM

Check out how far up the chincord buttons are on his crusher! nearly half way up the centre band..

I couldn't agree more that looking at period photos and footage is the key to unravelling the truth about clothing regulations and what was worn in reality.

**NTZ** · 05-11-2006, 05:35 AM

Peter the photo of the Standard you posted has the same lining as some of my Erel’s. I still consider this somewhat of a finished edge. Instead of the real pretty finish, they are finished off with a slight fray (but always neat and uniform). Now compare the edge to the cap in question; still a big difference on how the lining is finished off at the ends. Also look at the ribbing. Not as pronounced as my Privat but sill much more pronounced that the cap in question. Just out of curiosity is that Standard a Luft? I see a stitched edge visor.

Donald also made a great observation regarding the art of the folds.

Attached Files

Untitled-2 copy.JPG (134.4 KB, 449 views)

**Peter v L** · 05-11-2006, 06:50 AM

Well, it is not a finsihed edge, it is just cut. But I can agree with you it is still looks neat! The fraying is just a matter of how wide the side panel is, the shorter it is, the more it will start to fray, and the more tha cap is worn, also will make it fray more..........I only have 2 Erel caps here for the moment, so I have nothing more to show from. As all saved photos on Heer caps do not have pictures under the sweatband, only the SS ones have that.

Yes, the Erels showed here is a Luft cap

I mere wanted to show that the edge can be cut and then fraying will start.

It is also different between the cotton and the rayon panels, the cotton ones fray more, and also don´t have the same neat folding as the material is looser and not so "nice" as the rayon.

Also the nice folding is a matter of how much material the side panels are made of, the lesser material used for them, the less neather foldings. So if the panels are not wide enough they will not be nicely folded..........and if they are to short, they will be sewn like this (It is not from a Erel cap, but I have had a couple looking the exat same way with the machine stiching) as it was not enough material to fold nicely.

This you mainly see on the later caps, I would say on caps produced from 1942 and onwards..............

I will be back to this thread when I get a cap which better show these features.......

Cheers
Peter

**NTZ** · 05-11-2006, 12:31 PM

Well I will just finish off with this. I am not saying the piece is authentic nor am I saying it is a fake. I just don’t have enough experience with SS visors and I have never handled the piece. So my position will remain neutral.

What I am saying is that is does deviate significantly from what the norm is for an Erel visor of any branch. It deviates not only in material but also quality of workmanship. I have never been a fan of the pre-war, early war and late war arguments on quality. At least not with Erel’s. Yes, Peter is correct in the changes Erel made regarding the maker marks later in the war. Yes some Erels have no maker mark, but even these late war examples still show a constant quality. The piece in question is NOT a late war piece. In fact if we are to use regulation time frames it is a rather early piece. The craftsmanship on the piece in question to me is substandard and opens the door to even more questions.

I am not too sure what Peter was showing in his last photo (no disrespect intended)

. That is a contract piece from another maker. Sure plenty of visors have raw cuts to the linings edge. Sure they frayed but we are talking about an Erel private purchase piece here. My felling from all the Erel’s that I have seen is that the fray on the edge of the lining was intentional, not the effects of time. Everyone is done in a very clean uniform manor.

I would also ask, does anyone have a photo of an “Erel” with the ventilation grommet similar to the piece in question? I have never seen a second type of grommet used by Erel. Maybe someone has a photo so that question can be answer.

In the end I am not trying to condemn the piece, just open up the dialog amongst collectors to see if we can answer unanswered questions. I think the first step in determining authenticity (or not)is to address and find other examples of Erel visors that deviate from what is considered the “norm” in the same ways as the subject visor.

**Peter v L** · 05-11-2006, 12:42 PM

That is fine, we will not agree all the time.

We will agree to disagree here..............

The Brown piped cap in this thread i would place to manufacture around 1943, looking at the materials used. Forgett the regulations, they mean nothing, as period photos show these caps worn to the last day of the war, also in a condition which shows they must have been purchased long after the regulated period.

The cap pictured (as a example) merely showed how I have seen some mid to late war Erels look under the sweatband..........

I will post more photos as I have the chance to make them, to show you how mid to late war Erels can look under the sweatband.

Cheers
Peter

**Martin Stiles** · 05-11-2006, 03:37 PM

Regulations ?

When time permits I will offer scan of a statement from a Das Reich veteran, stating how he procured his red piped visor cap in OCT 1941

**Dave Kane** · 05-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Hello all! I have only recently been directed to this post.....

The cap in question as compared to Nick's PALES and that said one needs to use logic.

I wouldn't want it in my collection based solely on the CONSTRUCTION

**SJP** · 05-13-2006, 01:06 AM

When I deviated from the "norm" on EreL's I was disappointed.The vent hole detail is unique IMO.
These visors are nearly identical in the type of material and quality of construction.They do differ in the vent hole detail and cap frame.
The Heer visor is well worn and a true testament to EreL quality.The vent hole has a high degree of verdigris.
They are both 58's and measure out correctly.The only parts of the WSS visor not original are the vent hole grommet and frame IMO

Cheers Steve

Attached Files

2005-12-30 23-10-17_resize.JPG (137.6 KB, 344 views)

**SJP** · 05-13-2006, 01:08 AM

2

Attached Files

2005-12-30 23-12-02 (2).JPG (95.2 KB, 346 views)

**NTZ** · 05-13-2006, 05:55 AM

That was surely some interesting photos. The only real thing that stands out on the put together Erel is the vent hole. One more thing to consider regarding any deviation of the vent hole grommet. This had a patent! Why would Lubstein deviate in any way shape or form from something that was protected by a patent? Wouldn’t any deviation in design not be protected by the patent? I think the air hole on the subject visor is the most significant thing in determining authenticity (or not). We still haven’t seen a photo or even a collector chime in and say they seen that “Second style” on an authentic piece yet.

One more thing I would like to add. If the reason this piece deviates from the norm in construction quality is the fact that it is a later war piece then we need to answer this. Why would Lubstein add a more elaborate vent hole if quality was going down and cost saving measures were in place? The grommet shown on the subject visor appears to be made of solid brass. This would no doubt be more expensive to produce than the standard crimped tube seen on Erel visors. If the reason for the poor quality of the lining is going be late war cost savings then why would you see a higher quality and more expensive air hole grommet appear? You can’t have you cake and eat it too.

**RUHL13** · 05-13-2006, 09:27 AM

Here is a brass grommet from infanrty officers erel visor...looks the same to me.
If it is not in a book, it does not exist? Peter has gone way out of his way to try to teach us all something here, is that not what this forum is about?
Why doubt something, because you have not seen it. Not everything was done by the book, we see this in photos, documentries,etc. And saying bad construction by a couple of pics is simply foolish.
Regards,
Gary

Attached Files

G1.JPG (14.0 KB, 332 views)

**Mike930** · 05-13-2006, 09:49 AM

Hi all. Being new here, and also being fairly new to collecting militaria, I feel as though I'm not real qualified to say a whole lot about the cap in question. But I would like to say that I find these forums a very imortant and useful tool. You learn from people who have been doing this for many years. You pick up all kinds of little bits of information. Visor caps have become one of my main interests in collecting so it's important for me to learn well to avoid a costly mistake. I feel like NTZ brings up some very valid points. Everybody has their opinion good or bad. But that's what makes these forums so good. You get insight from everybody. Somebody might bring up something that we didn't think about or didn't know. I for one am glad that these forums exsist because if they didn't I'd feel like I'm out there all alone.

Mike

**NTZ** · 05-13-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by RUHL13

Here is a brass grommet from infanrty officers erel visor...looks the same to me.
If it is not in a book, it does not exist? Peter has gone way out of his way to try to teach us all something here, is that not what this forum is about?
Why doubt something, because you have not seen it. Not everything was done by the book, we see this in photos, documentries,etc. And saying bad construction by a couple of pics is simply foolish.
Regards,
Gary

Gary, no those are not the same grommets. Please read and re-read this thread. Nothing has been “taught to us here”. No one is talking about books either. I asked has ANYONE EVER seen that type of air hole grommet before. Not one person has responded yet with photos or claims of seeing this type. Don’t dismiss the cumulated knowledge of this forum. This tread in not about Peter nor is it an attempt to slam a piece itself. It is a thread in which we all might learn something but I am sorry the word of one person over the cumulative knowledge of a forum is not going to work for most of us.

Attached Files

G1 copy.JPG (71.4 KB, 334 views)

**RUHL13** · 05-13-2006, 12:05 PM

Never said anything about books....I said by the book, meaning regulations.
Not everything went by the regulations, they were broke all the time, and yes, by the SS. I guess you have to look at this visor with an opened mind!
Regards,
Gary

**Bob Coleman** · 05-13-2006, 12:13 PM

When one encounters a 3rd Reich item that has too many anomolies from the norm, it is most likely not something to be added to a collection. We have an "Erel" visor caps with several discrepencies from known original construction methods. We have a colored piping that, if anything, is for reconissance, not KZ lager. As previously stated, the recon at the time this hat should have been made was a very small unit with few officers.
No disrepect to any of the parties involved but this piece is of the 4th Reich era IMO.
Bob

Announcement

Kz Lager Officer Visor

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread