"Pink" smock or not?

[historyguy]

My Observations

Over the past three days I spent twelve-and-a-half hours reading this thread in its entirety, start to finish. This is what I have concluded; I want to be clear-- these are, of course, my own observations. But I have no dog in this fight, and I approached this subject with as open of a mind as possible.
<O</O
To paraphrase the detractors, their key arguments are: Bad material, odd print, odd gray and green threads, a bad mixture of buttons, no drawstrings, odd/bad garment cut, no other camo material pieces added, all from the same dye lot, no period photo, no other items made from this cloth (except for helmet covers already agreed to as fake) (327, 1021).
<O</O
Now as I understand it, the supporters of pink smocks believe they are original because:
<O</O
1. "Different does not automatically mean bad" (158)
2. Laces were not installed by the manufacturer and were lost (145)
3. "The elastic taken out of a pink smock was matched exactly against a pre May 45 product" (154)
4. "They may even have had to be washed so they could have been released by customs and not destroyed" (187)
5. But not all were washed (1731/1732), or at least not all to the same extent (1412/1413)
6. "I can not make sense or account for these as fakes" (238)
7. Other originals were found in hoards long after the war (296, 297, among others)
8. "if someone had a 'silver bullet' providing hard evidence these were replica it would have been used" (346)
9. The differences between pinks and others "are really not differences at all" (376)
"the material and the colors are NOT radically different between a pink smock and a standard German piece, and it's important to realize that. In terms of material weave (tightness, thread count, weight) they are so similar to the regular German camo as to be indistinguishable” (711).
10. They are so different, that why would a faker make something with so many anomalies rather than get it right? (689)
11. The pink (or brick) color "is an effective SS camo pattern for that time" (691/707)
12. The odd fabric is because "these may be a variation that was made in 42-43 from large captured stock of substitute fabric and perhaps even made in a different country than Germany" (426).
13. The HBT has been matched to HBT in some Dachau M43 caps (647)
14. They have Russian stamps inside, which proves the smocks are original (557)
15. Having Russian stamps in them that match Rusian stamps in known originals puts them in the same place and is "100% factual physical proof of a geographical location now" (558)
16. They are type 2; a faker would have made type 1, which is easier to make and brought higher prices, hence "there could have been no money made on these if they were new made" (651, 670, 712, 1057)
"if they were fake whoever made them lost thousands of dollars back then and there is no way anyone can deny that" (378)
17. They were in Soviet inventories in 1947. (744)<O</O
18. A collector in <?xml:namespace prefix = "st1" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1lace>Spain</ST1lace></st1:country-region> write a “good/ proper/ balanced analysis” (1026,1027 1733, 1735).
19. It’s been identified as original by a veteran (507, 1594)
20. One is for sale on the Internet with <ST1lace><st1:PlaceName>Russian</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType>Museum</st1:PlaceType></ST1lace> provenance 1791).
21. “Those who continue to ignore these stamps and just insist that the smocks are fake are looking like idiots. I say this not as a derogatory personal insult toward anyone, but rather how flawed and emotional opinions are no substitue (sic) for objective analysis.” (665).<O</O

[historyguy]

The last comment, number twenty-one, echoes a sentiment that motivated me to read this entire thread. Namely, the detractors are making stuff up/presenting false information, and overall not producing any facts, only “emotional opinions”. I can say as a researcher, and as an outsider looking in, the supporters are doing the EXACT same thing—presenting “flawed and emotional opinions.”
<O</O
As for the detractors, I believe they have presented credible and objective, albeit terse, information that these were not made in <?xml:namespace prefix = "st1" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1lace>Germany</ST1lace></st1:country-region> during WWII. Supporters now seem to agree-- their current argument is that they were NOT made in <st1:country-region><ST1lace>Germany</ST1lace></st1:country-region> but in some unknown satellite country. As a neutral observer, I can understand that point. Detractors have not spent much time illustrating why the materials/construction is also not period foreign material.
<O</O
But supporters have not really presented any hard facts to prove their case, either. There is far too much guesswork, opinion and false logic providing the “objective analysis” so many claim to desire.
<O</O
1. Different does not automatically mean authentic, either.
2. Laces were not installed at the factory but upon issuance and these are unissued. Question: Why do supporters ignore the experience of two established and named collectors who say strings were indeed installed at the factory, but you happily accept the opinion of a secret, nameless collector who said they were installed when issued, not manufactured?
3. A supporter claims someone removed the elastic and identified it as 1940s period, down to the manufacturer. But they will not say who did this, or name the manufacturer (964). (As a neutral observer, the elastic eventually illustrated does not appear to be 70 years old. But that is not a fact, just an opinion.)
4. So many posts about the washing; Owen believes they were stone washed to provide fake aging; supporters say they were washed because of filthy environment they were found in. Both logical arguments; stonewashing would point to these being fake, but regular washing does not PROVE they are original. Reproductions can be washed, too.
5. Now all of a sudden not all were washed; at least not to the same extent? After all of the posts over mice droppings, the smell and foot and mouth disease; if customs required washing for hygienic reasons, would they not require extensive washing for everything in the lot?
6. Here is emotional opinion rather than objective analysis. Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t make it authentic.
7. Other hoards were determined to be fake, too.
8. Maybe they have used a “silver bullet” and it’s unnoticed by supporters. Besides, smock supporters have held back info, too (see below).
9. 10. First, another opinion, as many would argue that weave differences <st1:stockticker>ARE</st1:stockticker> distinguishable, and meaningful. But the faker still got it wrong? Yes, that is how they are identified as fakes. But they are close enough to get the job done (i.e. people accepted them as original).
11. Black is an effective color for panzer wraps, but plenty of those are fake. Pinks are also effective as a smock, they are wearable. But that does not make them original.
12. “May have,” is that a fact or opinion? Which country? The fact that Italian camo pieces are original and Norwegian camo pieces are original and does not PROVE this unidentified camo is original.
13. Has it? How, by who and when? (Remember, I have read this entire thread, and I do not remember HBT being proven.) Was anything more than a visual or touch test performed? Was the comparison made by the same person who says the pink and other camo cloths are “indistinguishable”?
14. Having original Russian stamps do not make the smocks original, they make them smocks with Russian stamps. Bob Chatt made a great point (1148) about adding stamps that has gone largely ignored. Interesting that supporters point out unstamped examples brought better prices, then ask why weren’t all smocks stamped. I’m sure the stamped ones went to novices who would have been less likely to ask questions. Why stamp any? They provide a tangible back-story to whoever wants one.
15. Stamps only provide 100% factual physical proof of location to whoever was present when the stamps were added.
16. I deny that. There is no PROOF as to how much it cost to make these. A supporter claiming to want objective analysis all of a sudden states these would have cost $100,000 to make (1178). Unless you have an invoice, that is OPINON, not fact. My opinion is these could have been made for substantially less. Type 2 smocks would sell for less, yes, but they would also be easier to sell, and would be more likely sold to a beginner/novice who wouldn’t ask questions.<O</O
17. They are stamped 1947; that does not prove they were anywhere in 1947; a backdated stamp could have been added at any time.
18. This collector in <st1:country-region><ST1lace>Spain</ST1lace></st1:country-region>, who’s article was reproduced on WAF in its entirety TWICE (and partially once) provided no sources. Granted he clearly explained his opinions, but presented no hard FACTS. In any case, a Spanish article does not make pink smocks original. It makes them supported by at least one Spaniard.
19. I respect veterans. I have interviewed and spoke with a number of veterans. They can make mistakes. The original posting simply stated he identified the pink smock; eventually the poster provided some context behind the story. But a 90+ year old man identifying a camo smock that by other supporters’ opinions is “indistinguishable” from other types… Can ANY of the supporters see there might be room for a mistake on his part?
20. Ever since I have been on WAF the mantra has ALWAYS been, “buy the item, not the story.” But, now that the story backs your opinion, it is okay to accept without question? And, how many WAF members go on and on about museums having fakes? The current sale may be interesting, but it does not PROVE the smock is original.
21. I have presented my case that supporters are also using "flawed and emotional opinions,” while they accuse detractors of such behavior. There are countless other examples (supporters saying these cannot be compared 1:1 with known originals because they are admittedly not German made, but then comparing them 1:1 with known originals because they both let through the same amount of light.)
<O</O
Do I expect anyone to agree with me? No. But it was a useful learning experience on my part, and to me, that is enough. One more thing: I found many (though certainly not all, let me be clear about that) of the smock supporters to be just as rude and insulting as some of the opponents. <O</O

[historyguy]

I did find some irony in all of this: Pink smocks are fake because “No zelt, no cover, no cap no kombi in the same pattern” (327). Yet they are original because “why would a faker in Austria<?xml:namespace prefix = "st1" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1</st1:country-region> in the early 1980's go to so much trouble in a factory setting and then not make caps, covers and zelts???? (338)
<O</O
But, after eight years and 1,900+ posts, the only two absolute, proven facts are 1) These are not of WWII German manufacture, and 2) They first entered the market via Johannes Flock in 1980/81.
<O</O
That is it. Everything else is just opinion, hearsay and specious reasoning. One of the more ardent supporters said, “Pushing opinion as fact doesn't work with me” (1891). But as an outsider with no dog in this fight, as someone with research experience, and as someone who has read this entire thread start-to-finish, that is all I see from the supporters—pushing opinion as fact.
<O</O
Two final comments:
<O</O
One of the more active supporters frequently mentions secret, anonymous sources, and does not provide sources for his “information.” And, he actually said, “there are Americans who have done that (cut up and tested a pink smock) and emailed me their results of the testing. But I am saving that for now” (920).
<O</O
Seriously? You have empirical evidence that supports your position, but you are withholding that? For what purpose? And after eight years of debate, when will it be released? Another eight years? And none of the other smock supporters called him on this?
<O</O
Can you see that that does not really make sense from a research-oriented point of view?
<O</O
Finally, in recent weeks a number of you have mentioned DougB’s excellent work on the champagne rune, and have mentioned doing something similar for the pink smock. But there are a few key differences. Doug spent a significant amount of money on his research, including removing the runes from a helmet that cost him a lot of money; apart from nutmeg buying a smock, I have seen no evidence of anyone else spending substantial money on researching this subject. Also, Doug did his own research; he didn’t try to push it off on others. So many smock supporters submit research ideas, but then want someone else to do the work. (Hey, why don’t YOU do a chemical analysis; why don’t YOU contact the museum, here is there contact information.) Finally, Doug had 200 - 300 hundred originals to study, and at least a half-dozen fakes, I doubt anyone here has that big of a camo collection; which would not do much good anyway-- supporters are now all so convinced these are foreign made that comparing them to known originals is almost pointless. Still, if anyone is serious about studying pink smocks in a methodical, scientific and scholarly way, I certainly applaud their decision and wish them the best of luck.
<O</O


(Have I presented a “good/ proper/ balanced analysis” ?)

[SJP]

Steve,

it is very hard to find photos of the Baltic & Russian SS units fighting in Russia, full stop.

You can find German newsreel/ propaganda stuff and pictures of them departing for the Russian front or when they were first formed, but sadly war time fighting/ operational images are almost non-existent.

I draw the comparison with the fighting in East Prussia 1945, film of that both on an official level and unofficial level has been found. This is also helped by the newsreels when the German re-took parts of East Prussia and wanted to show what the Russian soldiers had done.

But when it comes to non German SS units fighting Partisans and the Red Army in Russia, basically nothing.

This compounded by;

1/ we do not know if they had official news/ propaganda units attached to those SS units ?

2/ were individuals of such units allowed to have cameras ?

3/ the danger of surrender to the Russians or being taken prisoner at all (cameras/ film/ photos all lost or a death sentence ?)

4/ trying to escape to the West to surrender to the USA forces which either failed on the way (Russian forces/ Partisans) or they were handed back to the Russians by the Americans very soon after they were captured (not many made it to the West).

The non-German units I have found the most photos for is those fighting in Italy 1943 to 45 especially the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen.

The 7th SS Division wore huge amounts of SS camo clothing while fighting partisans. If that is anything to go by, it might show that camo was the norm in battle for such SS units,

Chris

Chris ,I have no doubt you have spent an enormous amount of time researching these pieces.After all these years ... NOBODY has brought forth any credible documentation to support these (IMHO). All we have are known period examples to compare to these "outliers". I don't recall a piece with more "explanations" than this. After all this new "evidence" and 40 years later they are still a $ 500 smock.
There is that satisfaction of being able to sleep at ...unfortunately these will never provide.(IMHO )
Cheers Steve

[90th Light]

Chris ,I have no doubt you have spent an enormous amount of time researching these pieces.After all these years ... NOBODY has brought forth any credible documentation to support these (IMHO). All we have are known period examples to compare to these "outliers". I don't recall a piece with more "explanations" than this. After all this new "evidence" and 40 years later they are still a $ 500 smock.
There is that satisfaction of being able to sleep at ...unfortunately these will never provide.(IMHO )
Cheers Steve

“It may take three years, it may take five, it may take ten, to reap a return in ten years, plant trees. To reap a return in 100, cultivate the people.”

― Hồ Chí Minh

It will indeed be interesting to see what emerges over time as more and more people become aware of the question marks around these and the pre-May 1945 footprints they possess like the "HBT" of the pockets,

Chris

[SJP]

“It may take three years, it may take five, it may take ten, to reap a return in ten years, plant trees. To reap a return in 100, cultivate the people.”

― Hồ Chí Minh

Perfect.... If I could just find my vapor
Cheers Steve

[nutmeg]

I did find some irony in all of this: Pink smocks are fake because “No zelt, no cover, no cap no kombi in the same pattern” (327). Yet they are original because “why would a faker in Austria<?xml:namespace prefix = "st1" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1</st1:country-region> in the early 1980's go to so much trouble in a factory setting and then not make caps, covers and zelts???? (338)
<O</O
But, after eight years and 1,900+ posts, the only two absolute, proven facts are 1) These are not of WWII German manufacture, and 2) They first entered the market via Johannes Flock in 1980/81.
<O</O
That is it. Everything else is just opinion, hearsay and specious reasoning. One of the more ardent supporters said, “Pushing opinion as fact doesn't work with me” (1891). But as an outsider with no dog in this fight, as someone with research experience, and as someone who has read this entire thread start-to-finish, that is all I see from the supporters—pushing opinion as fact.
<O</O
Two final comments:
<O</O
One of the more active supporters frequently mentions secret, anonymous sources, and does not provide sources for his “information.” And, he actually said, “there are Americans who have done that (cut up and tested a pink smock) and emailed me their results of the testing. But I am saving that for now” (920).
<O</O
Seriously? You have empirical evidence that supports your position, but you are withholding that? For what purpose? And after eight years of debate, when will it be released? Another eight years? And none of the other smock supporters called him on this?
<O</O
Can you see that that does not really make sense from a research-oriented point of view?
<O</O
Finally, in recent weeks a number of you have mentioned DougB’s excellent work on the champagne rune, and have mentioned doing something similar for the pink smock. But there are a few key differences. Doug spent a significant amount of money on his research, including removing the runes from a helmet that cost him a lot of money; apart from nutmeg buying a smock, I have seen no evidence of anyone else spending substantial money on researching this subject. Also, Doug did his own research; he didn’t try to push it off on others. So many smock supporters submit research ideas, but then want someone else to do the work. (Hey, why don’t YOU do a chemical analysis; why don’t YOU contact the museum, here is there contact information.) Finally, Doug had 200 - 300 hundred originals to study, and at least a half-dozen fakes, I doubt anyone here has that big of a camo collection; which would not do much good anyway-- supporters are now all so convinced these are foreign made that comparing them to known originals is almost pointless. Still, if anyone is serious about studying pink smocks in a methodical, scientific and scholarly way, I certainly applaud their decision and wish them the best of luck.
<O</O


(Have I presented a “good/ proper/ balanced analysis” ?)

I'm doing what I can because I want to know one way or the other. It's not about dollars spent, more about time spent. I've emailed museums and film companies in Russia and the US . We'll see what turns up one way or the other. I think the smoking gun here is the 2 original smocks with the same Russian markings so I'm focused on that avenue . I'm also trying to find other examples of original uniforms with the same markings. This is basically a guilty until proven innocent operation but no amount of screaming "fake" , insults or the usual abuse here will deter me. If I'm wrong , I'm wrong, I want to find out because it interests me.

[NickG]

Nick , Another " red heering" the soviet " Omeba" pattern was in use long before this "pattern " showed up.

Other than captured clothing can you show (period) photos of examples of German clothing copying Soviet material Cheers Steve

That's very easy...The most classic example from the Ostfront is of course the Ushanka...The Germans copied it...Really does not have anything to do with this camo topic...
but you asked so I will deliver.... Below my rabbit collection!
Not really getting your other part of the question... Its like saying the Germans copied Russian winter snow clothing? Since the Russians were already at war (Winter war)
before the Germans had a winter campaign...???









So they did look at Russian equipment...Absolutely! German versions in rabbit Angora fur and the Russian (captured examples) in fleece...Same crucial ear warmers (flaps)!

Btw I received a nice comment (PM) from a member down under who wishes to remain anonymous....as follows:
I'm loving your detailed work there and commend you for your efforts. This is truly remarkable stuff that you have presented but seriously spoken, logical with facts.
Whilst I used to own one of these smocks many, many years ago at least 15 years back, I did believe these to be correct and only let it go because I got another first pattern oak leaf that came from the one group found in Falaise.

[SJP]

The first one is a captured Soviet example (IMHO)....lots of period photos of Germans using Soviet clothing.How is this relevant ? It has nothing to do with the "pinks"
Cheers Steve

[NickG]

Nick Other than captured clothing can you show period photos of examples of german clothing copying Soviet material
Cheers Steve

The first one is a captured Soviet example (IMHO)....lots of period photos of Germans using Soviet clothing.How is this relevant ? It has nothing to do with the "pinks"
Cheers Steve

Actually both first and 2nd images are captured Russian Ushankas...later copied by the Germans...just answering your question on copying opposing gear...
I guess it could relate smocks in regards to adopting (copying) similar brick colors if these smocks turn out to be real...That's all. Yes I agree back to BRICK colored smocks now!

[nutmeg]

Someone mentioned the Prinz Eugen earlier , here is a newly discovered picture of them I think in 1943

[90th Light]

Perfect.... If I could just find my vapor
Cheers Steve

The good thing for both sides out of this Steve,

is publicity for the collecting and interesting features of SS camo. In a soft market that is never a bad thing and should not be underestimated.

And we are not discussing an item, collectors have paid $5K, $10K, $20K for.

In fact quite the opposite, people who paid $500 +/- for an original item that could reap a "real" return in the years ahead as more information comes to light,

Chris

[kammo man]

So the Russians copied ss Cammo jackets and issued them to film companies

This is insane





Owen

[hs132]

Hello 90th Light. Per Historyguys summation on his reference to your post #154. Can you provide the name of the brand of the elastic waistband you state is in the Pink/Brick? Have any tests been done to determine if the elastic is rubber based or oil based(no rubber)? Providing this info might help your case. Best, Bill

[kammo man]

Nutmeg
Pm me for a reality check
Owen