A quote from you, made some years ago about this very same photo.
I like that you are putting value in my statements. But am I supposed not to change my opinion when reason commands so?
You and all who say that this is a camo set might very well be forced to change their minds too should the proper camo pattern that this set matches not come to light.
I remembered your picture and knew it had been posted before and I originally liked the idea that it could be camo but never spent much time looking at it, then I got to see more similar photos labeled as "camo" but they weren't and a while back I noticed that water on wool uniforms creates such an effect in black and white pictures.
Now when I saw that picture again I took the time and downloaded your image and used various effects. I am sure it's not camo, just a standard grey wrapper and pants that got some water all over. Also the material looks like wool and not like HBT or twill etc..
I can understand you don't like I am saying it's a grey set now. Which, if I am right, brings the value of that picture down a bit.
Still a nice picture of a grey stug uniform (IMO), just not appropriate for that thread (IMO).
Cheers
Last edited by Fritz; 07-02-2010, 09:25 AM.
Reason: spelling
I don't own the photo anymore so I don't have a horse in this race. I respect your opinion, but I also had contact with other high-end collectors on this photo, who all agreed that it was a (tailor made / field made?) blurred edge wrapper. My personal 'investigation' with my own equipment confirmed their statement.
Don't take my previous posts as a personal attack. And you are right, opinions and point of views can change because of various reasons; I know that as no other.
Anyway, I still think it is a camo wrapper! It definitly isn't a gray one and I also have my doubs about the water-theory...
Comment