Blurred-Edge-Dot uniforms

[A c h t u n g !]

I heard that Dot-uniforms with "blurred-edge" dots (made of material pictured above) first appeared on the market in 80-s. Many believe they are all repros from Czech or something like this. Some collectors and dealers believe they are original. The story I was told once by one of these believers was that a bunch of unissued uniforms was found somewhere. Most of it was tropical uniforms (all nice original) and these dot-camo (dot pz.wraps, ss-trousers, ss-dot-pz.pants). All of metal parts(buttons, buckles) on these uniforms were rusted. Many of these Dot uniforms are constructed of various different materials with different fabric-weaves, printed patterns, colors. Some of these materials are "textbook" : correct pattern-repeat, white-ghosts, pattern-bleeding, dot-colors, and no "blurred-edge" dots. If these garments were made solely of this "textbook" material (and some of them are), they would probably easily pass as original. But they have elements (or are entirely made) of that material with "blurred-edge" dots that has all it "wrong": no pattern-bleeding, no white-ghosts, pattern-repeat is over 60 cm (instead of usual 50 cm), dots themself have "unusual" shapes and mixed-up colors ( for example, a camo element/shape that is always light-green on "textbook" examples you can find it dark-green on this "blurred-edge-dot" material) all this is the reason why these uniforms are always rejected as fake.
There is a dot-set offered on the Collector's Guild right now. The trousers from the set is one of those "found uniforms" made with "blurred-edge" dot material (note fit-adjustment and belts straps). Below is three identical trousers, the Collector's Guild's trousers are on top.



I sincerely do not know if they are fake or not, I am trying to learn. Maybe they are original, but if so then all the camo uniforms made of this "blurred-edge-dot" material is original too (pictured below)



I know there were many threads/discussions about these "blurred-edge-dot" uniforms on this forum before. I even noticed that some of the garments that have only small elements made of this "blurred-edge-dot"material in their construction (like belt loops only) passed as original, but all of the uniforms that are made entirely or mostly of this "blurred-edge-dot"material are always caled "fake". Something is illlogical IMO here, why would fakers make and use an obvious wrong dot-pattern material and implement it in their fakes if they lready had made a perfect "textbook" pattern material?
What do you think maybe these found uniforms could be in fact all original and this unusual "blurred-edge-dot" material is just a variation?

[Fritz]

Rust is by no means an indicator for an original item.


With those wrappers there is more wrong than just the camo print.



Stay away from that pattern, I, for one, don't like it.




Cheers

[Luca Ongaro]

I am agree.
A similar pattern was discussed few days ago.
A fake IMO.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=579921

Luca

[Fritz]

Yes, Luca.


And as far as small sections of that pattern are found on otherwise nice items.

IMO that has to do with the fact that several original but unfinished dot items were found after the war (and still turn up every now and then).

The late war situation was that items were made, except for certain details, in small - very small shops. Then they were collected and supposed to be finished in the main factory or concentration camp work shops where proper parts and machinery was available. By the war's end some stuff was still in those small shops, ready to be picked up ....but that never happened.


So when an unfinished pair of trousers like that showed up it, in some cases, was finished post war with the wrong material.

[PANZERPIONIERE]

I used to have one of those wrappers back in 1982, bought it cheap at a gunshow, no longer have it. I remember seeing the pants, but it was years ago.
Steve

[A c h t u n g !]

Fritz, it makes sense what you said about unfinished uniforms, but it is not the case here with these Blurred-Edge-Dot uniforms as if you look closely you would notice that even though they are made of different materials they made by the same maker as they have same construction details, lining materials, buttons, straps, buckles, threads used, etc. During years I have examined number of them in details, have no doubts now as it is obvious they are all made in one place. Below is 4 different trousers (theCollector's Guild's trousers are first) note the identical details and at least 3 different dot-materials they are constructed of.

[A c h t u n g !]

What really puzzles me is why would any faker go through all the troubles to weave so many different types of HBT material (I encountered at least 4 different HBT fabrics in these garments) and then print various dot patterns on them, one of wich would be just plain wrong while others are all "textbook"? The trousers pictured below alone have 3 different materials in their constructon.



I realize that fakers are well aware of what collectors like to see in original items (talking about different materials) and it could be just part of their deception but still they could create 2 different "correct" materials and it would be enough. Instead there are at least four of them, with different fabric-weaves, which after examination appear to be correct and match period fabrics up to smallest details like their structure/weave. Below are close-ups of two materials-in-question from one trousers and their comparison with period fabrics.



Comparison of the material-2-in-question with an example in M.Beaver book:



Comparison of the material-1-in-question with this original tunic from this thread http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=571165





Again, I am not trying to be devil's advocate, just trying to learn and eliminate my own doubts about these items ..either way.

[Fritz]

I am sorry but as far as I am concerned you've put a bit too much information in this thread and I find it a bit hard to follow you unless time permits a more intense analysis concerning the posted information.


I will try in a trice though.

What really puzzles me is why would any faker go through all the troubles to weave so many different types of HBT material (I encountered at least 4 different HBT fabrics in these garments) and then print various dot patterns on them, one of wich would be just plain wrong while others are all "textbook"? The trousers pictured below alone have 3 different materials in their constructon.

Are you saying that you believe the trousers to be made of repro material all over? If so, then this is certainly not the case.



In a scenario of fake (which I favour): If a faker has 3 unfinished trousers and/or orignial material for 3. Then why not spicing that up a bit with repro material so he can come up with 5, 8 or 10 instead of 3. And I would believe the trousers to look alike when they came from one source at one time. The "finished" ones as well as the 50% or 100% made made ones.

In that case he is running a larger risk of detection, but in the 80s or 90s? Who cared? Unless you know the print and don't like it such items will look very promising to you. However, it may well be that the faker wasn't even aware of that and thought he had original material.

Also, there is at least one original print that could be mistaken for the one under debate, especially from a distance and in small camo sections. It looks by no means the same and is by no means the same though.

I, for one, have never seen trousers or tunics, wrappers for that matter, that came from a 100% source and incorporated that particular print. - But of course I can't claim to have seen it all.

As far as I am concerned everything points to it being an 80s creation. And as I said, for instance the wrappers have more problems than just the print.



Cheers

[A c h t u n g !]

Are you saying that you believe the trousers to be made of repro material all over? If so, then this is certainly not the case.

In a scenario of fake (which I favour): If a faker has 3 unfinished trousers and/or orignial material for 3. Then why not spicing that up a bit with repro material so he can come up with 5, 8 or 10 instead of 3. And I would believe the trousers to look alike when they came from one source at one time. The "finished" ones as well as the 50% or 100% made made ones.

All materials in these garments (including the material with correct, "textbook" pattern on it and the one with "blurred-edge-dots") are different, but they are also very similar to each other (fabric's thickness, density, weave). If you touch-and-feel / examine these materials in hands you would immideately realize that they all have the same origin, so if one of them is fake, all others are fake too. In my opinion there are only two scenarios possible – either everything (including all materials, print, sewing) is fake or everything is original, and that is why I am confident the scenario about unfinished uniforms (or constructed of orignial and repro materials) cannot be entertained about these uniforms.

Also, there is at least one original print that could be mistaken for the one under debate, especially from a distance and in small camo sections. It looks by no means the same and is by no means the same though.

I am not sure about which "original print" in these pictures you are reffering to as all trousers and wraps pictured in this thread have been made by the very same maker, and therefore all prints showed in these pictures are under debate; we cannot apply yet the word "original" to any print in these pictures.

[Fritz]

... but they are also very similar to each other (fabric's thickness, density, weave). If you touch-and-feel / examine these materials in hands you would immideately realize that they all have the same origin.

That is an opinion based on subjective impressions. My subjective impressions are telling me that they are not "the same". But my subjective impressions are limited in that I haven't handled these "mixed" trousers. Granted, you have an advantage there.

.so if one of them is fake, all others are fake too.

No. It can only be assumed if they are indeed the very same. Anyhow based on the testing criteria mentioned by you. And even then there would be the potential option that either unprinted original material was used or that a maker managed to produce to original standards.

But, as I pointed out before, they are not "the same" IMHO. And, in my understanding, some fabric, used in those "mixed" items, is original and some not.

In my opinion there are only two scenarios possible – either everything (including all materials, print, sewing) is fake or everything is original, and that is why I am confident the scenario about unfinished uniforms (or constructed of orignial and repro materials) cannot be entertained about these uniforms.

I am only doubting the print that is the topic of this thread, the other prints used in such "mixed" items are IMO original. I have explained in a previous post why I think that can be possible.

I am not sure about which "original print" in these pictures you are reffering to as all trousers and wraps pictured in this thread have been made by the very same maker, and therefore all prints showed in these pictures are under debate; we cannot apply yet the word "original" to any print in these pictures.

I am referring to a print that has not been shown in this thread. Hence it is not pictured here. Your contrary assumption is apparently based on a misunderstanding.



Cheers

[A c h t u n g !]

Unfortunately, I cannot post how these materials feel to the touch but here is how they look under the same magnification. The first one is 100% original fabric with a period-printed "textbook" dot pattern; the second is the material-1-in-question that has a correct "textbook"-like pattern printed on it; the third on is the one that has "Blurred-Edge-Dots" pattern. Both #2 and #3 are from a garment under debate. Black-and-white picture is to help better to see the similarities in fabrics weave.

[Scott A. Hess]

None of the dot camo pieces I have are similar in print/look to the pic which first started this thread. I have seen several pieces of dot trousers made in most likely the 80's, held in hand, and quite similar to some in various books, which were period assembled postwar of original camo, and of several original dot camo "runs". They all fail on authenticity for other reasons in the construction and other materials used.
I too am not sure I follow what is being shown here, I would like to see the back of the material first pictured, the front is not to my liking. It is a bit similar to the stuff Janke did in the mid 80's-90's.

[A c h t u n g !]

None of the dot camo pieces I have are similar in print/look to the pic which first started this thread. I have seen several pieces of dot trousers made in most likely the 80's, held in hand, and quite similar to some in various books, which were period assembled postwar of original camo, and of several original dot camo "runs". They all fail on authenticity for other reasons in the construction and other materials used.
I too am not sure I follow what is being shown here, I would like to see the back of the material first pictured, the front is not to my liking. It is a bit similar to the stuff Janke did in the mid 80's-90's.

Scott, thanks for your response. They are not Janke garanteed, nor partially assembled postwar of original camo either. They are made by one/same maker at one time. The question is WHEN? Pre-May45 or post-war? All original or ground-up fake?

[Fritz]

Scott, thanks for your response. They are not Janke garanteed, nor partially assembled postwar of original camo either. They are made by one/same maker at one time. The question is WHEN? Pre-May45 or post-war? All original or ground-up fake?

I am a bit amazed that you present your opinion as facts.


Your chart, which is honestly a very nice chart, confirms to me that the weave is NOT of the same run. But again, that is merely my opinion.

In my understanding the trousers show a mix of fake and original material.

And I am a bit concerned that you consider it possible that the original material in those "mixed trousers" could be fake. This, IMO, can be ruled out. So it is either all original material or a mix. IMO the latter is the case.


Cheers

[Scott A. Hess]

Achtung..you may be mixing apples and oranges here, I am a bit confused. I've seen FOUR things, completely pre 45 assembled 100 percent original pants, and completely 100 fake material post 45 pants. Those are not the topic of discussion.What Ihave seen are pants made post 45 of 100 percent original dot camo material, multi run, but using fake interior linings, hardware, etc, so...still post war put togethers. The other is post war assembly of ORIGINAL and FAKE dot camo material, also, obviously post war manufactures.

I'm confused as to what else you are trying to illustrate. Some post war assembly of original dot even use original smooth dot for some of the scrap usage areas, just to further confuse things, but these pants are completely wrong in construction, (and interior materials and markings) and thus, still, post war fakes. Again, the dot camo that started this thread would be something I would pass on.