Blurred-Edge-Dot uniforms

[A c h t u n g !]

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

If it is regarding my opinion about Janke. All Janke uniforms produced in the mid 80's-90's have one green color missing in their dot-pattern.
If it is about my opinion about the mix of fake and original material in these uniforms, I will try to explain why I do not believe in such mix and why IMO it is either all fake or all original.
If you compare the close-ups of fabrics'weave in the chart above, I think you would agree that both waves are very similar (if not identical), and the only difference is the thickness of threads used. Also they are both found on the same garment, that's why I believe they have the same origin.
Now let's assume for a minute that one of these materials is fake and go with your scenario about a faker that had an original material but in order to make more garments of it the faker weaved this fake material. Why would he go through all the troubles in matching the weave of the original fabric and then print this very unusual and all-wrong "blurred-edge-dot" pattern on it? Also why would the faker make garments entirely of only good original material exept very small parts like belt straps (for example, Collectors' Guild trousers), while other garments - entirely of this fake material? Does it really make sense?

[n160]

I'm a little befuddled with some of this but some notes on printing & fakes.
The blurred edges occur when the ink is too thin- it leaches at the edge rather than giving a sharp edge. This is commonly seen on many smocks & zelts- some later War hand screened plane trees in particular- it's why some are so light in shade- less pigment.

A few years ago, I bought about 10 pounds or original 44 dot cutting scraps. They are mostly Panzer trouser parts- flaps, flys, pocket facings, etc... Many stacks were in their original bundles from the cutting table. There are probably close to a dozen variations in weave and yarn types. There's no one "right" weave- the size of the V's varies, some you can distinguish on both sides of the cloth, others not. Some cloth was white, some was tan, some heathered on the back.

As for mixing parts on repros- If one had original yardage enough for garments, to throw in fake material for belt loops would be bordering on brain damage. Those with wildly mis-matched main panels are likely good IMO- so long as there are no other glaring red flags.

Janke's uniforms all match as far as I have seen. His 4 pocket tunics are made like a Heer HBT (narrow collar, long waist) and are easily identified on that basis. The other garments are better.

Lastly, I know of some repro panzer uniforms made from real cloth from the 80's or 90's- but they did a piss poor job of sewing; as I recall there were no keyhole buttonholes, the thread color was odd, and all the panels matched. It was the lighter, mauve sort of shade (similar to the piece top row, second from left) that is nearly white on the backside. They were poorly done enough to not be very "dangerous".

Hope that helps.

[Fritz]

If it is regarding my opinion about Janke. All Janke uniforms produced in the mid 80's-90's have one green color missing in their dot-pattern.

That is not correct. It is true that there are repro prints that lack a tone but Janke has certainly made prints that have the right number of tones, and so do most other repro prints.

If you compare the close-ups of fabrics'weave in the chart above, I think you would agree that both waves are very similar (if not identical)

IMO it shows that they are NOT the same. As for similarity, well, it's an HBT weave so some degree of similarity is to be expected. Granted, the two are closer to each other than they are to your example on the left. However, pick ten original items and compare the weave to the one(s) in question and a good deal of them will look very close. Again, it's HBT of a "not so high quality", so of course it looks alike to some degree.

and the only difference is the thickness of threads used.

Which I would consider a clear and obvious difference. Making it impossible to be "the same". Also note the different surface of the thread which suggests a different composition.

Also they are both found on the same garment, that's why I believe they have the same origin.

No offense meant but if you really believe that then you know little about ss camouflage and the production situation. Mixed patterns and prints are by no means uncommon in most ss camouflage items. This, depending on the item, incl. mixes of patterns that have several years between their production dates.

Now let's assume for a minute that one of these materials is fake and go with your scenario about a faker that had an original material but in order to make more garments of it the faker weaved this fake material. Why would he go through all the troubles in matching the weave of the original fabric

Coincidence IMHO, I think that perhaps the fake material for the trousers had been bought as original..... or as repro on the market. And again, to me they are very different.

Manufacturers such as, for instance, SM wholesale sold repro material (as such) in the past, they don't ask what you're gonna do with it.

and then print this very unusual and all-wrong "blurred-edge-dot" pattern on it?

It is not "all-wrong", I mean it is clearly an attempt to (re)produce a dot print. I am sure in the 80s- 90s it may have looked very right to some.

Also why would the faker make garments entirely of only good original material exept very small parts like belt straps (for example, Collectors' Guild trousers), while other garments - entirely of this fake material? Does it really make sense?

It does when they have found unfinished trousers + unused material. perhaps from different sources or from just one source.

[Fritz]

The blurred edges occur when the ink is too thin- it leaches at the edge rather than giving a sharp edge.

That is not what the thread is about, the thread is about a particular pattern which Achtung, for obvious reasons, calls "blurred edge dot".

As for mixing parts on repros- If one had original yardage enough for garments, to throw in fake material for belt loops would be bordering on brain damage. Those with wildly mis-matched main panels are likely good IMO- so long as there are no other glaring red flags.

"Enough", yes, I think that is the crux of the matter.

You have to keep in mind that we are talking about the 80s - early 90s, no internet, no Mike Beaver book....nothing.

And as for brain damage, I think, if they did that by mistake, well, it wouldn't be the first mistake made by a faker, would it?


P.S. Some nice and original scraps you have there.

[A c h t u n g !]

That is not correct.
..you know little
Coincidence IMHO

Fritz, it is funny how you quotet my every sentence, ahahaha! Obviously, you know it all and even more, even how much time I spent studding these materials very closely. Isn't what puts you in denial mode no matter what is said?
BTW I don't believe in coincidences and if you think this could really happen, or believe in what you said, can you post any (just one) HBT material with the similar weave?

[Fritz]

Achtung, enjoy!

I am out.

Cheers

[A c h t u n g !]

Achtung, enjoy!

I am out.

Cheers

Surely it is much easier than to find and post any other example (original or fake) of a fabric with the same weave and support your "scenario" about mixed original and fake materials. Or is it just another "coincidence"?
I feel so sorry now.

[Fritz]

Surely it is much easier than to find and post any other example (original or fake) of a fabric with the same weave and support your "scenario" about mixed original and fake materials. Or is it just another "coincidence"?
I feel so sorry now.

That only goes to show that you like to tease when you are running out of arguments (or in fact never had any).

As for "coincidence" and "the same", well, we once had an association member here named "bnz. 42", he used the same nice charts you are using and, when other opinions weren't after his liking, got snippy pretty quick, pretty much like you I would say.

Anyway, he was a trouble maker and subsequently he had been banned by moderators.

Coincidence, isn't it?

Well, not for me, I, for one, have no doubt that you are the banned bnz. 42. You can change your name but your character you can't change.



As for this particular thread, what you are looking for is not is discussion but rather a monologue with the audience giving you the odd "ooohhh" and "aaahhh". I will certainly refrain from being your audience.

Now the stage is all yours...



Cheers

[A c h t u n g !]

I have not posted a half of material that I prepared for this thread about this subject, so surely I am far away from running out of arguments. All pictures, charts, etc I found on this forum when I made research and none of these pictures/garments are mine. Your scenario about that I am some banned "bnz" member I take as your personal attack on me, it has no ground and you have no right to go personal with me. First you publicly said that "I know little", now you accusing me of some other things. What will be next? Who is really the trouble-maker of us here?

[Hilton]

WOW! Extremely interesting post n160 ! Thank you very much for showing all the variants that you have found in your original "scrap-bundle"

[Max Wünsche]

I knew it...

I gather he is hiding under his Oak A top-hat now that he has been found out.




Aside from that, it would be great if n160 could post more closeup - Hi-Res shots of his off-cut Dot material samples.

Well, not for me, I, for one, have no doubt that you are the banned bnz. 42. You can change your name but your character you can't change.

Cheers

[Max Wünsche]

Baiting / provocation could be considered trouble making too bnz.42.......errr Achtung! something you tried on with me recently,

Although.....











So I wouldnt be too quick to throw around accusations of insults and personal attacks.

I have not posted a half of material that I prepared for this thread about this subject, so surely I am far away from running out of arguments. All pictures, charts, etc I found on this forum when I made research and none of these pictures/garments are mine. Your scenario about that I am some banned "bnz" member I take as your personal attack on me, it has no ground and you have no right to go personal with me. First you publicly said that "I know little", now you accusing me of some other things. What will be next? Who is really the trouble-maker of us here?

[kammo man]

The pattern and garment that started this thread is fake.
Made to fool from the ground up in the mid 1980s.
I first encountered the first 4 pocket set from Tredwin in London ....there are plenty of threads about him in this very own forum.
Pants and jacket.
Panzer sets also began to show up ...........
The print is missing some design spots a dead give away.
Sold as real .....but made to fool and prices the same as a WW2 Dot set .........so sold as real ...made to fool.....for profit.

Again in the 1980s you bought by a phone call or in a monthly catalogue.
NO internet ........you were lucky if you knew a hand full of other collectors......things like this and the pink smock were unleashed into the world.

Achtung do you really believe this is real ?
Your report is all over the place mixing in real with fake cloth , its really hard to follow your logic.
I assume you own one of these garments as well as a real piece of WW2 HB ?

owen

[A c h t u n g !]

I am leaning toward ground-up fake (there are no original materials) but I keep my mind open too.