I agree with the above posts. I enjoyed the pleasant exchange of infomation. I want to add a couple of comments.
For all you with not much of a industrial chemistry background “Persistol” is a modern trademark name for BASF water-repellent product (I am a chemical engineer and so I love this stuff). Peristol was a general term used by I. G. Farben for a family of water-repellents used on cotton based fabrics in the 1940s. There are many other names for agents that are used to provide a wash-proof water-repellent finishing of textiles of natural and synthetic fibrous materials and fiber mixes.
The Richardson Report states that the bolts of finished woven fabric was subjected to many chemical washes during the production process. Examples include the application of dyes, desizing agents and water-repellent. These were all applied as batch proceess during stages throughout the production line. The appications of these German processes to original perid German fabrics does give them a character than cannot be replicated.
The chemical processes to treat woven cotton fabric were not unique to Germany, and were universally applied by each nation. The period literature is fascinating. What was different was the fabric and the quality of the spun rayon-cotton fabric. Much of that is discussed in the above posts. The inferior fabric does not acceot the chemicals the way the the older quality fabric did.(There is a parallel discusion in US Army Forums about the look, feel and weight of CC2 impregnation of US reinforced M-42 Jumpsuits that Owen is familiar with).
As the material changed and the quality declined the process had to change. The way the material handled the process changed, and this gave the fabric the unique character (look and feel) that Owen refers to. Old treated material with a new stitch does not look like a 70 year old cap. Original WW2 German cotton fabriics have a not only a unique "look" but a unique "feel". That is why it takes in-hand inspections of many items to really tell real from fake. Pictures do not tell the story and most of the pictures in this thread do not convey much detailed info except general cap architecture. Owen and Chris know what to look for in the fabric, but this detail is only discussed in generalities. The close-up pictures tell the story and I really liked Chris' close-ups. Note how the fabric is joined and curves, and almost look welded together. I would have liked to have seen some close-ups of Owen's caps just for reference.
Here I do have a slight disagreement with Owen. I have not seen any evidence that the SS KZ garment industry produced there own cloth fabric. I say this for economic reasons. The German garment industry was big and had the capacity. It would be too expensive to build SS "only" factories when they already existed in quantity. The Richardson report states that Heer and SS Shelter Halves used spun rayon and cotton 33/67. It would be more econimcal order bolts of fabric from the existing factories than to make it from sctatch. It was cheaper for the SS to produce the finished clothing. The report notes that the Heer and SS dyes differed, but the process to treat Heer and SS cammo fabric were very similar. It would be too expensive to build SS "only" factories when they already existed in quantity. The raw materials were the problem and the battleneck.
The same discussion applies to sewing thread and provides another dimension to the discussion. Old thread does not look like new thread. German thread is different than US, Russian and British thread. The thread was applied after the water-repellent. A garment produced with old thread in a new machines does not look like a original period made garament produced before 1950. Even a cap recently assembled from original fabric and thread does not look like a cap assembled 70 years ago. The thread wears facser that the base material. All of Owen's comments about bad SS sewing are spot on. I would broaden the comment to say "all WW2 German factory sewing is bad". Once again is takes experience to tell the difference. I liked Chris' close-ups because it should the bad sewing to good advantage.
I aplogize for rambling on. None of the above discussion applies to Italian fabric except when German thread is used. Thank you all for the entertaining posts and the education!
For all you with not much of a industrial chemistry background “Persistol” is a modern trademark name for BASF water-repellent product (I am a chemical engineer and so I love this stuff). Peristol was a general term used by I. G. Farben for a family of water-repellents used on cotton based fabrics in the 1940s. There are many other names for agents that are used to provide a wash-proof water-repellent finishing of textiles of natural and synthetic fibrous materials and fiber mixes.
The Richardson Report states that the bolts of finished woven fabric was subjected to many chemical washes during the production process. Examples include the application of dyes, desizing agents and water-repellent. These were all applied as batch proceess during stages throughout the production line. The appications of these German processes to original perid German fabrics does give them a character than cannot be replicated.
The chemical processes to treat woven cotton fabric were not unique to Germany, and were universally applied by each nation. The period literature is fascinating. What was different was the fabric and the quality of the spun rayon-cotton fabric. Much of that is discussed in the above posts. The inferior fabric does not acceot the chemicals the way the the older quality fabric did.(There is a parallel discusion in US Army Forums about the look, feel and weight of CC2 impregnation of US reinforced M-42 Jumpsuits that Owen is familiar with).
As the material changed and the quality declined the process had to change. The way the material handled the process changed, and this gave the fabric the unique character (look and feel) that Owen refers to. Old treated material with a new stitch does not look like a 70 year old cap. Original WW2 German cotton fabriics have a not only a unique "look" but a unique "feel". That is why it takes in-hand inspections of many items to really tell real from fake. Pictures do not tell the story and most of the pictures in this thread do not convey much detailed info except general cap architecture. Owen and Chris know what to look for in the fabric, but this detail is only discussed in generalities. The close-up pictures tell the story and I really liked Chris' close-ups. Note how the fabric is joined and curves, and almost look welded together. I would have liked to have seen some close-ups of Owen's caps just for reference.
Here I do have a slight disagreement with Owen. I have not seen any evidence that the SS KZ garment industry produced there own cloth fabric. I say this for economic reasons. The German garment industry was big and had the capacity. It would be too expensive to build SS "only" factories when they already existed in quantity. The Richardson report states that Heer and SS Shelter Halves used spun rayon and cotton 33/67. It would be more econimcal order bolts of fabric from the existing factories than to make it from sctatch. It was cheaper for the SS to produce the finished clothing. The report notes that the Heer and SS dyes differed, but the process to treat Heer and SS cammo fabric were very similar. It would be too expensive to build SS "only" factories when they already existed in quantity. The raw materials were the problem and the battleneck.
The same discussion applies to sewing thread and provides another dimension to the discussion. Old thread does not look like new thread. German thread is different than US, Russian and British thread. The thread was applied after the water-repellent. A garment produced with old thread in a new machines does not look like a original period made garament produced before 1950. Even a cap recently assembled from original fabric and thread does not look like a cap assembled 70 years ago. The thread wears facser that the base material. All of Owen's comments about bad SS sewing are spot on. I would broaden the comment to say "all WW2 German factory sewing is bad". Once again is takes experience to tell the difference. I liked Chris' close-ups because it should the bad sewing to good advantage.
I aplogize for rambling on. None of the above discussion applies to Italian fabric except when German thread is used. Thank you all for the entertaining posts and the education!
If nothing else at least they might get a better base level grounding in the issues facing the people today. Who knows, Owen and I might even get the "Pink Smock" debacle solved over a couple of good sessions especially with us both having an Irish heritage. This was especially true for the generation ahead of me who went to WW2. To join a bloke's drinking circle was a big part of Kiwi acceptance. Same with the Aussies across the ditch. 
Comment