In the large font wrap on the baton site, the liner appears to be of polished cotton. Is hbt the primary lining material one should look for in a late war stug wrap?
-
-
Originally posted by Fritz View Post
Agreed, I never seen a original 627 wrapper where the makers mark have been in the same font and size as the wrappers sizemarkings.
I have also never seen a wrapper or any garnment with the RBNo in the same font or size as the garnments sizemarkings.
I am highly sceptic about this one. There are also other features which makes me sceptic but as not to help fakers I will keep these to myself.
Cheers
PeterComment
-
Originally posted by Michael Nicolaou View Post
I have to say, I am also very sceptic to the originality of the wrapper starting this thread.
I never seen one with the maker in those fonts.
That is however only my opinion and I dont think Mike Davies has to stop working as a dealer because of that.
Opinions defere like it or not.
Cheers//Hasse.MComment
-
Originally posted by Hasse.M View Post
Addressing you is addressing v L.
What is it? You guys just finished working on one?Comment
-
-
For the suddenly skeptical Swedish contingent, let me state unequivocally that the linked wrap is an accepted original. It was purchased by Bob Johnson of Battlefield Books in Minneapolis from an estate sale in 1978. I have a note from him on his letterhead explaining these facts. The wrap was displayed for many years at the SoS and other shows where I, and many others, had the opportunity to examine it. Some of you will remember this.
As to the markings, wide variation in fonts, sizes, etc. have been observed in wartime made examples. Posted are photos of another example that has been in my possession since the '80s - note the font size and the lack of three letter maker code.
In respect to the other unnamed anomalies, I'd be happy to address them once presented.Comment
-
The difference of opinion here is structured much like the well-known discussion of the Pz. Pionier wrapper; one or two European dealers and their circle of friends on the one side and the rest of the collecting world on the other.Comment
-
I think you need to re-read the posts in this thread. As I read it, Scott Hess appears to be questioning the originality of all SS tunics with large fonts (including StuG wraps) 'I have yet in collecting to see ANY mid/late war M43 SS tunic, wrapper, or dot jacket, or winter for that matter, which exhibits these large fonts, that I believe is real.', while both Peter v Lukas and Mike Davis are both saying that they have seen original examples with variation in the font sizes. To quote Mike, 'As to the markings, wide variation in fonts, sizes, etc. have been observed in wartime made examples.'Originally posted by OSS View Post
To add to the discussion, here are the markings out of a StuG wrap that was purchased out of the woodwork by a friend of mine.Comment
-
The font size doesn't seem to be the sole detail in contention.Originally posted by DougO View PostComment
-
fonts
I agree with the above post. This is a much different discussion. There are examples of SS tunics with large and small fonts. Check out the M-43 on the Collector's Guild website to see an example with different sizes. There are other examples of size stamps and codes with different sizes. Some with same fonts, some with different fonts and some with no codes (as Mr. Davis stated). I have not anyone that can point out a feature of the wrap under discussion that would cause a concern.Comment
-
Enjoyably delightful thread!Originally posted by DougO View Post
The font size comments are “wonderful.”
Referencing the examples being offered on the three afore mentioned sites, the Davis jacket is the “better value” by FAR.
B. N. SingerComment
-
-
Originally posted by Michael Nicolaou View Post Addressing you is addressing v L. What is it? You guys just finished working on one?
No we leave that to our American friends......Comment
-
Scott:
That font/size issue had been addressed meanwhile I think, so I am not picking that one up again.
CheersComment
Comment