To "fix" or not to "fix"

[sgstandard]

Cap

Oh, my GOD!!........for mercy's sake and the sake of the holy Virgin Mary - whatever you do, don't TOUCH it! Even the dust on it has history and should NEVER be removed under ANY circumstances whatsoever, or history itself will be forever ruined!! OK...I'm poking fun, and I completely agree that the writing should never be removed, because it would be a disaster. If you think that inside stitching is original, leave it, and if not, get rid of it. But do all the people demanding the cap left alone, do you mean to tell me that if you had a Waffen-SS visor with the skull missing, that you wouldn't replace it? Of course you would. The tropical cap is no different. The key is to make sure it's done properly, attached like an original, with period thread, and with a skull that matches the condition of the cap. While I don't doubt the story that came with the cap, the old addage is that you never buy a story. Let's say that the cap WAS captured. Normally, they were allowed to keep their cap and clothing, but insignia was removed. If the GI just took the cap from the guy's head, why would he remove the skull, and leave the eagle? Stranger things have happened, but my point was that it's true history will never be known, and that skull may have been removed by someone post war.....................and there goes the whole "history" theory. If taking the skull off is part of it's "history", then ipso-facto, replacing it is also part of it's history.

[RobertE]

It's really up to the owner, of course. If the cap shows no sign of having had a skull on it, I'd keep it the way it is.

The correct skull for these is not the common tan one, so finding one that matches will be a real challenge. It may be better to leave it as it is than "restore" it with a skull that it mat have not had during the war, or one that isn't correct for it.

I think it looks very nice just the way it is.

s/f Robert

[sgstandard]

Cap

I will modify my earlier comments. They were based on the assumption that there was a skull on there previously. If, after really close inspection, it turns out there never WAS a skull...........of course I would leave it alone. That's way different than a cap with one removed, IMO.

BTW - For the edification of all, please explain why a normal tropical skull wouldn't be appropriate for this cap. I don't doubt you - just want to know.

[RobertE]

Sure, valid question. The tan Dachau skulls are not the same as the type used on the tropical caps. The tropical cap types, if unmolested from the factory, are of a type, just as the eagles have a distinctive design to them.

regards, Robert

[PeteJ]

From what I've read the original skull would be smaller than the commonly seen ones. I'm going to have to get up close and see if one was there to begin with.

[RobertE]

They are not really smaller, just more narrow, and woven with a different shade or type of thread. They are a different pattern than the Dachau types.

This may help.

s/f Robert

[RobertE]

If these were white, people could tag them as a "droopy eyed" fake, depending on how stretched they were when applied. They look different than regular tan types - just as high, but narrower and different features.

s/f Robert

[PeteJ]

That does help, thanks! I'm kinda dagger savvy but this cloth stuff is still foreign to me.

[Darren Anthony]

Thought I would bring this link to the top again , I think therr is a confusion about the tropical skulls

[PeteJ]

I think I'll have a better chance finding Bigfoot before I find the correct skull for this cap!

[Winkelman]

Here's yet another ( smaller ) type ..

[PeteJ]

Thanks for sharing the pic!

[Sal Williams]

I think I'll have a better chance finding Bigfoot before I find the correct skull for this cap!

Bigfoot is for a helmet, this is a cap ,don't talk crazy talk!

[PeteJ]

Bigfoot is for a helmet, this is a cap ,don't talk crazy talk!

A total novice error on my part, I should know the proper cryptid to headgear match