Editing my previous remark, I can't comment on insignia still, but looking at the construction, I am not a fan of certain things on both Bob's cap and the one in the thread. Both caps are made by the same hand and bear the exact same traits, one of which definitely isn't a good one when looking at originals in Owen's thread.
-
Last edited by Graham G; 07-15-2019, 01:36 PM. -
This thread is looking and sounding more and more, like the blind leading the blind.
JonComment
-
I see clear differences, nice used cap from Owens collection (and greasy
)
Comment
-
Hi,
i think that we all should remain cool and calm, because like Michael said, he still don't know if he may be able to have the camo cap checked with better pictures, or even proposed on the market...
See You
VinceComment
-
Believe that cap belongs to Bob Hritz.Originally posted by Robert H View PostI see clear differences, nice used cap from Owens collection (and greasy)Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff V View Post
Jeff
There are issues with the cap I would not post on a public forum openly
Owen
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkComment
-
-
OK I am open minded to all possibilities and always willing to learn.
Looking at post number 167 & 168, we now have 3 possible scenarios on this thread, one of which one is the correct conclusion
1/ both SS camo caps shown in those posts are nice originals
2/ Bob's SS camo cap shown in those posts is original and the other SS camo cap is not original
3/ both SS camo caps shown in those posts are fakes made to fool collectors
So which one is it ???
The thing I am chewing over is the situation of outright deception. Whoever made the SS camo cap on this thread had access to Bob's cap or another exactly like it to be able to copy the pattern and sewing up almost exactly
or both SS camo caps are from the same maker/ factory. Now was that in Germany before May 1945 or USA in the 1970's or 1990's or 2010's ?
The name of the USA firm "S&M" keeps being mentioned on this thread
Yet Owen stated this in post number 39;
If the SS camo cap on this thread is a fake then it definitely was made to deceive at the highest level. Sadly, right now someone could be offering good money to buy it. If S&M are responsible then that is not good at all to put it rather politely.Originally posted by kammo man View Post
Fortunately, I am not one of the ones sending PM's to try and buy it. But if this is not adequately sorted/ explained it will also have an impact on the value of Bob's cap.
All very interesting to say the least,
ChrisLast edited by 90th Light; 07-15-2019, 11:20 PM.Comment
-
The Winner is: Nr.2. But not Owen or anyone else who knows why will discuss this in a open Thread to make then the Life from the Faker more easy.
Originally posted by 90th Light View PostOK I am open minded to all possibilities and always willing to learn.
Looking at post number 167 & 168, we now have 3 possible scenarios on this thread, one of which one is the correct conclusion
1/ both SS camo caps shown in those posts are nice originals
2/ Bob's SS camo cap shown in those posts is original and the other SS camo cap is not original
3/ both SS camo caps shown in those posts are fakes made to fool collectors
So which one is it ???
The thing I am chewing over is the situation of outright deception. Whoever made the SS camo cap on this thread had access to Bob's cap or another exactly like it to be able to copy the pattern and sewing up almost exactly
or both SS camo caps are from the same maker/ factory. Now was that in Germany before May 1945 or USA in the 1970's or 1990's or 2010's ?
The name of the USA firm "S&M" keeps being mentioned on this thread
Yet Owen stated this in post number 39;
If the SS camo cap on this thread is a fake then it definitely was made to deceive at the highest level. Sadly, right now someone could be offering good money to buy it. If S&M are responsible then that is not good at all to put it rather politely.
Fortunately, I am not one of the ones sending PM's to try and buy it. But if this is not adequately sorted/ explained it will also have an impact on the value of Bob's cap.
All very interesting to say the least,
ChrisWWW.EDELWEISS-ANTIQUES.COM
Specialized in Uniforms, Mountain Troops and HeeresbergfuhrerComment
-
What a load of utter rubbish, this statement alone, shows that you actually have no idea. Anyone who was going to manufacture an item to deceive, be it an ss cap or any other item, would only have to buy one that had been authenticated by you so called experts and copy it. There are plenty of people out there who are capable of doing just that and as I related some years ago, they have areadt done it.Originally posted by AntiqueWW2 View Post
This is another thread that has come to a dead end because of the above dreaded statement.Comment
-
Anyone desiring the most detailed pictures can get them - buyers, sellers, dealers, and collectors all post whatever someone needs to make a sale or share an item.
When arguments reach rock bottom, they usually end with this statement, which is a free get-out-of jail card for people who have talked themselves into a corner.
Fake news isn't too much different than fake knowledge. I'm not accusing anyone in particular here, but I don't believe that there are special tells that are known only to the enlightened - we all have eyes and powers of observation.
The final straw for me was condemning Bob's cap as a replica. Based on secret knowledge that would doom the camo cap market it if ever got out, and only the most enlightened and experienced "big boy" members club have these hard-won insights - ridiculous.
There's no one behind the curtain, folks. Nothing to see here - keep it moving, people.
s/f RobertComment
-
Originally posted by RobertE View Post
It would appear to be the state of the hobby at the moment , perhaps allways has been
Comment
-
Why not contacting S&M if they constructed the camo cap discussed here?Comment
-
Guys, I think you mean SM Wholesale, not S&M, that means something else entirely!
Comment
-
Hi,
if i was SM Wholesale, it is doubtful that i will confirm that i may have "played" with original material in the (old/recent) past, no matter the reason...
See You
VinceComment
Comment