Rene I go by the camo colors 1st then the jacket features, I would not discount it because of nickle snaps. What a lot of collectors tend to forget this was war time production and manufactures would use what was available to get to item to the troops that needed it. If brass snaps were not available but nickle plated ones were they did not stop production they substituted and carried on. Only in the rarified minds of collectors & re-enactors was kit ever 1000% to spec or unmodified, & unrepaired by the troops. As your jacket has no readable label I would keep it as a very nice example of a 1944 +, until someone comes up with a list of changes that says nickle snaps were not used until 19??. As a former member of CAF and having worked with many UK & US forces I can assure you as issued is not always as used, in peace time let alone under the stresses of war.
Last edited by Recon 3690; 10-09-2010 at 07:06 AM. Reason: punctuation change
Liam look at that 3rd pic again the sleeves are straighter than the others and the cuffs definately look like recycled sock tops, without accually having the item in my hands to inspect I stand by my ID.
Other than the camo pattern the design of your 1954 example looks to be identical to the 1959, which would support that the design pre dates 1959 and that the only change in 1959 was the cam colors & verticle pattern. We all learn more as info becomes available.
Last edited by Recon 3690; 10-09-2010 at 07:53 AM. Reason: add to
Guys these must be getting harder to get i have seen a couple now 45 dated sell for less than £300. Although tatty just been waiting patiently.Have not seen a tatty one for a couple of weeks now but seen 3rd pattern post war ones so thought ok ill get 1 of them will get it cheaper well im gutted suddenly these are now getting more expensive in the last couple of weeks.Im pulling my hair out what does a man have to do to get a Denison!!!!!!! grrrrrrrr apart from offload a hell of a lot of money from a dealer trying to stick around ebay but i dont think im going to get lucky my heads gone down and my shoulders have now dropped.!!!
As you have suggested I have looked at the pictures at the start of this thread again,
The first is a 3rd pattern dated about 1956, post WW2
The second you rightly identified as a pat '59.
The third is another '59 pat, 4 colour on sand ( 2 brown, 2 green ) and not a "modified '42 version MK2" as you state.
2nd pattern smocks with nickel Newey fastners are post WW2.
Smocks with knitted cuffs , short zip and 2 piece front and back with "faded" labels are post WW2.
There are exeptions, "Frankenstein" of Manchester always made their 2nd patterns with a one piece front and back,
there you have it in a "nutshell" if you have any early smocks in YOUR collection that disprove what I am saying, please post the pictures!!!!, we can all learn.
To say you judge a smock on the camo pattern first, then the features does not make sense.
I base what I say on the evidence I have held in my hands and not as it seems in your case by what you have read in articles written by authors that have never owned a collection.
My advice is, if the label is faded, dont buy it , pay a bit more for a better example.
As its all gone quiet on this thread, I must conclude,
my case proven !!!,
1. When in doubt ask, thats what the forum is for,
2. Don't sell yourself as an "expert" unless you can back up your views/comments with hard evidence,
Good with collecting in 2011, Liam.
Thanks for that,
Merry Christmas to you, I hope the floods have subsided!! Its -6 here , not good !!
The point I am trying to make is, that my comments are based on experience and based on the smocks that I have owned, I believe Recons comments are not based on fact. I made mistakes when I first started collecting smocks, one or two cost me a lot of money !! I do not wish members to make similar mistakes. So if my comments have come across too stong , I apologise. Blackpowder asked for good advice and he did not get it, nor did Recon reply to my last post. So, this is not a case of being an "expert" this is a case of giving sound advice, if Recon has information that disproves mine, lets hear it, an apology might be nice!!
Last edited by reneblacky; 12-20-2010 at 01:49 AM. Reason: added text