Cap Making

[ErWeSa]

Found another interesting film on youtube, don't know where to put the link, so moderators feel free to shift/cancel this post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhwNx3KTenU

Unfortunately there are no prices mentioned, but I'm sure back in 1966 they were more reasonable than today.

[Wilhelm Saris]

Yes, they were and even then I could not always afford the prices.

I was once offered a complete SA-Wehrmannschafts-uniform,
complete with tunic, pants, field-cap and belt with buckle for
about 125,- Dm (when I remember well). I could not buy it,
as I did not have the money for it. Bad luck for me!

[ErWeSa]

In this thread: SS gebirgsjager officer cap ,post # 8, a "white waxy plastic looking material" is mentioned as a filling material for the top panel piping. I think I found out what it is: quill made of ostrich feathers. This material is still used today for quill embroidery in Lederhosenranzen, see here:



and here:

[ErWeSa]

Customers of Italian cap makers could choose between different models (different height of front seam and centerband, width and length of top panel, diffent styles of peaks/visors):

[stonemint]

Terrific find, Erwesa. I wonder if the German cap makers had anything as precise as that in terms of custom-ordering a hat.
(as a matter of personal aesthetics, I would go with the 8 cm front seam and the 76 degree visor!)

[ErWeSa]

Thanks to Erel I got insight in Prediger’s instructions for cap making (see Mützenfabrik threads # 1050 and # 1054).

Both the articles “Uniformmütze nach dem Stahlbügelverfahren zugeschnitten” from 1937 and “Die Schirmütze des Heeres” from 1939 bring up new insights.

First of all, there are again different measures of the seams at the front/sides/back, top panel mentioned for the Heeresmütze (even if these only differ by millimetres).

Then there is a mention of a “gebogener Rand” (bent centerband) – something I heard of for the first time and which means that the centerband is shorter at its top than at its bottom.

The prescriptions also mention a lot of stretching/shortening of the fabric in certain places to ensure a certain shape (keep it “völlig” or “glatt”) or for puffing certain parts.

Then one of the prescriptions also mentions in which order badges and lining are fixed – thus, if the splints of the badges can be seen or not.

It also becomes clear that only millimetres are decisive for certain effects.

Most important for me are the different shapes which are mentioned in post # 1054, 2nd page, figure 6, 7 and 8 (and which, obviously, were subject to personal preferences): more saddle-shaped caps, steeper caps or regularly inclined caps and how these effects can be achieved. Prediger e. g. brings up the curved seam of the side panels at the front of the cap again here (cp. to Hempe's templates for customs peaked caps, see post # 9 of this thread).

It goes without saying (and F.-B. has already mentioned this) that the language of these texts is almost incomprehensible for two reasons: first of all it is a technical tailoring language and secondly it uses terms which have been obsolete for decades – I wonder if a tailor of our days knows what a “Schranze” is – I don’t and there is nothing suitable to be found neither in old encyclopedias nor online, and this is only one of many uncommon/unknowable terms in these texts.

So what we can conclude from all of this (Hempe’s and Prediger’s instructions and official prescriptions) is, that there were innumerable possibilities of making peaked caps which were – more or less – coming up to official prescriptions (which themselves changed over the times) and which let producers lots of liberties in between the fixed parameters such as lengths of seams, widths of pipings etc. for their individual interpretation of these prescriptions.

This also explains the wide variety of shapes of peaked caps. Every producer had his own way of producing a peaked cap he claimed to be according to regulations. Some were, others were not, for whatever reasons (personal preference, vanity…), not to mention the limitations cap producers were confronted with at the end of the war: skilled workers, materials, machines, etc., etc.).

This, of course, makes it difficult for the collector to decide what is original. There are so many possibilities that – as F.-B. always states – there is no “textbook” visor cap, just one typical for a certain maker for a certain period (and often also for a certain person, male of female, who had his/her own method of making a peaked cap).

All very interesting and a bit frustrating at the same time, as there is no simple solution, as so often in life, and everyone has to find out for himself what he likes best (and most frustrating for potential cap makers, as there are no distinct instructions of how to make which shape).

One more thing: the quill in my post # 133 (see above) is not the only "white waxy plastic looking material" which was used, Prediger mentions boning as possible stiffener material.

[Friedrich-Berthold]

Thanks to Erel I got insight in Prediger’s instructions for cap making (see Mützenfabrik threads # 1050 and # 1054).

Both the articles “Uniformmütze nach dem Stahlbügelverfahren zugeschnitten” from 1937 and “Die Schirmütze des Heeres” from 1939 bring up new insights.

First of all, there are again different measures of the seams at the front/sides/back, top panel mentioned for the Heeresmütze (even if these only differ by millimetres).

Then there is a mention of a “gebogener Rand” (bent centerband) – something I heard of for the first time and which means that the centerband is shorter at its top than at its bottom.

The prescriptions also mention a lot of stretching/shortening of the fabric in certain places to ensure a certain shape (keep it “völlig” or “glatt”) or for puffing certain parts.

Then one of the prescriptions also mentions in which order badges and lining are fixed – thus, if the splints of the badges can be seen or not.

It also becomes clear that only millimetres are decisive for certain effects.

Most important for me are the different shapes which are mentioned in post # 1054, 2nd page, figure 6, 7 and 8 (and which, obviously, were subject to personal preferences): more saddle-shaped caps, steeper caps or regularly inclined caps and how these effects can be achieved. Prediger e. g. brings up the curved seam of the side panels at the front of the cap again here (cp. to Hempe's templates for customs peaked caps).

It goes without saying (and F.-B. has already mentioned this) that the language of these texts is almost incomprehensible for two reasons: first of all it is a technical tailoring language and secondly it uses terms which have been obsolete for decades – I wonder if a tailor of our days knows what a “Schranze” is – I don’t and there is nothing suitable to be found neither in old encyclopedias nor online, and this is only one of many uncommon/unknowable terms in these texts.

So what we can conclude from all of this (Hempe’s and Prediger’s instructions and official prescriptions) is, that there were innumerable possibilities of making peaked caps which were – more or less – coming up to official prescriptions (which themselves changed over the times) and which let producers lots of liberties in between the fixed parameters such as lengths of seams, widths of pipings etc. for their individual interpretation of these prescriptions.

This also explains the wide variety of shapes of peaked caps. Every producer hat his own way of producing a peaked cap he claimed to be according to regulations. Some were, others were not, for whatever reasons (personal preference, vanity…), not to mention the limitations cap producers were confronted with at the end of the war: skilled workers, materials, machines, etc., etc.).

This, of course, makes it difficult for the collector to decide what is original. There are so many possibilities that – as F.-B. always states – there is no “textbook” visor cap, just one typical for a certain maker for a certain period (and often also for a certain person, male of female, who had his/her own method of making a peaked cap).

All very interesting and a bit frustrating at the same time, as there is no simple solution, as so often in life, and everyone has to find out for himself what he likes best (and most frustrating for potential cap makers, as there are no distinct instructions of how to make which shape).

One more thing: the quill in my post # 133 (see above) is not the only "white waxy plastic looking material" which was used, Prediger mentions boning as possible stiffener material.

[Friedrich-Berthold]

Bravo, Wolfgang. You have taken the "textbook" and crushed it in all its idiocy.

How many witless posts on the other website have lead the collector away from the considerable wisdom Wolfgang has provided here in a brilliant summary.

Hurra!

[ErWeSa]

[QUOTE=Friedrich-Berthold;1729528]Bravo, Wolfgang. You have taken the "textbook" and crushed it in all its idiocy.

How many witless posts on the other website have lead the collector away from the considerable wisdom Wolfgang has provided here in a brilliant summary.

Hurra!

Thank you F.-B.!
Just that it is not my wisdom but Prediger's and Hempe's. It is people like you and Erel who made these texts accessible to me - thank you both for it!

I am about to try out Prediger's templates as well as "ordinary" Wehrmachtsschnitt ones, should the outcome be half-decent I'll post pictures here for comparison.

[ErWeSa]

It took some time as the first attempt to make a cap due to Prediger's Stahlbügelsystem was a total fail, and this second is not too much better but one can at least get an idea of the shape of a cap made with such templates - much more elegant than the outcome of Hempe's prescriptions (here again applies what was said so often already: there are so many different measures depending on the period/the maker/fashion etc. etc., that this is not surprising).
Attachment 1072709

What is surprising is that it is quite different from one the caps Prediger himself made (see below) - could be due to my lack of workmanship/training/talent or perhaps he had some more templates he didn't share with his fellow cap-makers.