Opinions needed on Luftwaffe EM/NCO, Division Hermann Göring Schirmmütze

[KSH]

Please go to "MILITARYCOLLECTIBLESINC.COM click under hats Luftwaffe.Item #ha00713 and check this marked hat.I have not dealt with this dealer and only used him as an example so i dont wish to get into a contraversy about this seller!!

And besides what is comparing a low-quality pre-war contract piece to my privately purchased war-time cap going to produce? They are from two different worlds.


In addition to that the contract pieces (with the orange interior) were issued by the Wehrmacht to the soldier and thus they usually carry the Geprüft-stamps, not surprisingly. But a privately purchased cap was made and purchased without any involvement from the Wehrmacht (here the Luftwaffe), it was a business transaction between the soldier and the cap maker/tailor - so for instance if this soldier decided not to bother with following the regulations, he would just take the cap home without it ever having been inspected by his officers. He probably intended his nicer private purchase cap to be a cap to be worn on special occasions and not for his daily service time anyhow, so why bother with the extra labour of bringing it in to work, just to take it home again? So if he brought it directly home it will not have a stamp, period. This is of course just an example of what might have happened in say a pre-war scenario. During the war there were apparently more important things to do, than to stamp visor caps - as the accumulated cap evidence portray.

It seems that too many collectors out there have a really poor understanding of how the different processes of acquiring a service cap really was like.


Regards,

Kenneth S-H.

[KSH]

Any member not familiar with the difference between (in this case Luftwaffe) issued contract pieces and private purchase caps should review this thread which is a comparison between two Luftwaffe EM/NCO caps, one an issued contract piece and the other an example of a higher quality privately purchased cap: https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/cloth...uetzen-128526/


Regards,

Kenneth S-H.

[M18922]

Very well said Kenneth. Bravo.

Cheers, Pat

[goodbuys]

Amusing and tragic is your statement!I have personally seen at least four original HG visors and they all had a makers mark and all except one had a H.G or GG REGT. or division mark in it.You seem to be getting a bit fiesty about my post and others posting!Don't put your items on if you can't take negative replys.As far as i am concerned i would not want to own it,period!!I don't like to see your type of replies as you posted it and asked for opinions and then you have an attitude about it.I have more years in this hobby than you are old,so dont get snotty with me!!You are not that long in the hobby to start telling the other members what's what!Take it to a show and see how fast it sells!Carl

[KSH]

Amusing and tragic is your statement!I have personally seen at least four original HG visors and they all had a makers mark and all except one had a H.G or GG REGT. or division mark in it.You seem to be getting a bit fiesty about my post and others posting!Don't put your items on if you can't take negative replys.As far as i am concerned i would not want to own it,period!!I don't like to see your type of replies as you posted it and asked for opinions and then you have an attitude about it.I have more years in this hobby than you are old,so dont get snotty with me!!You are not that long in the hobby to start telling the other members what's what!Take it to a show and see how fast it sells!Carl

Well, for the record you started the ad hominem business here. When I posted this cap I was still too unsure of myself to trust my own opinion of it - I have studied a lot since then, and I have a completely different knowledge-base today, than I had then. Here you are continuing to display faulty logic Carl - as you speak of HG-visors as a magical entity, like they all originated from the same spot and and at the same time. Fact: ANY soldier of the German armed forces had the option to purchase privately caps for himself. This fact also bears with it consequences - among them is that the same that applies to privately purchased Luftwaffe Flak-caps or privately purchased army infantry caps MUST also adhere to privately purchased caps which happen to have white piping. The fact that you have seen 4 original HG-visors, and that they all were maker marked is actually what I statistically would expect - because statistically most German caps were maker marked. On the other hand very many original caps were never maker marked - this is a fact no-one will dispute. However, the same fact that you have seen 4 original HG-visors (which probably were issue pieces) that were maker marked (as chance would dictate) cannot in anyway alter the facts surrounding the German cap industry. If we follow this line of reasoning: soldiers could buy privately the caps they wanted from a cap maker/tailor WITHOUT the involvement of the Luftwaffe (fact) - these privately purchased visors are more likely to not receive a Geprüft-stamp than a contract piece for many reasons (fact) - many privately purchased caps never got a maker's mark (fact), most likely these were made by very small makers without the ability to mark the caps as the bigger ones did (you don't have to look further than the comparison thread above to find such an unmarked cap) - in conclusion your first-hand observation that all the 4 caps you have seen have been maker marked cannot have any bearing as to whether this cap is a genuine HG example or not, because of the afore-mentioned facts.

These facts are:

Privately purchased HG-caps did exist - this is a certainty, and not simply my opinion. To suggest for instance that not one man from an entire division (a division that collectors have no historical basis to create a separate standard for) bought a privately purchased visor is preposterous to say the least.

Having established the afore-mentioned - that at least one of these privately purchased visors did not receive a maker's mark is not even just possible, it is also very likely statistically.

The fact that so many of these privately purchased visors, especially those produced during the war did not receive an inspection stamp (again consult for instance the privately purchased visor in the linked-to comparison thread above) tells us that it was common-place, and more likely to occur as the war progressed.

And thus your argumentation is shattered (snotty as that may be from yours truly), as it is based on misconceptions and confusions created especially by the North American collectors on the whacky site. In truth it would be a statistical anomaly if a cap such as mine did not appear.

The number of years in this hobby or another is not what dictates aptitude in such matters, by efficient study a man can learn more in a year than another have learned in twenty years if he puts his heart and soul into it. You don't seem to have read this original thread very closely either, because then you would have seen that the originality of this piece was not questioned by those who know their stuff around here - I was however given the advice to rather get myself a "problem-free example" (a term invented by N.A, collectors) - which in other words would mean your common orange-lined mediocre quality contract cap with all the desired markings in it. And this advice was sound and only intended to make me make a more solid investment, which I appreciated. However, I am not into this hobby because of investments or money, I am in it for history and truth - as such I chose to keep the cap. You are perfectly correct that if I took this cap to a show (especially a US one), I would never have gotten my investment back in any way - but how can this fact directly pass a judgment on my cap as an historical artifact? Afterall, Galileo Galilei told the truth when he wrote "The Dialogue", in which he proved that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around - the keepers of the dogmas of the day (the church) called it a lie. My point is, how can your "show comment" really and absolutely determine the historical status of a cap?

What is clear is that I have a genuine Luftwaffe EM/NCO cap with white piping which is original to the cap. As far as I know only the HG-division used this Waffenfarbe in the Luftwaffe - correct me if I'm wrong here anyone. Please consult my presentation on the cap in question for more information regarding the cap and please do ask if there is anything you would like to inquire into regarding the cap and its physical properties.

I only replied to your post in a manner suited to its merit and I can assure you that I tolerate other opinions than my own - it's just that I meet them with arguments instead of name-calling. And you do not intimidate me, Carl, with your self-proclaimed superiority over yours truly, based simply on the fact that you have been a collector for a longer time then I have. I am a fast learner, what can I say.


Regards,

Kenneth S-H.

[Adrian]

Carl, your last post which I have deleted is completely unacceptable. There is no need to resort to name calling and insults. You can agree to disagree in a gentlemanly manner and with dignity.

Kenneth has presented the facts about his cap in a fair and well mannered way. Please respond in kind and present the reasons why you believe it to be fake in a similar way instead of mounting a high horse and ranting that he is wrong.
To the members here wanting to learn about these things such as myself, we require alot more than comments along the lines of "I've been in the hobby a long time, I don't like it and you shouldn't either because I said so and don't you dare disagree with me."

If you've been in the hobby that long and know what you're talking about please communicate the facts on what is wrong with the cap to the rest of us.

[KSH]

I am much obliged Carl, indeed. You accuse me of writing many words which apparently have no substance to you. Likewise I would like to make it clear to you that you have written several words above yourself, without managing to construct a single proper argument arguing that my cap is not an original cap. Your single argument basing itself on the markings has been shown to be without merit. You characterize me and my behavior regarding this cap in a manner that I in no way can identify myself with. I have always been open about this cap, and the fact remains that no single person has been able to prove that this cap is not genuine. I have gone over this cap as thorough as is possible - I know every scratch in its visor and every detail of its manufacture - the cap proves for itself that it is from the period in every way that is possible. Rather it seems to me that you are the person who have made up his mind that the cap is not original, without having anything solid to base it on. And you have misunderstood my intentions utterly regarding this cap, if you believe that I paid a lot of money for it and now is trying my best to convince myself and others that it is genuine out of some classic sense of "collector's denial". Not so, I knew exactly what I was going into when I bought it, and couldn't be happier with my decision today. This is a cap I bought with the intention of keeping and not reselling. I bought it because it intrigued me and it still does.

Regards,

Kenneth S-H.

[Danmark]

Bravo Kenneth! - a treatise ( & a half ) for sure, but when one is pushed, one HAS to respond thusly!!

My humble point of view is this - NONE of us were alive ( apologies to any octogenerian forum members ) so who can say FOR CERTAIN "such & such" about a piece? - those who diligently study these things decades later MUST make assumptions from time to time and therefore CANNOT become dogmatic - we MUST always consider an alternative to OUR preconceptions and make allowances for what may also have occurred - or those "textbook" preconceptions we love so much will always blinker us!

Cheers, Dan

[KSH]

Bravo Kenneth! - a treatise ( & a half ) for sure, but when one is pushed, one HAS to respond thusly!!

My humble point of view is this - NONE of us were alive ( apologies to any octogenerian forum members ) so who can say FOR CERTAIN "such & such" about a piece? - those who diligently study these things decades later MUST make assumptions from time to time and therefore CANNOT become dogmatic - we MUST always consider an alternative to OUR preconceptions and make allowances for what may also have occurred - or those "textbook" preconceptions we love so much will always blinker us!

Cheers, Dan

I agree with all you have to say - when it comes to this cap it is actually "textbook" when looking at the materials used and how it has been put together. So it is possible for me to prove as much as is possible that the cap is a period piece by these factors alone. And the fact is that no-one would have disputed this cap if it had been a Flak or "Flying troops" visor. To check my own assessment of the construction and the materials of the cap, I have shown it to several much more experienced cap collectors who have given the cap a favorable review in this regard (construction and materials). And you can compare every piece of it to other examples, say the chinstrap, the leather trim around the visor, the installment of the piping, the rayon used for the black cap band, the rayon of the lining, the Luftwaffe blue doeskin-wool and I could continue here - it all matches up. I go into this a bit more in my presentation thread on the same visor in the main section of the Cloth Headgear-forum. There is nothing contestable about this cap, except for the markings it would seem, which as I have stated above is not a valid argument. If someone said that the peak is of the wrong type and so and so, that would be different matter. But as I already have stated the peak and all other parts are "textbook" in fact. Speaking of Luftwaffe peaks, some peaks have a pebbled underside instead of the "textbook" "cross-hatching" that you see on my cap. In fact some of these Luftwaffe peaks with pebbled peak undersides are original, but not "textbook", so too many disregard such caps with the pebbled visor underside as fakes. It must also be said that many fake caps have this feature. Dogmatism is dangerous, especially when it does not base itself on the facts.

This is a link to such a fake HG-cap with the pebbled visor: Luftwaffe Hermann Goring Division nco/enlisted visor hat by Franz Richter & Sohne This is an example of what a fake HG looks like.

Speaking generally you make important observations indeed, "textbook" is a dangerous word and we must always keep ourselves based on the facts, and where the facts are shady we have to be careful to have an open mind.


Regards,

Kenneth S-H.

[BOB COLEMAN]

I missed this thread when it went around the first time. It is evident that you want to believe this cap to be period original. For all of the reasons stated by those with doubts, I must agree. I have owned a number of these caps over the years and handled more. The construction and lack of markings, which I have observed in EVERY cap, would not make this a piece I would want to own. The Goring Division unit marked all headgear, incvluding helmets and private purchase caps. My two cents for what it is worth. What is important is whether or not you are happy with the piece. As a final note, a clever faker can simulate light wear. Condition does not make me question this. Construction does.