Early or late WWII items?

[dramos]

I prefer the earlier items, not to say I won't buy later items though! I like the wear they usually show and prefer things to show some age. I started collecting knowing that I was holding something that saw the history I was so interested in. When items have that "been there" look I prefer it.

[M18922]

One if the main attractions for me is the quality in the items I collect. So I tend to go for early items when they used better materials. But I won't deny there is a certain charm to late war items that have been worn and could tell a good few stories if it was possible.

[Spitace41]

I will buy most items as long as the price is right at the time. I am also a fan of upgrading. E.g. I had a fairly rough P17 bayonet without scabbard but I moved it along when a nicer one with scabbard came along. that is how I work with a lot of my items. That way, if I never see one again (unlikely I know) I at least have a representative example.

[TrondK]

Salty items with alot of soul.

It gets my collectors blood boiling anytime and anywhere.

[slados28]

Only been collecting for a few years but I've been doing a lot of upgrading like that myself, Spitace41! If it's really rare I go for it despite condition but even then I can always hope to find an upgrade and sell on the poorer conditon example --- with more common items I tend to hold out for nice condition examples but, like I said before, I've noticed a distinct difference in my quality requirements when it comes to enamels/awards vs. field gear etc.

[Jerry B]

Obviously you were asking about WWII items, but please in future if you are posting in the discussions section which covers all periods on the forum try and be more specific in your title, as WWII is not the only war covered here. I have edited it for you.

[Jerry B]

As regards WWII, certain items were not in use in the early period, and many of them have their own appeal, but I mostly prefer items from the early to mid war period and those that have signs of use, though not relics unless they have a known history that interests me. The other question is want is classed as early, mid or late war? After a recent thread where it was considered that the war did not start until after December 7th 1941, how do you define these terms? Italians might argue that the war ended in 43 and for some French people it could be argued that the war ended in 1940. Too many variables for such a blanket terminology to be applied and the inbuilt arrogance of TR collectors to assume that 39-45 was THE WAR which mirrors the arrogance of the nation that started it all.

[slados28]

This was a great thread but now I feel we are suddenly being classed as arrogant due to the original thread title? This thread title exemplified "inbuilt arrogance"? Sorry, I just don't get that one...

[Erno]

World War II was the largest war in human history in terms of death toll, and it's the main focus of most of the discussions on this forum, so I wouldn't have any problem calling it "the war," as long as everyone understands which is being referenced. From the responses, it's pretty clear that everyone did. That's my opinion.

(I don't mean to derail the thread)

[Jerry B]

This was a great thread but now I feel we are suddenly being classed as arrogant due to the original thread title? This thread title exemplified "inbuilt arrogance"? Sorry, I just don't get that one...

Just my opinion to which I am entitled, same as you are entitled to yours.