New HG tunic

**Paul R** · 03-09-2009, 12:09 PM

Here is a photo of the tunic with the boards seen in Angolia's book. Notice the yellowish spots on the pockets(not actually visible in person) seen on both.

The Ostfront ribbon was added by the past owner(tucked into the buttonhole) for display.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 03-09-2009 12:09 PM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Dimas** · 03-09-2009, 12:10 PM

But I would say my decission from that pictures- the tunic is OK

**John Brandon** · 03-09-2009, 02:29 PM

Sorry, when I said "last post" I was referring to my previous statment " having doubts"

To be honest, I still stand by what I said, getting the tunic from someone that you know and respect, does not automatically make it right, if you follow WAF then you should remember the saga of that SS tunic, the one that caused all the fuss?

And that came from a well respected and knowledgeable collector, and it was proved to be wrong. The photos that you posted are not IMO of the quality to make rash decisions, therefore I still say " i have my doubts" and stick by it. I hope that it is real, but coming from someone that is respected does not make it automatically so.......and Dimas, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but it was not the norm (on a 43 tunic) to sew through the lining, 44 onwards yes

I want the tunic to be real, its rare, and its nice, but I won't commit until its proven, sorry

**Paul R** · 03-09-2009, 02:36 PM

Thanks for the replies. I will make better photos when I get the tunic in hand. From what I am understanding, the tunic was made in 44.

**bikerboyzx6r** · 03-09-2009, 03:00 PM

Is this the date stamp? It reads 45 to me! Any thoughts?
Dan

**Dimas** · 03-09-2009, 03:19 PM

by JMB

Sorry, when I said "last post" I was referring to my previous statment " having doubts"

To be honest, I still stand by what I said, getting the tunic from someone that you know and respect, does not automatically make it right, if you follow WAF then you should remember the saga of that SS tunic, the one that caused all the fuss?

And that came from a well respected and knowledgeable collector, and it was proved to be wrong. The photos that you posted are not IMO of the quality to make rash decisions, therefore I still say " i have my doubts" and stick by it. I hope that it is real, but coming from someone that is respected does not make it automatically so.......and Dimas, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but it was not the norm (on a 43 tunic) to sew through the lining, 44 onwards yes

I want the tunic to be real, its rare, and its nice, but I won't commit until its proven, sorry

No problem, as many of us- us many opinions and thoughts, the forum was builded for that

**Dimas** · 03-09-2009, 03:23 PM

by bikerboyzx6r

Is this the date stamp? It reads 45 to me! Any thoughts?
Dan

That is the back length. The year is usually below of 5 digits code and starts from the letter ( Depot, f.e : St for Stettin) then 2 last digits are year.
This one has no depot location stamp, which is usually seen on the depot remade tunics

**Dimas** · 03-09-2009, 03:32 PM

This tunic was newer in the hands of collectors, I've bought it from a guy who found it on the farm, the tunic was repainted in black, but I've remove the black paint. Take a look at the stitching on the eagle

**Dimas** · 03-09-2009, 03:34 PM

I don't say that all the 43's must have the eagle sawed trough the liner, but approx 90% of them, in that case the pocket's flaps is also sewn in under the lining

**Paul R** · 03-10-2009, 11:39 AM

by Dimas

I don't say that all the 43's must have the eagle sawed trough the liner, but approx 90% of them, in that case the pocket's flaps is also sewn in under the lining

Thanks for placing the examples!