From the same leading collection, a rather mint late war piece...this kind of thing is the exception. This piece had been in a collection since 1960 when sold in the middle of this decade.
This one belongs to a friend.
Thanks to my Swedish colleague.
another from a leading US dealer.
The interior of the cap in posts 14 & 15. This piece corresponds to what Wilkins describes as "textbook," but I would never make such a generalization or use such a term. In fact, many of these grey caps had either a custard or yellow interior and often a grey one, i.e. the contract made caps for the Kleiderkasse. And, plainly, several had no sweat rhombus, either, as shown in certain of the examples seen in this thread.
My thoughts, for what they are worth, on posting pictures of items provided to you by others. My personal belief would be that I would not post a picture supplied to me in confidence without the permission of the
owner. I would further elaborate that this is my personal opinion and not a judgement on what any one else does. My feelings come from an incident many years ago when I owned two N S D A P Judicial officials visor caps. As I only needed one in my collection, I offered the cap to a collector who had been asking all over the internet for one. I sent him photographs of the cap, which he pro,ptly posted on G D C for opinions from the Peanut Gallery. As I would surmise that 99.9% of the collector community has ever identified such a cap or even known anyone who has such a piece or seen one, the negative comments immediately started forthcoming from the know nothings of the collecting community. In such an instance, I believe a request to post for opinion should have been requested. I withdrew my offer to sell to the individual and sold it to another within 48 hours for the same price. As the items being posted on this thread are for reference and not for sale, possibly, my analogy of this situation may be completely wrong.
LIFE'S LOSERS NEVER LEARN FROM THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS.
Thank you for yours. The images I have posted have in the main been posted on sites in a public venue. In the handful of cases where something has been sent to me confidentially, I have scrupulously respected the discretion of the sender. I think everyone is entitled to privacy. But I think if an image is on one of these collector sites, or a dealer's site, then I surely feel fewer qualms. However, what Bob Coleman describes is an affront of the first order. I would also observe that the other websites have well embraced the carnival atmosphere of public humiliation of whatever object the crowds decides is to be damned, much like popular culture in general. Pray to what you have burnt, and burn what you pray to, as the leading principle. This tendency is leveled against dealers, but then seems to spread in all directions in the manner that Bob has indicated above. I surely hope I have not aided same. One can be skeptical without being destructive, but so often the latter has trumped the former. My wish here has been to post what I think are real examples, and explain their essence and characteristics.
I am grateful to Bob Coleman for his intervention and am doubly grateful that despite the ups and the downs, he shares his material with us. I think this is the main point. We want an atmosphere were people come forward with material, not one in which it is cyber Spiessrutenlaufen, ie. when some poor soul is whipped by the whole cohort. I also think this site has made some real progress so as to return learning and discovery to the pursuit of old regalia.
Here is the interior of one of the caps in the 1st post of this thread.
The interior of the cap in Post N. 25 above.