Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

unused usmc cover

Article about: so why would they go back to slits when makeing these covers again in the 50s.

  1. #11

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    well it ended at $510 a lot more then even i was expecting

  2. #12

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    That is a ridiculous price IMHO. $300 would have been more appropriate. I think this was the result of a bidding war.

  3. #13

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    I just wanted to add to this for future reference - 500 seems unreasonable... until they routinely sell for that, and then when they sell for 900 it will have been 'the good old days'. Anyway, THIS one is a little special because it is a '2nd' pattern with slits in the flaps. Harder to find, and the condition is excellent. They're certainly never going to get easier to find, and purists tend to drool over details while everyone else thinks they're crazy. Also, I note that when certain variations of this or that over at the USMF get a lot of attention, the prices jump accordingly. At least for a while.

  4. #14

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    I just wanted to respond to GITANA's post and please do not take this in a negative way.
    That is like saying that someone who paid $10,000 for a 1967 Ford Mustang back in 1967 (when the retail price at the time was $7,500) did not overpay because eventually they will become more rare and worth more. And now in 2013 when we look back, $10,000 was the good ole days since they routinely sell for $12-$15,000 today (depending on model etc).
    It doesnt change the fact that in 1967 the buyer overpaid for the car.
    Also even though this was a 3rd pattern (NOT A SECOND PATTERN AS YOU HAVE STATED - see chart) model it is still not as valuable (based on collector demand) as a First Pattern cover.
    The buyer still overpaid IMHO. That being said, that is only one mans opinion.
    And if you have the money to blow, more power to you.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture Click image for larger version. 

Name:	viewer (1).jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	102.5 KB 
ID:	544262  

  5. #15

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    Anton, you make a good point. But you use as an example a retail item (car) with fixed sales prices. Militaria doesn't work like that and is priced according to demand. I would have thought this would sell for around $300, based on past sales, but the 'worth' of an item is always evolving. We'll have to wait and see as a few more of this particular pattern in excellent condition are sold. If your instincts are correct, the next one would sell for less. But at least 2 bidders bid up to $500, so the demand is out there. An item is worth as much as someone is willing to pay, not what the seller, forum dwellers, or anyone else thinks it should be.

    By the way, that chart you posted isn't necessarily correct. In fact, the latest evidence points to the 'First' pattern shown above is actually the third pattern produced. Who knows for sure where the version with slits in the flaps falls. We could call them 'smooth', 'perforated', and 'extra perforated' patterns until someone determines the actual order of production. The author of that chart should probably update it.

  6. #16

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    The problem with your theory on price is that a person could NEVER overpay because an item is worth what someone is willing to pay. There is still a market price for an item which in this case is approx $300.00 based on past sales.
    I do agree that prices are evolving but I I still say the buyer got caught in a bidding war and overpaid.
    If it would have went for $350, then OK I see your point. But we are talking about $200 over price. Items in a market place usually do not jump that much in a short time.

    As for the chart, at this point it is correct.
    There is a theory floating around on USMF which may be true that the "Second Pattern" (no holes on the flaps) is actually the first pattern used by Marines. Even if true, the name of the patterns are still as stated in my chart until another book is published.
    There are no published writings that I am aware of referring to the "Third Pattern" (as shown in my chart) as the "Second Pattern".
    Also, even with that theory, there is no evidence that the "Third Pattern" on my chart has moved up to the "Second Pattern". I challenge you to find photographic evidence of GIs using the "Third Pattern". You likely will not find it since you would have to see the bottom of the helmet cover to tell.

  7. #17

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    So it it's written in a book - or in a chart - it's true? Books are written based on research, and right now research is being done in the forums. Actually, the debate wasn't with the 'extra perforated' version but considered photographic evidence showing the 'smooth' version in use AFTER the 'perforated' version... the idea being that they stopped making foliage slits to cut costs. A similar thing happened in Iraq - the desert pattern had slits in it until 1991, when, to facilitate more of them quickly, the slits were left out.

    And 'your' chart shows the 'extra perforated' version as the 'third pattern', but in collector vernacular that is referred to as the 'second pattern'. At least for now it is. The names in 'your' chart don't necessarily reflect when each was produced, and in fact don't even reflect collector names - which was a mistake on the author's part. That's why I suggested a different way to refer to each one.

    How about, '16-slit', '20-slit', and 'scared slitless'.

    Btw, now that a '20-slot' has sold for $500, guess what the dealers will do? They assume that's what the market can bear and will raise prices. Then these things really will cost $500 each. A couple of excited bidders can cause cascading effects in pricing. I understand your point but we need to wait to see how the market responds.

  8. #18

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    Look, call the patterns what you want if it makes you happy.
    All I know is the book I posted says one thing and your idea of the names are not documented in any book.
    Who knows, maybe they added slits as an improvement on the cover.
    Also, just because someone posts an idea on a forum doesnt make it accurate either.
    According to your theory, the pattern with the extra slits on the flaps should be a First Pattern, right?
    You know what, I think you should buy the next one that comes up for sale on ebay and pay $1,000 for it just to prove me wrong.
    Then you can say the market price is $1,000.
    I am sure you will tell me that you got a good deal because the cover is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, right.
    You will also tell me how they will go up in price so eventually you will make money on the deal, right?

  9. #19

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    Common knowledge has the smooth version as a first pattern. Then comes the variations with foliage slits. No one knows which slitted pattern came first, or if they were produced concurrently.

    Now, however, photo evidence seems to indicate that the smooth version came AFTER the slitted versions. Here we can see the progression in this document:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Untitled-1.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	207.2 KB 
ID:	545028

    I already have one of each of these and wouldn't pay $500 for any of them.

  10. #20

    Default Re: unused usmc cover

    ok so your saying that its the other way around with the 1st 2nd 3rd pattern covers.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Usmc cover yet again

    In US M1 steel helmet forum
    06-25-2013, 12:49 AM
  2. M1 USMc cover

    In US M1 steel helmet forum
    06-02-2013, 02:30 AM
  3. USMC cover with bug net

    In US M1 steel helmet forum
    12-29-2012, 09:54 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts