Rare and Unusual: USMC stamped OD helmet cover

[combat-helmets]

There have been alot of interesting helmet covers being posted on the forum lately!

 

I actively collect and seek out USMC helmet covers, and have been really fortunate to acquire to VERY rare Marine covers from none other than fellow forum member Mike Whitehead ( a.k.a. Sgt.Dorango)

 

Recall, I recently acquired a stamped Frogskin cover , not documented in any collector's reference ( thread is pinned here for forum reference).

 

There was also a recent discussion on OD helmet covers. No one seems to know their source, use history, collecting value, etc. all unmarked. I figured if I was going to get an OD cover, I wanted a marked one because those are super scare.

However, I then posted a thread "Woe to me" where a 1960's helmet set was listed on e-bay, it sported a mint unissued, USMC stamped helmet cover, complete with contract number and date ( which was blurred, having bled into the fabric).

 

See thread: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/171955-woe-into-me-ebay-frustrations/

 

Now this one that just came from Sgt.Dorango.

There was a thread on this very cover years ago, that went no where. I am resurrecting this today for discussion and possible learn more about the origins of these stamped covers. Here is Mike's original thread:

http://www.usmilitar...d-helmet-cover/

 

I added a few pics on my own, but Mike's capture this perfectly.

 

WHAT THE HECK DO I HAVE HERE????

 

I sent a preview out to a couple other forum members. One asked that I check the date , due to bleeding into the cover it could be "57" instead of the "67" it seems to me.

 

So I gave this a serious going over, and I am baffled. We all know the famous pic of the Marine on the beach at the Da Nang landing. this was 1964!

[combat-helmets]

So what type of cover is he using??? One of those surplus Korean War era unmarked ones?

My cover appears to me to have a 1967 contract date, AND a manufacturers mark "Goods Co 1968". So to answer Pump's question to check the date, it sure looks like "67" and this maker's stamp of "1968" certainly would make sense ( contract awarded 1967, but produced in 1968).

 

The EGA stamps to me look period applied as they have bled nicely into the cover. As does the "Goods Co 1968" stamping. This remains THE only stamped cover with a Manufacturer's stamping I have EVER seen. ( I have only seen 3, 2 of which are menioned right here in this thread and Craig Pickerall's OD cover from the pinned thread)

 

So the big question: Why would there be a contract for an OD helmet cover circa 1967/68 when the Mitchell pattern ( a CAMMO pattern obviously) was in full production and issue to all Armed services.

 

Why has this contract number ( along with the contract stamped Frog Skin Cover) not been listed in any published collectors reference? I am opening this up to the forum for insight. I am also thinking of contacting noted published Authors to have this and the Stamped frog skin covers added to future publications as I believe they are significant finds ( no less unearthed here on our forum!)

 

Here is the stamp on my cover:

[combat-helmets]

Here is the stamp from the Cover on the Ebay listing ( see link above). You will see it is the same contract ( however the date is blurred)

[combat-helmets]

Now the rest of the pics I took..

[combat-helmets]

Mfg. stamping nicely bled into the fabric

[combat-helmets]

some of Mike's old pics with the EGA stamping...

[combat-helmets]

...

[combat-helmets]

last..

[pump 150]

The first marked one of these I saw online was advertised as a "57" (can't remember where) and looked very similar to your post #2. With the contract markings as mentioned in the first thread being just like the "59" Mitchell's it seems to make sense. He also mentioned that some of the numbers could go either way.

 

Things to consider if some of those blended numbers are a "5".

 

It would have the exact same project number as the first Mitchell's (5850). Maybe it was part of the camo tests during the late 1950's. Dunno

 

The NSN number given is only off by the last digit as opposed to the '59s. Assigned near the same time. Dunno

 

That's why I'm thinking 1957. As for why also a 1968 date and company name. I have no idea. It is different that's for sure.

[combat-helmets]

Thanks Bill. I see alot of views on this thread, but not many comments. I think this has everyone stumped. Certainly me.

And wouldn't you know, I was looking at the photo of the contract stamp again yesterday and I'm thinking it does look like "57" It does appear to have a break.

I just cropped the pic and enhanced the colors. Now I believe I am seeing a "57" and NOT "67" date

[RustyCanteen]

That's why I'm thinking 1957. As for why also a 1968 date and company name. I have no idea. It is different that's for sure.

 

It does look like "57" to me too.

 

As for why something ostensibly dated 1957 would carry a 1968 date, let's remember that 1957 would likely be the contract or pattern date from which it was being manufactured. That sort of thing is common when it comes to WWII USN stuff; someone will see a contract number that is dated to 1942 and assume it must be the manufacture date, when in reality it is merely the year the contract was awarded. Case in point, I had some stuff that could be dated by contract to 1942, but the actual manufacture date was 1945. As I said, it may be the case here.

 

Other than that, it is an unusual cover.

[pump 150]

Interesting info. I tried to do the same with the copy of the first marked one I saw and came up with about the same results. That project # does look like a 6850 to me, and looking harder, both the Apr. and Dec. 59 have different numbers so that would maybe make sense too. Still curious about the NSN. Never noticed it was so close to the Mitchell until now. Always been a lot of questions with these O.D.'s

[combat-helmets]

Now that I see ( and others see it to) a 1957 contract date, this would preclude the first two USMC Mitchell pattern contracts for the Marines

i.e. " USMC Project Number 5501 DC & TSC Dir. Mfg 4 February 1959" and " USMC Project Number 5850 DC & TSC Dir. Mfg 10 December 1959", which as we know, are the first issue Mitchell pattern covers.

 

That would make sense for the OD shade because there were USMC Items being made during the Korean War in OD Green ( I have several shelter halves, canteen covers, ponchos, sleeping bag covers and shovel covers, all 1950's dated, bearing the "USMC" stamping..

[usmc grunt]

We all know the famous pic of the Marine on the beach at the Da Nang landing. this was 1964!

 

The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade leathernecks landed at Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam, on March 8, 1965.

[usmc grunt]

So what type of cover is he using??? One of those surplus Korean War era unmarked ones?

My cover appears to me to have a 1967 contract date, AND a manufacturers mark "Goods Co 1968". So to answer Pump's question to check the date, it sure looks like "67" and this maker's stamp of "1968" certainly would make sense (contract awarded 1967, but produced in 1968).

 

The stamp on this cover, whether is reads "57" or "67" sends up a red flag for several reasons. Let's assume that the stamp reads, "Project No. 6850 DTD 11-10-67". There are only two other Marine Corps Supply Activity Project Numbers that are associated with helmet covers to include the following. Both are associated with the Mitchell cover and both are dated 1959 (see attached photo):

 

1.) Project No. 5501 DTD 4-2-59 (April 2, 1959)

2.) Project No. 5850 DTD 12-10-59 (December 10, 1959)

 

The Defense Supply Activity (DSA) was formally established on October 1, 1961. In his book, Post WWII M-1 Helmets, An Illustrated Study, Mark Reynosa correctly notes that after the formation of the DSA, helmet cover contracts were no longer issued through the Marine Corps Supply Activity. Reynosa writes:

 

"Initially, the new helmet covers were contracted through the Marine Corps Supply Activity. With the formation of the Defense Supply Agency (DSA) in late 1961 and early 1962, subsequent helmet cover contracts were issued through the DSA." (see page 111).

 

During the DSA's formative stage, the very first prefix that appears on a helmet cover is "P.O. 5002-62" (Purchase Order 5002 dated 1962). The next prefix that appears on a helmet cover is DSA 1-811-C-62 (see attached photo); and the very last helmet cover contract issued by the DSA, before it became the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in 1978, was DSA 100-77-F-U393. From 1962 through 1977, the only prefixes that appear on helmet covers, to include the Mitchell and the ERDL, are "DSA" and "Contract No."

 

"Project No" did not exist as a contract reference in 1967 and the Marine Corps Supply Activity was not issuing helmet cover contracts in 1967. A Project No. on a helmet cover associated with the Marine Corps Supply Activity that is dated 1967 is not valid.

[combat-helmets]

The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade leathernecks landed at Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam, on March 8, 1965.

You are correct ! Why was I thinking 1964??

[combat-helmets]

 

 

Grunt, Thank you for your research and commentary. It brings alot of useful information to this thread, and an excellent reference to refer upon.

 

 

"The stamp on this cover, whether is reads "57" or "67" sends up a red flag for several reasons. Let's assume that the stamp reads, "Project No. 6850 DTD 11-10-67". There are only two other Marine Corps Supply Activity Project Numbers that are associated with helmet covers to include the following. Both are associated with the Mitchell cover and both are dated 1959 (see attached photo):"

 

It was established that upon further analysis, that the cover does indeed have a 1957 date (not 1967 as I thought it appeared at the start of the thread.

That being said, the Marine Corps Supply Activity Project Number analogy WOULD at least make sense on a 1957 dated cover, but NOT on a 1967 dated cover as you indicated ( Due to the establishment of the DSA late 1961-early 1962.

 

"Let's assume that the stamp reads, "Project No. 6850 DTD 11-10-67". There are only two other Marine Corps Supply Activity Project Numbers that are associated with helmet covers to include the following. Both are associated with the Mitchell cover and both are dated 1959 (see attached photo):

 

1.) Project No. 5501 DTD 4-2-59 (April 2, 1959)

2.) Project No. 5850 DTD 12-10-59 (December 10, 1959)"

 

 

Now what I'm struggling to understand is that the cover is dated 1957, but the project number is "6850" (which if established in 1957) is sequentially later than that the two Mitchell contracts dated two years later in 1959, but having earlier project numbers ( i.e. 5501 and 5850)

 

Not sure that neccesarily means anything. Could just be that the Marine Corps was experimenting with a new Camouflage pattern in their supply and contract system ( which the Mitchell Pattern was -and was established in 1952, as used on shelter halves) versus a standard sateen issue cover as is the subject cover.

 

So in summary: "The stamp on this cover, whether is reads "57" or "67" sends up a red flag for several reasons. "

 

I would 100% agree with USMCGrunt if this contract WAS 1967 dated and bore a Marine Corps Supply Activity Project Number, because as Grunt correctly established, the DSA was firmly established by that time.

 

Where i respectfully disagree is that I do not see a red flag on a 1957 dated cover.

 

And that's kind of where I am on this thread? The published Authors such as Reynosa have documented what is known, however, there are a few things UNKNOWN still that need further research and addition to future collectors references ( such as this cover and Frog Skin covers that are Manufacturer stamped ( see the pinned thread on Frog Skin covers).

I am convinced it is authentic, and every few years or so, one seems to pop up every now and then, so covers stamped with this nomenclature are scarce versus the more common unstamped OD covers.

 

Bottom line, research needs to be done to pull the contract specifics on Project No. 6850 DTD 11-10-57 to see the specifics and issue parameters assuming it does exist.

If so, why have none of the Published authors mentioned this to date?

[usmc grunt]

Another concern that sends up a red flag, at least for me, is the stamp "GOODS CO. 1968". The manufacturer's name that should be associated with this "GOODS CO." stamp is missing. A few examples of manufacturer's names that are stamped on military "GOODS" they've produced are:

 

• Aluminum Goods Manufacturing Company: This is the name of the manufacturer that is stamped as "A.G.M. CO. 1945" on WWII canteens (see attached photo of A.G.M. CO. stamp on canteen).

 

• Schell Leather Goods Company, Inc.: Manufacturer's name is stamped on machete scabbards made during WWII.

http://www.usmilitar...r-goods-co-inc/

 

• St. Louis Leather Goods Company: Manufacturer's name is stamped on WWII era "Case, General Operating, Veterinary, Empty" (Stock No. 9805100). See their stamp here: http://med-dept.com/mfg.php

 

• Warren Leather Goods Company: This manufacturer's name is stamped on leather holsters that were made by the company during WWII. (See attached photo). Warren Leather Goods also manufactured a canvas medical case during WWII. The nomenclature is "CASE, WARD, EMPTY" Stock No. 9310100. (See attached photo). You can see the case here: http://med-dept.com/...rument_sets.php

 

The absence of a manufacturer name to identify this "GOODS CO." (along with the "USMC" stamp and the reversed EGAs), send up a major red flag for me.

[combat-helmets]

I tried the same thing .. I tried to google " goods company military contracter"

And came up with a big fat zero. (Same for "Anchor Cover all company" previously out of curiosity )who produced the 1953 dated covers.. Came up with nothing there either.. I actually work for a military contracter and we have a DCMA inspector on site.

I had previously asked him about access to old contract data bases for research.

He wasn't much help and basically said the Goverment record retention policies are such that they can destroy the records after a specified amount of time.

 

Better luck with more modern contracts in the computer age where electronic copies could be stored and kept versus paper...

 

Last point; no clue about the goods co stamp. That does not concern me.

The EGA's were definitely added. By a Marine or collector, who knows?

[usmc grunt]

I tried the same thing .. I tried to google " goods company military contracter" And came up with a big fat zero.

 

You apparently missed my point. The reason you couldn't find anything on a "GOODS CO. military contractor" is because there never was a "GOODS CO." that manufactured olive drab helmet covers under Marine Corps Supply Activity Project 6850 in 1968. "GOODS CO." is only part of a company's name; it is NOT the name of a company.

 

There was a St. Louis Leather GOODS COMPANY that made canteens for the US military - but there was no "GOODS CO." that manufactured helmet covers for the US military in 1968.

 

There was a Schell Leather GOODS COMPANY that made canvas medical cases for the US military - but there was no "GOODS CO." that made helmet covers for the US military.

 

There was a Warren Leather GOODS COMPANY that made holsters for the military - but there was no GOODS CO. that manufactured helmet covers for the US military.

 

Note that "GOODS CO." is only part of a company name - "GOODS CO." is not the name of a company.

 

(Same for "Anchor Cover all company" previously out of curiosity)who produced the 1953 dated covers.. Came up with nothing there either..

 

BLUE ANCHOR COVERALL COMPANY filed for its business license on June 4, 1948 in Philadelphia, PA. The company was in business approximately 4 years and 10 months prior to 29 April 1953 (the date on the helmet cover you're referencing). Blue Anchor Overall Company was still active as of January 3, 2012.

 

See: http://www.bizapedia...LL-COMPANY.html

 

[combat-helmets]

Nice hit on Blue Anchor Overall Company! Right in my backyard of Philadelphia no less....

[sgtdorango]

So, i have a theory on these manufacture marked OD covers....what if these marked OD covers are prototypes or samples from the companies that were trying to get a contract from the Govt./USMC?....maybe they only made a few hundred for testing or whatever amount and some of the first batch were marked so during testing they knew which ones were the ones they liked and were going to order them from so and so company etc....and the fact that the only marked ones we know of i think have the distinct button hole foliage slits, maybe they were found out to be unnecessary or too expensive and the USMC went with the more commonly found straight slits cover....just to clarify, there seems to be two variants, the harder to find variant with button hole foliage slits and the more commonly found straight foliage slits....the marked covers seem to be the buttonhole variety...(although this example is even more mysterious with Goods Co and EGAs)..i have an unmarked button hole cover and used to own the marked cover that Dan now has, also with button holes, here are some pics showing the two different foliage slits which i think should be noted and everyone check your OD covers to see if you have button holes or regular straight slits!.....mike

[sgtdorango]

the more commonly found straight slit variety....

[usmc grunt]

So, i have a theory on these manufacture marked OD covers....what if these marked OD covers are prototypes or samples from the companies that were trying to get a contract from the Govt./USMC?

 

The problem with this theory is that the 11 digit FSN (Federal Stock Number), 8415-261-6834, indicates that the cover would have been tested, approved, authorized for issue and catalogued in the Marine Corps Supply System, via this FSN, by the Marine Corps Supply Activity. An FSN was not assigned to samples and prototypes. See: Defense Cataloging and Standardization Act of 1952, Sections (a) & ( .

 

Link: http://armymedical.t.../MD00290032.htm

 

A note on FSN vs NSN: The 11 digit FSN, 8415-261-6834, was replaced by the 13 digit National Stock Number (NSN) 8415-00-261-6834 in September 1974. Helmet covers contracted prior to fiscal year 1974 have an 11 digit FSN while helmet covers contracted after this period have a 13 digit NSN.

 

I don't have a problem with the authenticity of the olive drab cover. I have a problem with the "rare and unusual" numbers associated with the Project No., Date and FSN stamped on these covers.

 

While I've raised several red flags with respect to the "GOODS CO, 1968 USMC" stamp, along with the 2 reversed EGA's (both of which are so rare that they are patently bogus in my opinion), I've saved the most important concern for last.

 

Let's compare the remarkably (extremely rare similarity) between the Project Number, date, and Federal Stock Number (FSN) from the stamp of a bonafide Mitchell pattern helmet cover dated 12-10-59 (December 10, 1959) and the Project Number, date and Federal Stock Number stamped on these od covers, dated 11-10-57 (November 10, 1957).

 

Bonafide Mitchell Helmet Cover Stamp:

 

COVER, HELMET CAMOUFLAGE

MARINE CORPS SUPPLY ACTIVITY

PROJ. NO. 5850 DTD. 12-10-59

8415-261-6833

 

The "rare and unusual" Olive Drab Helmet Cover Stamp:

 

COVER, HELMET CAMOUFLAGE

MARINE CORPS SUPPLY ACTIVITY

PROJ. NO. 6850 DTD. 11-10-57

8415-261-6834

 

Take a close look at the pattern and sequence in the numbers listed in the 3rd and 4th rows bearing in mind that these numbers were assigned two years apart (November 10, 1957 on the od cover stamp and December 10, 1959 on the Mitchell cover stamp).

 

> The first digit in PROJ. NO. 6850 (od cover) is one digit greater than the first digit in PROJ. 5850.

> The last three numbers in PROJ NO. 6850 (od cover) are identical to the Mitchell cover.

> The second digit in the month on PROJ. 6850 (od cover) is one digit less than the second digit in the month on PROJ. 5850 (Mitchell).

> The day of the month, "10", is identical in both project numbers.

> The last number for the year of PROJ. No. 6850 (od cover) is two digits less than the last number in the year on PROJ. NO. 5850 (Mitchell).

> While it is completely normal for the first 4 digits of the FSN to be identical, given the fact that this is the Federal Supply Class (FSC), the fact that the remaining 7 numbers are identical with the exception that the last digit in the FSN on PROJ. 6850 (od cover dated 1957) is 1 digit sequentially higher than the FSN on the Mitchell (dated 1959) is a major red flag.

 

How did a helmet cover that was assigned an FSN in 1957, get an FSN that is one digit sequentially higher than a helmet cover that was assigned an FSN in 1959, two years later?

 

The Federal Supply System was established in 1949 and the first 11 digit FSN was assigned. On July 1, 1952, the Defense Cataloging and Standardization Act mandated a single catalog for the Department of Defense's supply system. In 1958, the Armed Forces Supply Support Center (AFSCC) was established to standardize the names and FSN's of items procured and issued by the US military.

 

Therefore, it stands to reason that if this helmet cover's FSN, dated 11-10-57, is valid, it should be listed in the catalog developed by the AFSCC in 1958 and its FSN, 8415-261-6834, should appear sequentially following the 1959 dated Mitchell pattern cover bearing the FSN 8415-261-6833.

 

I am in the camp that does not believe that the PROJ. NO., DATE and FSN stamped on the olive drab helmet cover is authentic.

[usmc grunt]

Note the variance in the FSN on the Mitchell and the ERDL helmet covers. While the first 4 digits of the FSC are identical (as they should be) the other 7 digits of the FSN stamped on an early 1969 Mitchell cover and the FSN assigned to the ERDL cover in 1969 are notably variant:

 

The stamp on the 1969 contract ERDL cover reads:

 

COVER, HELMET CAM.

CTN DUCK W/ERDL PATTERN

DSA 100-69-C-1701

8415-105-0605

 

The stamp on an early 1969 contract Mitchell cover reads:

 

COVER, HELMET CAMOUFLAGE

CONTRACT NO. DSA 100-69-C-1921

F.S.N. 8415-261-6833