What will happen to restored uniforms?

[normaninvasion]

Been wondering about this for awhile. What is going to happen to all the id'ed uniforms that have been researched and restored with insignia and ribbons and leave collections? Will it matter?

[bheskett]

It will not matter to me. I got my enjoyment out of them. Once I let loose of an item it is no longer mine it belongs to whomever owns it at the time. Think of all the really cool vehicles that have been modified by the new owner, some for the better, some not so much.

 

 

Just to be greedy I hope all the uniforms and gear are trashed, then mine will be worth more and I can be rich, rich I tell ya, rolling in dough

Bob

[Teamski]

They should be ID'ed as such IMHO. It matters that a 101st Ike that just had the patch on it suddenly attracted wings, CIB and ribbons to become the latest of the late Major Winter's uniforms. Will people do the right thing and label restorations? Probably not for legitimate and illegitimate reasons unfortunately.

 

-Ski

[Shenkursk]

This has been debated here several times before. There are many collectors who restore uniforms for their own legitimate enjoyment, i.e. to complete a display. There are also plenty who 'restore' uniforms simply for the purpose of tarting them up - making them 'sexier' and thus in theory more valuable

 

As one who buys and sells uniforms and uniform groups, regardless of the motivation behind these home improvement efforts, the result is the same. I lament the fact that so much time must be spent trying to sort out what is original and legitimate and what is just collector meddling. Just last week I removed the ribbon bar from a very nice WWI uniform because in researching it, I was able to find where that exact same specific ribbon bar had been on one of our catalogs 7-8 years ago, sold with an entirely different lot. The damage and wear on the bar was very identifiable - it was absolutely the same item we had before, only at the time, associated with a different soldier.

 

Every time a uniform changes hands in between the time it left the veteran's custody to today, the ability to ascertain the true originality of the artifact gets progressively more difficult.

 

Just like cutting patches off of perfectly good uniforms, slathering witch doctor potions on leather goods, polishing Civil War belt buckles to a mirror-bright finish, etc., those who enjoy tinkering with things will continue to do so, and those who take a long-term view toward the continued historical significance of the artifact will either abstain from the practice, or find a some archival way to carry a record of any alterations forward with the item.

 

When buying collections, I am always inclined to pay more when it is clear that the owner left stuff alone, and less when it is apparent that some or all of the items were 'restored'.

 

One collector friend who likes to restore the items writes a short description of his alterations on muslin cloth, which is then gently tack stitched inside the uniform. He gets to complete the uniform for his display, and the next owner will know exactly what has been done. A subsequent owner could of course remove that for nefarious purposes.. but we can't control everything. This solution is archival and honest, and easily accomplished.

[Kadet]

I take a different view of this I suppose. Uniforms are a unique case when it comes to restoration. I collect named uniforms. I meticulously research the owner, sometimes going to extraordinary lengths and considerable expense. If the uniform is clearly missing insignia, I will replace it with period originals. I do this meticulously as well. If, for example, pin holes are visible on an Ike jacket collar, I will search for a replacement piece that fits the holes exactly. Perhaps it is a by product of 30 years in the military, but a uniform with missing or incorrect insignia is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. These uniforms were meant to be worn (or displayed) with the owner's proper insignia. I will only replace something when I can verify an entitlement in a service record or similar source, and I will never replace patches. I always disclose the restoration if I decide to sell something, but of course can't control what happens with it later. I have also found that the quest for the right insignia is a lot of fun, and has become a big part of the hobby for me. I prefer completely untouched uniforms with all of their original insignia, but don't shy away from an interesting or rare example that is missing a few things. Just my two cents...

[Garth Thompson]

My worst uniform experience falls into the "restored" category. An casual friend of mine asked me to sell a large part of his WW2 uniform collection for him as he did not like to take the time and effort required.

We agreed on a percentage and he shipped me the lot. As soon as I started closely looking at them the insignia didn't make sense. I asked him about it and here was his answer. "I removed all the insignia so I could get them dry cleaned. I put it all in a box and can't remember what went on which one so I just put on what looked good" Needless to say we didn't get much for the lot.

[AAF_Collection]

I take a different view of this I suppose. Uniforms are a unique case when it comes to restoration. I collect named uniforms. I meticulously research the owner, sometimes going to extraordinary lengths and considerable expense. If the uniform is clearly missing insignia, I will replace it with period originals. I do this meticulously as well. If, for example, pin holes are visible on an Ike jacket collar, I will search for a replacement piece that fits the holes exactly. Perhaps it is a by product of 30 years in the military, but a uniform with missing or incorrect insignia is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. These uniforms were meant to be worn (or displayed) with the owner's proper insignia. I will only replace something when I can verify an entitlement in a service record or similar source, and I will never replace patches. I always disclose the restoration if I decide to sell something, but of course can't control what happens with it later. I have also found that the quest for the right insignia is a lot of fun, and has become a big part of the hobby for me. I prefer completely untouched uniforms with all of their original insignia, but don't shy away from an interesting or rare example that is missing a few things. Just my two cents...

 

This is exactly the approach I take as well. I think there should be a clear distinction between "restoration" which to me relates to replacing missing insignia or ribbons with identical examples of what was once present, and "fabrication" which includes adding to an existing uniform to make it appear more interesting or dressing up a blank uniform to represent that of a specific individual.

 

Some uniforms should be left alone IMO, even if missing some insignia (missing sewn on insignia/ribbon bars being such an instance).

 

Matt.

[jguy1986]

If I may pose a question to the dealers out there: would you sell a restored uniform? I'm not talking about something that has a bunch of insignia thrown on just to look nice, I'm talking about the kinds of dedicated restorations that Kadet and other members do.

 

Quite often, I also buy named but stripped uniforms and research them, making sure that every bit of information lines up with what is done to restore the jacket, since someone before me had the horrid thought to take everything but the patches off of it. I have two such pieces on display right now in my living room, and it brings me some satisfaction that these jackets are now close to how they used to appear after thoroughly researching them. I make sure all of the replacement insignia goes into the same pinholes where, to the casual observer, there used to be $40 worth of sterling, brass, and ribbons, but to us it's where there used to be history.

[38Driver]

My collection is tiny but the two uniforms that I take the most pride in are restorations. One is the English made Ike jacket of an 8th AF DFC winner. Someone had washed it in hot water which had ruined the red lining that bled through and melted the silk thread. I had it professionally restored with the original insignia etc. not perfect but I wanted it ready for that pilot if he needed it for a run to London. I asked the restoration folks to add who it was restored by on the inside.

 

The other was the named but stripped Ike of a 9th AF fighter pilot. That one was restored with period insignia etc to get it back to how it looked when he wore it. Again it was to have it ready should he ever return wanting to wear it.

 

To me both were labors of love and respect to the fighter pilots I've revered since childhood. I don't see that as a bad thing

[RustyCanteen]

This is a tough question, and one that has a million answers (figuratively speaking of course!). It would be too easy to use too broad a brush, but I think the answer depends on exactly what is being asked. e.g. a literal answer is that the stuff will either go one to new owners or go into the trash.

 

I think using the term 'restoration' may be painting with too broad a brush, since it depends on numerous factors (such as the intentions/aims of the person doing the 'restoring'). For example, I think a legitimate and proper use of the term 'restoration' to be someone who takes a uniform missing a button, ribbon, or piece of insignia that they not only KNOW was on it to begin with; but have proof was on it (i.e. a named and researched uniform). A restored uniform is one that has been put back the way it was; not added to. Adding is not restoring; for example adding a Ford Mustang hood logo to a Ford Pinto does not make it a Mustang; it's just added and weird.

 

It would be improper to say someone who paints insignia onto a plain helmet is 'restoring', and would be downright fraudulent to claim. I think the same applies to adding anything that was not removable (for example, the USMC and USN did not usually store their uniforms with the ribbons or devices on them, thus it is normal to see them 'stripped' of anything not sewn on, which is the original state for them when not prescribed by the uniform of the day to wear ribbons and also left off for laundering and storage). Personally, I do not like uniforms that have had anything resewn. If the nametapes or SSI is gone, it is gone and along with it all originality. You can't take a dining room table and turn it back into a tree. I'd rather have a named stripped uniform, than a named one that has had patches resewn on it.

 

No offense to anyone, and Jeff is right that a lot of people innocently add things to complete a display; my view is regarding what is or is not actual restoration, as well as originality. Personally think if you add anything to a uniform (even legit restoration), you should place a note in the pocket letting people know if the ribbon bar was added, etc. It's up to the individual to define what their collecting goals are, so there is no single answer to it all.

[bheskett]

Rusty canteen

 

I like your response. this means I am right ,well we all are, but still I am right...This was a joke don't yell at me here.

 

Bob

[normaninvasion]

Just to clarify my original question. It would be pertain to named uniforms with original patches but ribbons and metal insignia added based on research of the vet. Not hump jobs or extra bling that was never awarded. Nothing made for deceit or fantasy. just honest representation.

 

I'm not a uniform collector. I just ask this because with the internet age, researching vets has become much easier for collectors allowing for accurate restoration. Will this matter to collectors in the future?

[Garandomatic]

As a buyer, if they are documented, it doesn't mean a thing to me, aside from price. I only add what is documented, and have always disclosed such.