Posted 07 May 2007 - 05:59 PM
Purchased this ammo belt from you-know-where. My expertise (?) is in flight and survival gear, not infantry. Anyhow, something just doesn't seem right even though the seller has a 100% feedback rating.
It is very light khaki as in pre-war or early war but no inner snap tabs. The color is almost yellowish. No manufacturer's marking on the backside. Hardware does appear to be blackened brass. The whitish tint you see in the photos below is good old All American dust. The belt was listed as coming from a museum that has changed its focus, so the dust would be acceptable.
Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?
Posted 07 May 2007 - 06:41 PM
Posted 07 May 2007 - 06:43 PM
1- I cans ee the fabric is not correct
2- the eyelets are really cheap
3- the U.S. is not quite right either
looks like QED beat me to it!
Edited by dustin, 07 May 2007 - 06:44 PM.
Posted 07 May 2007 - 08:09 PM
The belt was listed as coming from a museum that has changed its focus, so the dust would be acceptable.
The museum may well have thought it was original: 99.9% of the public could not even fathom the idea that someone would make fakes of "old Army surplus."
Posted 09 May 2007 - 06:14 AM
Posted 09 May 2007 - 11:16 AM
Posted 10 May 2007 - 09:15 AM
Perhaps the cheap way it was produced is because it is a movie-prop? Just an idea
Posted 10 May 2007 - 09:26 AM
Posted 10 May 2007 - 10:03 AM
It is true that museums will use replica items to complete a display but the idea is to present an impression as the reenactors say. My guess is that for some items of uniform and equipment display in other than controlled conditions is unacceptable to the museum's mission of preservation. I have had opportunity to tour the storage area of three museums and the stored material was astounding. Wardrobes and drawers full of uniforms and equipment that simply could not be displayed for lack of space or unsuitable to the presentation of the museum. In one museum there were several experimental and pattern revolver holsters from the 1870-90s that still had the Ordnance Department identification tags on them.
Museums are under no mandate to maintain donated materials and are free to exchange items unsuitable to preservation or retention for items more appropriate to the museum's mission. I have benefited from a Canadian military museum that disposed of some unusual U.S. items that had been sent to the Canadian Army for examination. I have mentioned that I intend to donate some selected materials to certain U.S. military museums and have been warned by a person that has asked to acquire certain items in my holdings, that museums frequently dispose (trade, sell) unwanted items.
As has been mentioned previously because something comes from a museum doesn't mean it is a good (original, collectible) item. In fact one should be more careful of something that came from a museum.
I vaguely recall that the cartridge belt in question here was identified as an Asian replica. The large eyelets with the obvious crimp on the reverse being one of the identifying features. And I recall comment regarding the number of eyelets in the connecting piece. My opinion is that the most obvious feature is the relatively poor quality of the product. In my research sorting out some of the very good replicas is easily accomplished by comparison with known genuine items. I suppose it may be said it is necessary to examine allot of examples to build the expertise to identify replicas from genuine. Sometimes knowledge of manufacturers and their products is useful to identifying an item that is genuine but markings are forged to make the item more valuable. This seems especially prevalent in items identified to the U.S. Marine Corps.
The field of forgeries is quite another matter where there is purposeful intent to deceive for profit. The first thing that should be considered is what is to be gained from forging something? No one would seriously consider forging a M1923 cartridge belt as they are far too common to be economically feasible to forge. Until a few years ago no one would have thought that forging certain features and markings on helmets would be profitable. But many of you have created the market by your demand and the forgers have met your requirements.
I have and will continue to express my admonition to you to get out of collecting material things and going through all the mental anguish that comes with collecting and dealing with dealers and forgers (which are often both). I recommend the acquisition of books and other printed mater as a much more satisfactory way to be involved in research of anti-bellum military uniforms and equipment. You will also avoid the apparently traumatic experience many of you express in using the online auction(s).
Edited by US CANTEEN GURU, 10 May 2007 - 10:13 AM.
Posted 10 May 2007 - 04:44 PM
Posted 17 June 2010 - 11:09 PM
Posted 18 June 2010 - 06:27 PM
Looking at the belt, I'm intrigued as to where it actually came from. It doesn't look like any of the reroduction US gear that I've seen before, but the fabric looks a bit like some of the rero British webbing items that I've seen.
The belt was sent back and, as we are talking three years ago now, I wouldn't even be able to tell you the eBay ID of the seller.
Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:27 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users