40 replies to this topic

[USMCR79]

This cloak was on display for many years at Love's Gun and Pawn in Deland Florida - Chuck Love sold off quite a bit of his collection, but this was a part of it.

Bill

[warroom1]

you are right was in the store a year or two ago Chuck let me take photos of store.

[teufelhunde.ret]

Auction ended; no sale...

[Jack's Son]

There's nothing like provenance !! That's an awful lot of money.

[Dave]

There's nothing like provenance !! That's an awful lot of money.

JS-

Since you've commented on the provenance of this piece in previous posts, what would make "solid provenance" for you in this case?

Dave

[Patriot]

JS-

Since you've commented on the provenance of this piece in previous posts, what would make "solid provenance" for you in this case?

Dave

If the sale came with Chesty Puller himself. :thumbsup:

[Jack's Son]

Dave,
I would feel better if it had a label with his name inked in and a date on it, that was ORIGONAL. A few pictures of him wearing it would be nice too.

I do lack the knowledge of uniforms that you have, and therefore will miss someother tell tail signs of authenticity. The bottom line with me would be enough evidence to make me happy beyond a doubt.

Perhaps this is a common feeling, as no one took the plung(?)

[Dave]

I would feel better if it had a label with his name inked in and a date on it, that was ORIGONAL. A few pictures of him wearing it would be nice too.

I'm curious why you don't feel the tailor's label in post #3 is original? Do you have any information to provide that would indicate that it's fake?

Thanks!

Dave

[Jack's Son]

I'm curious why you don't feel the tailor's label in post #3 is original? Do you have any information to provide that would indicate that it's fake?
Thanks!
Dave

NO Dave, I do not.

With your experience dealing with uniforms, would a label in a garment made in 1925 have a "type" style of lettering like this on the label? And if it did, how was it put on a label that was already sewn into a USMC issue cape?

These are the type of issues that would stop me from buying an item I am not convinced about the authenticy of.

[Dave]

NO Dave, I do not.

With your experience dealing with uniforms, would a label in a garment made in 1925 have a "type" style of lettering like this on the label? And if it did, how was it put on a label that was already sewn into a USMC issue cape?

These are the type of issues that would stop me from buying an item I am not convinced about the authenticy of.

The label is 100% correct for the time period. I have no interest in the sale of the cloak, but I am 100% confident that the tag is righteous as I see no reason to doubt it (I feel the same way about the cloak overall, but for the sake of the tag, I'll keep it specific to the tag.)

If I had the cash to buy it and had the interest in it to make that outlay, I would be 100% comfortable with it's attribution (letter notwithstanding).

Based on the photos from the auction, I see nothing that could make me wary of the cloak's originality or attribution to General Puller.

If anyone knows any bona-fide reason to doubt it's authenticity, I would be very interested in hearing their argument.

I believe the reason it didn't sell is that overcoats and cloaks are tough to sell. Consider History Man's overcoat to General Ulio. It's still languishing around $400 (unless it's sold recently). If he had Ulio's four pocket jacket, I know of plenty of people on the forum that wouldn't hesitate dropping 4 to 5 times that amount in a heartbeat to add it to their collection (I would be one of them). But pieces like the overcoat, and like Puller's boat cloat, simply don't have the interest or collectability that other pieces of uniform kit do. The fact it didn't sell had nothing to do with it's provenance...it was simply priced out of reach of anyone who wanted to add it to their collection and didn't warrant sufficient interest of the handful of collectors who do regularly maintain the funds to purchase something at this price.

Dave

[Patriot]

To be honest, I think that the fact that collectors shy away from boat cloaks and overcoats is a little insensible. This is a righteous, quality piece named to one of the ICONS of Marine Corps history!

Would General Grant's overcoat languish on a dealer's site for months on end? Truth be told, I doubt such a piece would make it that far. It would have been sold long before it hit the open market.

Perhaps as time goes by, such pieces from later wars will be viewed the same way?

[Jack's Son]

With your expertise, I feel better about the cloak's authenticity. While uniforms and the like are not my scope of interest, I have been known to purchase an item because of its uniqueness. This item did not ring a bell, and my gut feeling was that I could not get excited over owning it.

It's difficult to argue with you Dave, as you're well grounded and intelligent. Regarding the sale however, I do not believe that price was the deciding factor, there is plenty of money out there. I would agree that the type of garment it is played a large roll in the lack of appeal of the piece, and I believe to a lesser degree,(after your comments) that provenance was a factor.

Perhaps if it is relisted,(even at the same price)we may find a willing buyer. Sometimes things just need to sink in! :thumbsup:

[Dave]

With your expertise, I feel better about the cloak's authenticity.

That's why I collect uniforms and stay away from medals. :thumbsup: We all have our areas of expertise...

A friend of mine once had a pair of Douglas-Bader's trousers. He tried for years to sell them with no luck. It would have been super cool to have something from one of the Royal Air Force's most legendary pilots...but his trousers???? :pinch:

Dave

[CNY Militaria]

I think the price did play a factor in this--feeling good about the originality of the piece, many collectors would drop a good chunk of money on this, boat cloak or otherwise. But it was simply priced too high. Even with the rarest and coolest of items, there is a threshold when it comes to the price. As the saying goes, it is only worth what someone is willing to pay, and in this case, $10,000 was too high. There are "better" collector pieces to people equally as famous out there at less of a price, just have to know who to talk to.

Justin

Edited by CNY Militaria, 18 March 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Jack's Son]

Justin,
This could be fun.......LESS FILLING, TASTES GREAT!!

[teufelhunde.ret]

I believe the reason it didn't sell is that overcoats and cloaks are tough to sell. Consider History Man's overcoat to General Ulio. It's still languishing around $400 (unless it's sold recently). If he had Ulio's four pocket jacket, I know of plenty of people on the forum that wouldn't hesitate dropping 4 to 5 times that amount in a heartbeat to add it to their collection (I would be one of them). But pieces like the overcoat, and like Puller's boat cloat, simply don't have the interest or collectability that other pieces of uniform kit do. The fact it didn't sell had nothing to do with it's provenance... it was simply priced out of reach of anyone who wanted to add it to their collection and didn't warrant sufficient interest of the handful of collectors who do regularly maintain the funds to purchase something at this price.

Dave

Quite agree, at best a low, very low four figure item, IMHO

[teufelhunde.ret]

It's back for another run... same price...
http://www.ebay.com/...984.m1438.l2649

[teufelhunde.ret]

And it failed to sell, the second time thru...

[CNY Militaria]

He should probably just use a best offer function--who knows, he might get an offer close to his price!

[teufelhunde.ret]

BACK A THIRD TIME - OPENING BID CUT IN HALF: $5000.

http://www.ebay.com/...984.m1438.l2649