Jump to content

reuscher

Members
  • Content Count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.usww2uniforms.org
  1. Really, really awesome. Thanks for sharing.
  2. The EGA's were poked right through the material. Chris
  3. Wow! Thanks for sharing this. I found one of these jackets a couple of years ago and have always thought it was Australian made because of its similar styling to the wool type issued there. Shows how much there is to learn. It looks like mine is nearly identical down to the pocket snaps, though there is just plain jane SSI on it. Thought I'd post a couple of pics for reference. Chris R.
  4. Allan, Thanks for the response. The Bando site is what I referred to as the "101st patch site" above. When I was on it I sort of ended up with the same conclusion as you did, but left more confused than anything. I agree that if the eye is the focal point in determining the era, then it has most in common with the Type 14 images. But then the tab looked like it had more in common with types listed as WW2. Additionally, if you consider other characteristics such as the thickness of the beak, especially around the corner of the mouth, and tongue has more in common with types listed as WW2. Then the length and flatness of the top of the head and the bluntness of the feathers seem to have nothing in common with what's shown on site. So that opens the question of what characteristics are important and can be sued to determine the era. Interestingly, Brando also wrote about the Type 14 and even under the Post War Scribble Eye patches that some of these types were possibly WW2 manufacture. Comming away, as someone very limited knowledge of 101st Airborne insignia, I mostly felt if I had a cut edge 101st Airborne patch with a white back and no provenance, it is much the same as any other WW2 unit that continued on after the War - could've been made anytime 1940's - 1960's. I guess the sad part is, 35 years ago when I handled many 101st uniforms, I didn't pay attention to detail like I do now. With the power of the internet may be a patch historian could start a thread with close-up photos of patches attached to provenanced WW2 uniforms. Thank you, Chris R.
  5. Hello, I am hoping I can get some opinions on what era these patches are from. I am hoping they are WW2. Especially the 82nd since I am planning on using it as part of a Veterans Day exhibit at my local library to help honor a Market Garden vet. My patch knowledge is limited to cut vs merrow edge, white backs being up to 1960's and green backs WW2. I post these because there seems to be more specialized knowledge of airborne insignia. My concerns are I bought them loose and from what I can tell they seem larger than typical patches, hence the tape measure for scale. the 101st has glue on the back form being in an album. I was on the 101st patch site, but I couldn't see where the patch and tab combo matched anything there. Thanks for any opinions.
  6. Thank you all for your answers. I also believe 1937 is the correct date for the new cap badge. After digging thru my reference material, I finally found an August 1943 AR 30-3000, Price List of Clothing & Equipment that lists the EM cap badge and collar discs as M-1937. From what I could find out, there was a lot of changes to the Army EM uniform in 1937: New cap badge New collar discs New darker color for serge wool Cap and Service Coat New trousers with new color OD 32, light shade. This is all consistent with the examples I have. I wanted to clear this up because I am planning on restoring some older garments to their original configuration since they are not named. Many of these older garments that survived thru the WW2 era were converted to the newer insignia. For example, I have a really nice Service Cap, Spec, QMC 8-5D dated 1930 that I will now restore with the correct older cap badge. Thanks again, CR
  7. Hello, Does anyone know the official date or year the EM cap badge changed from the gilt one-piece flat type to the domed two-piece type? I'm sure this must be in Army Regs somewhere, but I don't have any that go back that far. From this type: to this type: Thank you
  8. Hello, Neat trousers you got there. I really don't know the answer to your question for sure, but my guess is the pair with the pocket flaps was probably a design intended for officers. Note in addition to the pocket flaps the second pair has internally hung pockets. For sure we know the first pair is for enlisted men. We know that they produced distinct ETO jackets for both officers and enlisted men. So why not trouser for the officer too? Rear pocket flaps were a traditional earmark for WW2 officer's trousers. p.s. There is a least a little bit of information on the history of the ETO uniforms in this publication in the chapter about winter uniforms. Free PDF download. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-15/CMH_Pub_10-15.pdf Chris R
  9. Nice WW2 boots. As mentioned the rivet indicates early in the mass production phase. These boots were essentially the rough-out service shoe with an elongated tongue and cuff added. Thus their evolution mirrored that of the standard rough-out service shoe. GX is one of the manufacturer codes for International Shoe Company. CR
  10. reuscher

    M43 Boots

    Hello, I can tell by the type and way the sole is attached (your original concern) and the women's boots have a narrower toe (more pointed). Your concerns on the sole were correct - the men's db boots had a standard pattern on the sole but used various types of heels. Women' boots used a variety of different soles and you don't see them reinforced with nails. I've attached pictures so you can see. as far as sizing goes - what i recall is that a stated size on a women's shoe is equivalent to 2 sizes smaller in a man's size. so, 8 1/2 womens = 6 1/2 mans. But, I'am going on memory here so I could be wrong. Maybe someone else can help on the sizing. But I've never known any type of men's & women's clothing to be equal in size. Mans:
  11. reuscher

    M43 Boots

    Hello, They are a beautiful pair of original WW2 unissued boots, but be advised they are pair made for women (WACS), so the 81/2 size will not be equivalent to a man's size. CR
  12. nice find - thanks for sharing. Do they have the slit pockets in front or patch pockets?
  13. Hello, Nice boots! The "Quinn USA" is the quality control inspector's acceptance stamp. On the back of the tongue is where it is usually found on WWII era US Army shoes and boots when it happened to be applied. Its is interesting that the International Shoe Company contract stamps seem to be the only manufacturer markings you see on WWII jump boots. It's either that or unmarked, but with the US Army marked taps, and the usual round of inspection marks. I think once I saw a pair with the alphabet letter manufacturer code "W" for J F Corcoran Shoe Co., but that's about it. Was wondering if anyone else has seen any of these boots with other manufacturer stamps in them other than International shoe co? : ) Chris
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.