Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by m1a2u2

  1. 1 hour ago, vintageproductions said:

    Like I said in the pm , this 101st was made for collectors in Thailand.


    They made one for every unit that was attached to the 101st in Vietnam plus the regular variants.



    I did some research and came across this page by Mark Brando. I'm no expert, but the patch below left looks identical to the one I posted. Brando cites ASMIC in claiming it was made in Japan in 1969 but not known to be worn in Vietnam....





    101st ABN Subdued.PNG

  2. 4 minutes ago, vintageproductions said:

    Like I said in the pm , this 101st was made for collectors in Thailand.


    They made one for every unit that was attached to the 101st in Vietnam plus the regular variants.



    Thanks Bob. Is there a thread on this? I did a search but nothing came up. 

  3. 7 minutes ago, Martinjmpr said:

    Besides the specifics, I would add this:  Because this stuff is all over the place, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary if you actually want to collect "the real deal."  


    What that means is:  If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.  


    Take the uniform in question.  2nd pattern jungle jackets date to the early part of the VN war.  Ditto for full color patches.  These were FIELD uniforms, worn in dirty and dangerous areas far, far away from laundromats and dry cleaners.  


    So if the uniform looks like the patches are brand new, unwrinkled, unstained, unfaded (especially the white ones), ask yourself this:  What is the chance that this particular uniform made it unscathed all the way from Vietnam to the present, 55+ years later, in that condition?  Does that seem likely?  Or does it seem more likely that someone got a random set of patches together and sewed them just recently?


    And BTW I have no problem or issue with someone doing that - as long as they are honest about what it is.  


    What is deceptive is faking a uniform and then trying to offer it up as "the real deal" with a price to match.  


    I'm not much of a uniform collector, but I personally would not pay much for a VN or later fatigue or BDU uniform for the simple reason that they are so easy to fake that IMO the "value" of a "genuine" one is really no more (to me) than the value of a fake.  


    Obviously "value" is a very subjective thing - what has "value" to you might not have value to me and vice versa.  




    That is very helpful and thank you for taking the time to write up that explanation. I agree with you on the patching thing. For the record, the person I bought this from is taking them and back and did not claim they were originals when he sold them me. He has been very fair and helpful with me since I was a kid. It's mainly an issue of him having too many uniforms to keep track of. Regardless, thanks to help members like you provided me, this has been a learning experience getting into Vietnam uniforms. 


    One question though, isn't this a 1st pattern jungle jacket?

  4. 9 hours ago, kammo-man said:

    I payed 250 for the helmet
    It’s a fun piece to me
    The way I see it Yih actually haven’t sourced anything real Vietnam

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    I'm glad it's a fun piece for you. The forum members were discussing if it's real or not, and I've articulated the reasons why I think it isn't. So far, we haven't seen anyone on this thread indicate a single objective feature supporting why the shell paint job is real. As you've said about another helmet, "It's a crude tiger head that is lacking some fine detail normally seen on these esprit de corps pieces." I respectfully submit that the same would apply here. I can't comment on the liner paint job so you may have done well there. 


    Again, I'm not sure why you want to make things personal or get into a "my collection is better than yours" back and forth, but I was hoping we could put previous infighting behind us and focus on a topic we all love. 

  5. 31 minutes ago, kammo-man said:

    I am confused m1
    First you don’t understand the basic fundamentals of Vietnam sewing on wartime jackets and then asking opinions on painted helmets and now posting options on 50 year helmets seemingly out of spite.
    If you look deep into the painting more will be revealed.
    But I don’t actually think yiu have the Sophistication to actually use your god given eyes.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Thanks for the personal insult. Really appreciate it. I actually questioned this helmet before I posted anything about uniforms. As I mentioned, I have just started collecting Vietnam uniforms but have been collecting helmets for 20 years. As for your helmet, I think you summed up the issue best in another post on BDQ helmets:


    "No Ranger would have been allowed to have a Tiger head painted so crudely ,

    Cammo .......bad .... Tiger Really bad." 

  6. 3 hours ago, vintageproductions said:

    Each helmet was hand painted for each unit.


    The job was not always given to the person who was the most artistic in the unit.


    Sometimes the screw-ups were given the job.


    Not all were done with stencils that is a collectors myth.


    Some were free handed painted.


    There was one unit that just the officer's wives painted the helmets.


    Do you have any pictures of confirmed original helmets (or wartime photos) that show screw up helmets? I've never seen one but would be interested to see the evidence. 

  7. Every single original BDQ helmet I've seen uses stenciling or spray paint on at least some part of the helmet. This one uses neither. I can't say I've even seen a wartime picture of one that was this sloppy. Other than the color yellow, it shares close to the nothing with the Delvin or Tiger lady pictures. 

  8. 20 minutes ago, doyler said:

    possible a 101st had been on the jacket. Have seen original jackets that were period re-patched by the owner or another when reissued or changing units etc. But this one doesnt fit that scenario.



    What about the ARVN wings and name tape puckering?

  9. That's really interesting.  Bob, do you have a source for that? One theory I have is that the North took the covers as captured materials and had one of their Communist named factories (Factory 1B) inspect and mark the covers. Some time after that they ended up with a movie company. 

  10. I am relatively new at collecting Vietnam uniforms so please bear with me. When looking at a particular garment which has ghost lines showing the former presence of another patch, is that usually an indicator that the uniform was a post war makeup? I've seen some with significant puckering but also ghost lines. I'm sure that men would replace patches but how common is it to see a "Vietnam original" shirt with ghost lines? I guess the main question is if ghost lines are something that should weigh on the originality of the garment. Thanks in advance!



    For example, in the below picture you can see evidence of ghost lines but also the presence of puckering. I suppose it's possible the puckering can caused by the existence of the previous patch?







  11. I want to thank the members here who have posted explanations as to why this uniform does not have wartime patches. I will be returning it. Here are the inside pictures:


    What I've picked up so far from members like spike and others who have pointed out details to look for:


    -appear to be some ghost stitch lines showing where previous patches were removed. 

    -puckering is insufficient on some of the patches (I think?) actually looks good on the ARVN Para BADGE? . 

    -threads are all the same color. 


    Am I on the right track? 








  12. I want to thank the members here who have posted explanations as to why this uniform does not have wartime patches. I will be returning it. Here are the inside pictures:


    What I've picked up so far from members like spike and others who have pointed out details to look for:


    -appear to be some ghost stitch lines showing where previous patches were removed. 

    -puckering is insufficient on some of the patches (I think?) 

    -threads are all the same color. 









  13. 27 minutes ago, Cap Camouflage Pattern I said:

    The group tab painted on the side is not something I have seen in wartime photos, and it's something that came into use around the time painting panthers on helmets was falling out of style. To me it seems unlikely, although not entirely impossible.


    Thanks. Presumably, the 4 would represent the 4th Group?

  14. That is very helpful and informative. Thank you for your valuable feedback and guidance. I'm not sure why you are claiming that I have lashed out at everyone who is trying to help me. If that is the way you feel, then please accept my apologies. But it's false to claim that I have been lashing out at everyone who has been trying to help me. The only person I lashed out was Kammo-man for the simple reason that he was not trying to help me. With that said, I have still thanked him on multiple occasions. So you and I can agree to disagree over how helpful we think he is. 


    Also, I am not sure what BDQ ebay post you are referring to. 


    To clarify the bold sentence, I did not purchase the item pictured in this thread, but did purchase the others. Apologies for the typo.


    For what it's worth, I was no looking to cause drama, so I am sorry you felt you needed to write up a long post. 


    Getting back to the matter at hand, is it an accurate description to say that I should be looking for the threads to almost be "fuzzy?"

  15. 1 hour ago, Allan H. said:


    FINALLY- don't treat other collectors like the competition. They are going to be your best source of stuff that you collect. You treat them bad, they are not going to treat you well. I'm going to use Kammo-man as an example here. If he types "FAKE," you've probably been taken to the cleaners. Instead of bitching about his post, why not send him a Private Message to ask him why? Better yet, why not say, this is why I think the jacket is original, and let him have some idea of the depth of your knowledge. To simply respond publicly, "How do you ban somebody?" probably isn't going to win you any points with the more advanced collector.


    Good luck. This is a great hobby, but you need to put in the work if you are going to collect with the big boys.


    As an aside, the sheer number of patches and combinations there of on the 82nd fatigue shirt should be enough to tell you not to buy.




    Allan, thanks for the kind words. To set the record straight, I asked "how do you block someone?"  I understand that a lot of the more senior members here are friends, but if someone wants to provide snarky, rude, and other unhelpful responses (i.e. "FAKE," "Don't use wire hangers," or "ask mommie dearest"), do not expect me to laugh it off. I have been collecting helmets and field gear for 20 years now (since I was a kid) and have started to move into the uniform realm. And as some folks have already alluded to, militaria collecting is one of the most unwelcoming hobbies for kids that are interested. The arrogance amongst a small group of senior collectors still will continue to ensure many young people will look elsewhere for hobbies. Many of the people on this forum have provided me extremely constructive and helpful feedback. But when Kammo-man calls me a crackhead, that's the kind of thing where you will see me asking to block him. 


    Again, I understand a lot of you are friends, but I would encourage you to think about the damage comments like his do to interest in the hobby. 


    As for my post, this item was not even purchased, and I would never purchase something I was not 100% unless I knew it could return it. The person I bought this from has always told me if I EVER experience an issue or have doubts about an item, I can return it. 


    Once again, I appreciate you and other members helping me with my new interest in uniforms. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

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