Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by m1a2u2

  1. My main concern is the weave pattern. Someone put a guide together with the drawing of how it should look. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxoZWxtZXRpbmZvfGd4OjE0ZTljZjRlMTQ5NjRmOA Also, do you have pictures of the seam stitching on each side?
  2. I'm glad we can settle this. Unchallenged incorrect opinions like that are what lead to misinformation.
  3. Here are some close ups of it. Why is it bad to bring up pacman? It's only bad if the pacman doesnt have the spacing between the colors like in your picture. That it means it's a repro. Mine clearly has the spacing. Is that what you're saying? Close ups of pacman on my cover:
  4. The summary of this argument is as follows. 1. Stitching is easy to replicate and should not be an indicator of a genuine cover. 2. Any cover that matches this pattern is fake. I know this is an old thread but am I missing something? Every bonafide real cover out there matches the shapes he identified in this so called "fake" pattern. I figured this thread needs some closure because I dont see any basis to state that the pattern usmc grunt identified is fake. Could someone please explain his rationale to me?
  5. Here is a better pic to show the colors. Thing is mint.
  6. There was one thread where someone was saying that stitching is easy to replicate and that the colors are what to look at. It’s all very confusing. I will say that I’m starting to regret buying it since I can’t really display it without chinstrap slits.
  7. I know there have been many topics on this but I have gotten confused about the camo pattern itself and how that plays into the analysis. Here is the cover I just picked up.
  8. Agreed, you can barely make out some of the lighter camo shades.
  9. Fascinating forum. The thing that's making the picture proof that much harder is that when these covers were new it was probably much more difficult to make out the foliage slits.
  10. I always like to show pics of my gear in action Vera Cruz, 1914
  11. Back of canteen and first aid pouch showing early USMC hangers.
  12. After years of searching, I finally acquired a full set of USMC gear as used during the 1914 occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico. These have been listed as the 1912 Uniform Regulations or M1904/08 Gear. It consists of the following: -M1907 USMC Cartidge Belt with Eagle and Anchor Snap (Mills) -M1912 USMC Suspenders (Mills) (1914 Date) -M1904/08 USMC Haversack that attaches to the belt (Phila. Depot) (1912 Marked) -M1904/08 USMC Blanket Bag (Phila. Depot) (1912 Marked) -M1910 USMC Canteen with Eagle and Anchor Snap (Not marked but I think Depot Made) -M1912 USMC First Aid Pouch (Not marked
  13. Below is my 1912 marked depot haversack. As I stated above, the colors are identical to the blanket bag so I know they are both depot. I also have a 1885 Watervliet USMC marked haversack but it isnt depot so I don't want to hijack the forum with it.
  14. I listed these on another page but I figured I would keep this thread going as well since it's so great. USMC M1904/08 Blanket Bag and Haversack collection: USMC Blanket Bag widely used during the invasion of Veracruz Mexico in 1914. Missing a strap but extremely rare. These were first manufactured in 1911 and I think stopped in 1913 or 1914 since I haven't seen any dated after that. The P1912 bag replaced it by then. There aren't any depot marks on this but I know it's Depot since it's the exact same color as the depot marked haversack I have.
  15. Wondering what people use to make their pouches look full. I've seen some M1941 pack displays that look perfectly filled out. Do people just insert foam? What's the easiest and most cost effective way people go about this?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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