Jump to content

pump 150

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pump 150

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. DiGilio, That is great information and some really nicely done research, thanks for taking the time to present it! If the 1964 contract date does ring true, then going by the norm it would actually represent July 1963 - June 1964 I would think. This would potentially push back production a bit earlier into 1963 as well, which could have meant discussion on producing, and writing up the specs during the 61-63 period with the then issued contract. Who they were made for, either ramping up supplies for USMC or friendly nations still needs to be determined. But your info does help in hopefully narrowing it down, thanks for adding!
  2. I agree that finding documents are the key, and hopefully they will emerge at some point. How many photos have been posted absolutely proclaiming either specific proof added within this thread or "already well documented pictures in use" of the "First Model" in widespread use during WWII? These foliage slits can be extremely hard to see, even in good quality photos. You just can't take a quick look and judge. Photo quality and fully understanding how the cover is placed on the helmet needs to be considered before making any decision in either direction. I made mention of Mark Reynosa's book in particular as an example only as I found the original. I would have sworn that dog handler also was wearing a no slit for years until the huge clear original showed up, very hard to tell without the high res available. Unless an author has such confirming docs, then it would only seem natural to rationalize with the first model of a brand new helmet cover for the brand new M-1 helmet not to have foliage slits. Along with what appeared to be the steady addition of foliage slits over time. Then the deletion of the flap slits in the 1953 Blue Anchor and continued until the end of the M-1 production with other patterns. That, along with photos available at the time not clearly showing them would make sense in the order of progression. If any authors see this and wish to comment otherwise, please do! [ In my opinion at this time..... "Models" are only a collecting term for our ease of determining the type, which I also like using. The 9-42 spec is the original USMC WWII helmet cover, with each variance an amended type at some point along the production cycle for some reason...cost, time constraints, ease, production speed for potential numbers needed, etc. Those are the relating documents which need to be found. ] For the Iwo Jima photo, IMO the circles represent the closest chance of foliage slits as the whiter shades run parallel and show symmetry compared to placement on helmet as previously described and witnessed on helmet covers. Always interested in hearing thoughts!....
  3. Where the no foliage slit model of the USMC frogskin helmet cover can be readily seen as a primary helmet cover in field worn combat use, from the USMC Archive... Korea 1953
  4. Continuing to study these photos whenever new or better ones arrive, I still have yet to see a fully confirmed photo of a no foliage slit "First Model" in use during WWII or found any documentation. Certainly doesn't mean that they weren’t worn, but with the sheer number of higher quality pics becoming available, especially of the early war period you'd think it would be seen by now possibly. Still looking though! I believe, as mentioned here in the past that while being able to actually see all three models in hand with existing examples and what was confirmed produced post WWII, the period photos used to judge at the time were just that. Judgements on what was being seen in the photo with available picture quality before the release of many original high res. I showed that here in Mark Reynosa's book. It does not make any of the authors any less credible in my opinion, to the contrary as I've said here before they inspired many of us (myself included) to collect and do our own research too! I'm fully aware of what this represents within the collecting community as many purchases have been based solely on the "First Model" concept of collecting (myself included), but facts are facts. While it is still unknown exactly when the no foliage slit model began production, we can positively say that the 9-42 spec helmet cover was produced at the beginning and worn as the primary helmet cover of U.S. Marines during WWII. Not a late war addition. Finding documentation in either direction for production of the no slit would be great to see and learn! As for the picture on Iwo Jima, I showed this one early on and made mention that this could very well be a "First Model" back then. With much more research and staring at photos I would not fully confirm that anymore without additional photos to compare. Below is the best quality found so far, still just a bit fuzzy. I don't believe that is actually the crown fold, just a slight overlap. Looking at the center seam offset and chinstrap it appears that he has not cut holes for the chinstrap, but possibly used the first gap off center to place his cover. That would make this one ride way off center and very far forward shell right. Any foliage slits would be way out of line from what is "normal". The left side does look very promising with a few lighter faint lines showing, I've shown here some sort abnormal marking on his cover, is it a foliage slit? Unknown at this time due to photo quality and way out of normal alignment, also not perpendicular to the seam, but it is the approx. right size for one. Just my opinion, always interested in hearing thoughts. So where does that leave the collector called "Second Model"? Totally unknown right now other than following the great clue that so far it has only been seen produced from the lesser encountered second roller pattern, which at this point has only been documented being produced in WWII - what I call "Design B" just to tell the difference. Which if you study the so called "pac man" in this photo it appears he is wearing this "B" roller variant.
  5. Buckwampum, I really appreciate you adding that photo to my post, thank you! It certainly does bare a very close resemblance at this point with the heavy cropping, and warrants further investigation in order to confirm with the full size image. Without a doubt a D Troop 1/9 marked vehicle with the yellow Diamond. That information on the V100's in use with the Troop is great info in itself as well. Look for a PM from me....Thanks! Martinmpr, At this point I do believe that he most likely was one of those accelerated NCO's or "shake-and-bake"
  6. A very special helmet. Thankfully this Marine made it home safely. Thank you for sharing it.
  7. As I said with the last example sold off a few months back. Being a 9-42 spec in the golden Frogskin and still in the original factory folds....this is a Mint+. These are almost in a sub-category of their own within the USMC Frogskin covers IMO. Very nice!
  8. Mike, Believe the photo you refer too was a selection obtained by member General Apathy. He commented, along with adding this picture currently at the top of Page 9 of the pinned "Rethinking The Norm" thread. The sold cover appears to be an example of the "golden Frogskin" color along with being the so called "third model" as per the 9-42 specs. With those attributes and still in the original factory folds, IMO this would be considered a "Mint +" WWII USMC Frogskin cover.
  9. One thing to consider on this particular cover is that it appears to present never to have been on a shell, still in the original factory folded condition as ready to ship directly after manufacture. Just a thought.
  10. You're right Justin, I completley forgot about those images. Thanks for reminding me! Another mystrey to solve for sure. Here are a couple screen shots which show a close up and the easily determined difference between the two together. These are both listed as July 1958 in Lebanon.
  11. That's where I was going as well. While the "Leaf/Mitchell" can be seen used by ARVN forces as early as 1962, I have not seen them with the earlier issue frogskin either so far. It could be said these 1964 contract were made for the Korean forces who wore a similar type looking Frogskin in Vietnam, but by where I got mine it would seem they were issued to U.S. Marines pre 1965. And these "Frogskin" helmet covers were still worn on a limited basis throughout the Vietnam War period by Marines. Below is the latest photo I have seen of a Marine wearing the WWII era "Frogskin" helmet cover in actual field use from another thread here. Operation Frequent Wind, Vietnam 1975 If anyone else has similar or later photos I'd like to see them.
  12. While the theory of this contract being primarily intended for South Vietnamese forces is certainly worth exploring further as helmet covers were being sent to them. By 1962 the brand new issue "Leaf/Mitchell" camouflage covers were already documented in use by ARVN forces in combat operations on an ever growing scale. The photo below is a famous one from Larry Burrows taken in the Mekong Delta in 1962. That would have to make these either the 1959 or 1962 contracts only. Just some more things to look into....
  13. I’m with Mike...very nice! And to spur the conversation for those who may not have seen it before, the one I showed (which was a cover alone not on a helmet) came directly from an estate grouping of a marine who had served in Korea in the past, but also was assigned to MAAG in Vietnam during 1964-1965.
  14. I will add resized copies of the linked photo above so that it stays with the thread. A very nice photo to study, however this photo copy is very bright and washed out to the point that some of the Marine's slits at left fade into the cover as well unless at full size. I have not seen this original high res as of yet. While no very noticeable slits are seen on the one at right, with the position of the cover (far forward) the slits should run diagonal low in front - high in back. In this very darkened crop the red circle indicating the straight line in the exact position and angle where a slit should be in relation to the center crown fold would seem to indicate possible stitching. The quality of this photo at the present time would make this inconclusive to rule either way IMHO.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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