Camo Helmet Cover Repro??

[M60 Driver]

I have this WWII style reversible helmet cover and am curious whether it is an issue item or a good quality repro. I did glance through all 10 pages of the pinned thread on the helmet covers trying to find a similar cover. The cover has no slits and no markings other than what looks to be an old style name stamp. It is very well made out of a herringbone cloth. Not an easy item to photograph well.

[M60 Driver]

Here is the flip side.

[Schnicklfritz]

It looks like a legit 1st pattern USMC helmet cover. A pretty nice one at that!

Cheers!

Marc Shaffer

[bigjoe]

M60 Driver post some good pictures of the cover flat out for me,both brown and green sides..so far it looks a good- un.

[craig_pickrall]

While at that what about some good detail pics of the center seam stitching?

[M60 Driver]

Here are two pics of the cover flattened along the center seam.

[M60 Driver]

Here is the helemt folded across the seam on the brown side. You might be able to note that the fabric to the right of the seam is a shade darker than the fabric to the left of the seam.

[M60 Driver]

Here is a closeup of the green side of the seam.

[M60 Driver]

Brown side seam.

[M60 Driver]

The only marking is the name stamp below.

[Schnicklfritz]

Ain't nuttin' wrong with it. It is an original. As stated before, a very nice one and even nicer with the original owner's stamp on it. Nice find!

Cheers!

Marc Shaffer

[dhcoleterracina]

I like it and think that mint shade of green is hard to repro exactly

[bigjoe]

good-un...

[M60 Driver]

I just wanted to thank all of you who have replied so far. It is interesting to look at the covers in the three recent threads on the subject of these covers to contrast and compare. I noticed that it is the herringbone weave itself that is not always duplicated in the repros.

[usmc grunt]

good-un...

 

BIGJOE, Help me understand this:

 

You're giving this helmet cover a "thumbs up" as a "good un".

 

In a previous thread, you judged a helmet cover as a "wrong un" on the basis that the pattern was "too busy" on both sides.

 

Here is a link to the "wrong un" with a pattern that is "too busy" (See post #9).

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...hl=helmet+cover

 

The photos of the green side on the covers you judged as a "good un" and a "wrong un" are provided below for a comparison of the patterns. You give the cover in the first photo a "thumbs up" as a "good un" but stated that the cover in the second photo is a "wrong un" with a pattern that is "too busy both sides".

 

The pattern on the green side of the cover you call a "good un" is just as busy on the green side as the pattern on the green side of the "wrong un". Please explain how the pattern in the cover discussed in this thread (the first photo) is acceptable while the pattern in a previous thread (second photo) is too busy.

 

I bought the cover in the second photo and when I compared that cover to the 3 original covers I own, I discovered that the pattern, as you rightly noted, is too busy. Having learned the difference first hand, the pattern on the cover in this thread, in my opinion, is "too busy" when compared to the pattern on an original.

[usmc grunt]

Compare the photos of the two helmet covers in my previous post (above) with photos of a couple of original covers (below) and note that the pattern on the "original" helmet cover in this thread (photo above) is quite "busy" while the original covers (photo below) are not. The first photo below is an original USMC cover that was taken from a photo in the following thread in this forum: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...8&hl=stitch. The helmet covers in the second photo are from the book, "Grunt Gear: USMC Combat Infantry Equipment of World War II" by Alec S. Tulkoff (page 47). The difference is quite apparent.

[usmc grunt]

This cover is a reproduction. Take a close look at the following photos. The first pattern cover photo is a photo of the cover that is the subject of this thread. The second pattern cover photo is a photo of a cover that is a bonafide reproduction. When the photo of the second pattern repro cover is flipped and the camouflage spot pattern is compared to the 1st pattern cover, you can spot several identical points in the cover patterns. See notes on brown spots in outlined areas.

[Schnicklfritz]

The camo pattern is not a good way to judge repro from original now days. Several vendors have the pattern down spot on. There are other characteristics in the material and the way that the covers are sewn to Id a cover as a repro vs original. The cover that is the subject of this thread is an original from what I can see.

[usmc grunt]

The camo pattern is not a good way to judge repro from original now days. Several vendors have the pattern down spot on. There are other characteristics in the material and the way that the covers are sewn to Id a cover as a repro vs original. The cover that is the subject of this thread is an original from what I can see.

The second pattern cover (the one with buttonholes) is a reproduction. I owned that cover long enough to have the opportunity to thoroughly examine and compare it to an original. The double chain stitching on the brown side (center seam) and the tooth stitching on the edging was correct. The double chain stitching is easy to reproduce and is not a credible point of reference in determining the authenticity of the cover as machines that create a double chain stitch that is exactly like the stitching on an original cover have been around for quite some time. Furthermore, the same can be said for the tooth stitching on the edging of the covers. Both the double chain stitching on the center seam and the single tooth stitching on the edge can be found on a reproduction cover.

 

Anyone that works in the textile industry and is familiar with sewing machinery will tell you that these two stitches are quite common and are not unique to the WWII era. In fact, replicating the exact same camouflage pattern would be more difficult than replicating the double chain and tooth stitching. Reproducing the stitching (and the way that the cover is sewn together) is easier to replicate than it is to replicate the exact pattern. A good seamstress can cut two pink and white colored floral patterned material in the same manner as a WWII helmet cover, double chain stitch the two halves together and run a tooth stitch along the edging and produce a match to the stitching on an original WWII cover.

 

Compare the two covers in the photos below. The second pattern is a bonafide repro. The first pattern is the cover in question. The patterns on the two covers are so identical that one might rightly suspect that they came from the same bolt of cloth. Note that the colored areas on each cover are in the exact same location and are in the exact same proportion. The covers are identical twins - either could be said to be a clone of the other. It is easier to replicate the double chain and single tooth stitching than it is to replicate this pattern match to this degree. It is a perfect match.

 

On a final note, the name "Tropp" stamped on this item does not give the cover credibility (no way - no how). As a US Marine, I was issued a rubber stamp and rubber letters that could be assembled to stamp my name on my clothing issue. The letters slid into a track in such a manner that there was a track above and below the name. Failure to wipe the ink off the tracks would leave a line above and below the name stamp. These lines were called "railroad tracks" and were considered a discrepancy in a uniform inspection. Note that there is a line above the name and a trace of a line below. These are the railroad tracks I'm referring to.

 

One cannot authoritatively state that "Tropp" is the name of the original owner or that the name stamp is WWII era. These name stamps may still be issued to Marines to mark their clothing issue to this very day. I still have my stamp and could easily stamp the name "Puller, L.B" on a repro cover and claim that it belonged to Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller. Heck, I could even stamp "Tropp" exactly as you see it on this cover.

 

This cover has not been authenticated as original.

[Schnicklfritz]

Yes, the second pattern cover is indeed a repro. The first pattern pictured here is an original in my opinion. The photos are excellent on this one and I feel comfortable saying this. The three brown spots along with the other pieces of the pattern that you point to in post #17 match up to the original Bender cover at the bottom of post # 16 exactly if you rotate it to the same direction.

 

Further, as far as copying the pattern goes, compare this cover with the Aussie made covers in that thread. You'll see that the pattern matches as well. Whether the Aussie covers are original or not, the pattern is on. They were not made with US made materials if original.

 

IMHO, try as hard as they may, I do not believe that they will be able to produce a cover that would completely fool someone. I've talked to people who reproduce garments. Even when they have the original in front of them to do it, they never come out the same as the original. That said, if it comes to light that this 1st pattern cover is a reproduction, I'll never buy another...

 

I was in the Corps to in '85. We were issued a one piece rubber stamp with our name on it. We used it for all of our marking on uniforms.

[usmc grunt]

This cover has not been authenticated as original.

This cover, which I stand by as a repro, sold for $51.00. That's about $26.00 to $31.00 more than what it was actually worth in my opinion: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=008

[M60 Driver]

This cover, which I stand by as a repro, sold for $51.00. That's about $26.00 to $31.00 more than what it was actually worth in my opinion: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=008

 

It might be a repro, it might be real, and there is clearly a difference of opinion amongst equals. all of whom have opinions that I respect. I don't really care one way or another and, being a poor lower middle class low life working well over 48 hours a week, I am quite happy to get $51 for a piece of cloth that I obtained at no cost. But Grunt, I thought you were a jar head and not cavalry, or did I just imagine that high horse you were riding in the private e-mails?

 

Lest we all forget that maxim of democracy: opinions are like rectal orifices, everyone has one and they all stink.

[m1a2u2]

The second pattern cover (the one with buttonholes) is a reproduction. I owned that cover long enough to have the opportunity to thoroughly examine and compare it to an original. The double chain stitching on the brown side (center seam) and the tooth stitching on the edging was correct. The double chain stitching is easy to reproduce and is not a credible point of reference in determining the authenticity of the cover as machines that create a double chain stitch that is exactly like the stitching on an original cover have been around for quite some time. Furthermore, the same can be said for the tooth stitching on the edging of the covers. Both the double chain stitching on the center seam and the single tooth stitching on the edge can be found on a reproduction cover.

 

Anyone that works in the textile industry and is familiar with sewing machinery will tell you that these two stitches are quite common and are not unique to the WWII era. In fact, replicating the exact same camouflage pattern would be more difficult than replicating the double chain and tooth stitching. Reproducing the stitching (and the way that the cover is sewn together) is easier to replicate than it is to replicate the exact pattern. A good seamstress can cut two pink and white colored floral patterned material in the same manner as a WWII helmet cover, double chain stitch the two halves together and run a tooth stitch along the edging and produce a match to the stitching on an original WWII cover.

 

Compare the two covers in the photos below. The second pattern is a bonafide repro. The first pattern is the cover in question. The patterns on the two covers are so identical that one might rightly suspect that they came from the same bolt of cloth. Note that the colored areas on each cover are in the exact same location and are in the exact same proportion. The covers are identical twins - either could be said to be a clone of the other. It is easier to replicate the double chain and single tooth stitching than it is to replicate this pattern match to this degree. It is a perfect match.

 

On a final note, the name "Tropp" stamped on this item does not give the cover credibility (no way - no how). As a US Marine, I was issued a rubber stamp and rubber letters that could be assembled to stamp my name on my clothing issue. The letters slid into a track in such a manner that there was a track above and below the name. Failure to wipe the ink off the tracks would leave a line above and below the name stamp. These lines were called "railroad tracks" and were considered a discrepancy in a uniform inspection. Note that there is a line above the name and a trace of a line below. These are the railroad tracks I'm referring to.

 

One cannot authoritatively state that "Tropp" is the name of the original owner or that the name stamp is WWII era. These name stamps may still be issued to Marines to mark their clothing issue to this very day. I still have my stamp and could easily stamp the name "Puller, L.B" on a repro cover and claim that it belonged to Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller. Heck, I could even stamp "Tropp" exactly as you see it on this cover.

 

This cover has not been authenticated as original. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons//thumbdown.gif

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?

[GIJive]

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?

m1a2u2,

 

In my opinion, the rationale is that he doesn't know what he is talking about. There is nothing wrong with the cover with the stamp on it, it is real. Hopefully, since this thread was posted he has seen some more real covers and gotten educated.

[m1a2u2]

I'm glad we can settle this. Unchallenged incorrect opinions like that are what lead to misinformation.