Jump to content

I think I found a 'real' WW2 AAF CRUSHER! Am I right?


Keith
 Share

Recommended Posts

manayunkman

I think your money is safe Dave, the reg I quoted is the only thing I have ever seen in writing. Here is the US Patent for a 'crushable' visor from 1943 submitted by Edward J. Biel that I believe was bought by Bancroft.

attachicon.gifbancroft 1.jpg

attachicon.gifbancroft 2.jpg

 

 

Great document MattS that really helps define the type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for the proverbial beating of a dead horse here, but it would be accurate to call all the above caps "Officer's Service Caps".

I think there's at least 4 subcategories;

1 Regulation cap with stiffening and grommet in place

2 Regulation cap, upper grommet removed

3 Regulation cap, stiffening and grommet removed

4 Manufactured without stiffening or grommet and with a thin visor

 

Does that cover most of the variations? The one Doyler posted in #45 and #46 is an oddball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example from a state side Colonel.I have his uniform and winter service cap as well.This summer/tropical issue is a true chrusher/packable cap with thin single layer visor with trimmed edge.Also note he elected to wear his with the form bands in the top giving it the typical saucer shape an not worn floppy as a "chrusher".Just a case where all "chrushers" were not worn as such.I should mention he was an older officer and a WW1 vet as well.He was based in Washington and after the war was sent to inspect POW Camps that our troopes were held in and was tasked with reprting back the conditions.I was told by his daughter he also visited the Concentration Camps as well.He was head of the group to the ETO and another Group went to the PTO.

 

attachicon.gif2014_0624milstuff329130037.JPG

 

attachicon.gif2014_0624milstuff329130038.JPG

 

 

 

Very cool cap Ron! That is a real beauty and I really like the logo inside.

 

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pararaftanr2

Guys,

Something people may forget, or not be aware of, is that A.A.F. Aviation Cadets were issued their uniforms, which were similar in color and material to that of enlisted men, with the exception of appropriate cadet insignia. After successful completion of their training, and shortly before being commissioned and "winged", each individual was required to purchase his own officer's quality service uniforms that conformed to then current military regulations. Nobody was issued a "crusher cap". It was the individual's option to purchase a standard officer's service cap and modify it to a "crusher" (or not to), or to purchase a "crushable" cap, such as a Bancroft "Flighter". What they ended up wearing was largely a question of which local tailor was chosen, and who's brands that tailor had in stock at the time, as well as how much money the individual wanted to spend.

As a current collector, I think you should feel free to try and include a Bancroft in your collection if you choose to, but on the other hand, not consider any other brand of cap that was modified and worn with a "50 mission crush" as something less than "authentic".

Best regards, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Paul. The Dobbs cap in post #1 is an authentic officer's crusher cap, but it is not a cap made specifically by the manufacturer for that purpose. I would call it a "Type 2" going by the points I listed in post #52. Dave's cap in post #25 would be a Type 3 by my reckoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Oh, Lord! Now we are going to further delineate the mess with numbered distinctions? It's not that complex, Pedro. It is getting nauseating, though.

 

While we are making up our own definitions, how about this one? It will be mine.

 

"Any service cap from any maker, manufactured or modified in any way to make it more conducive for wear WITH headphones by the veteran or the manufacturer, AND ACTUALLY WORN BY THE VET WITH HEADPHONES is a "'true', 'real', 'actual', 'authentic', 'crushed', or 'crusher cap'".

 

 

and,

 

"Without paperwork/proof, no cap, no matter how floppy or thin, can be proven to be a "'true', 'real', 'actual', 'authentic', 'crushed', or 'crusher cap'".

 

 

 

I know it hurts but a Bancroft Flighter with zero flight time is, from a collector's standpoint, a crusher-style cap/manufacturer variant based on the popularity of "true crushers" the likes of which few have handled... apparently. Not the other way around.

 

Function over nomenclature - and that can only be proven by documentation and NOT by folding a brim between the thumb and forefingers.

 

I say we stop saying, "true crusher", "crushed cap", "crushed crusher", etc. Just repeat B229's quote above - it's quite concise. We all know what is trying to be said but it comes off wrong, is misleading, and exludes even many of the awesome combat caps shown here. This is evidenced here by the boiled down discussion on how many layers are in a bill. Really? Rather than showing pics of a pinched brim, one shoud ask about the vet's service role, etc.

 

Ask yourself, is there really no such thing as a true crusher cap that was made in 1942? I say yes. These are the hardest of all to find and I suppose why there is such a need to annoint lesser-storried caps with some distinction.

 

JMO,

Dave

 

P.S. Doyler, Killer Lee cap! The uniqueness makes that one quite rare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Not upset at all. Glad you saw it so quickly. This has been discussed many times.

 

BTW, this falls in with "Samurai" swords and "bomber jackets".

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi all. The next item on my list of things to pick up is a WWII Crusher Cap. Before I do that, I want to know what the community thinks a "true" Crusher is.

In my opinion, a Crusher has to be made for the AF or the USAAF. It can't be an enlisted officers cap. It can be a cap with the stiffeners removed, or made with the crushed look.

What do you guys think?

-USAficionado :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were crushers made by removing the stiffeners so that earphones fit over the cap. That was followed by the commercialized crushers made with the ultra-thin leather bills so they could be rolled up and stuffed in a pocket. There are enlisted crushers too, but they are much less common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also have a flexible visor.....that's one of the key factors.

 

There were crushers before there were flexible visors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There were crushers before there were flexible visors.

 

The OP is interested in "true crushers"....those definitely should have a flexible visor. The market pretty much dictates that.

 

Yes...hypothetically, a vet (or someone) could remove the stiffener from a hat, and have the crusher look....but that does not a true crusher make.

 

All you have to do is compare the sale prices for a true crusher.....to any other hat. The value is not even close, and you can sell the former much faster than the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about color? Would that dictate wether it is a "true" Crusher or not?

 

 

Check out that thread I posted above...pretty much everything you could want to know, plus photos, and the patent for crushers as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...