Jump to content

Experimental M1917A1 frogskin cover


GeneralCheese
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's a vintage cover 100%

The marking comes from an overall or m-44

I haven't seen in the 42s but I am watching game of thrones and quite busy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have no opinion either way on this because I have only seen the two posted here. But I do have some questions to the people who are calling this one a fake:
1. If you feel this one is a fake you think the other one is fake here as well? http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/213372-field-made-m-1917-usmc-frogskin-cover/

 

2. Why is the stamp on this one an issue and not on the previous one?

 

3. Something now has been brought up that this one has brown thread. Again the previous one had this and have seen brown thread on as repairs on several airborne helmets? So why is it an issue here?

 

4. Why is using parts and pieces from other items an issue on something like this that was experimental? These covers did exist theres a period photo from 1942 in the other thread. The reason why I ask this one is after the M2 helmets started breaking there is documentation as well as examples of the experimentation of the M1c with parts that were from meat cans.

 

Again I don't feel this is real or fake either way just curious about why a lot of this is being brought up.

-j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't get me wrong

I believe them to be ww2 manufactured.

There's a cross over period in helmet use and these are that gap

I would love to own one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pararaftanr2

 

So? I don't see the issue with that at all. it's pretty clear that this was hand made in small numbers.

 

So, if these were "experimental" and "hand made in small numbers" (in other words RARE), doesn't it strike you as odd that two of three examples known to exist, all in unused condition, have now shown up on ebay in 2016? Something just doesn't add up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

So, if these were "experimental" and "hand made in small numbers" (in other words RARE), doesn't it strike you as odd that two of three examples known to exist, all in unused condition, have now shown up on ebay in 2016? Something just doesn't add up to me.

 

Well, the first one was in 2014, so only 2/3 have. Plus, the one that sold a few months ago came out of Santa Ana, which is very close to Camp Pendleton where pump says a bundle of 5 were found, and which is where he got his. Mine is the odd one out, as it came out of Arkansas.

 

If they were made recently, it wouldn't make sense to sell them all from different parts of the country, and for wildly different prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

 

Well, the first one was in 2014, so only 2/3 have. Plus, the one that sold a few months ago came out of Santa Ana, which is very close to Camp Pendleton where pump says a bundle of 5 were found, and which is where he got his. Mine is the odd one out, as it came out of Arkansas.

 

If they were made recently, it wouldn't make sense to sell them all from different parts of the country, and for wildly different prices.

 

Oops, pardon my brain fart there. We just saw this happen with Inland airborne liners, for a while maybe 2 or 3 were found on ebay. Now, within the past 6 months, I can count 6+, all coming from different sources, properly identified or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just food for thought and to add to the discussion.In Alec Tulkoffs book GRUNT GEAR He addresses the experimental camoflage suits and the development of camo clothing in detail.

 

THis isnt word for word but it can be read in GRUNT GEAR

 

He(Alec) begins by stating that in 1940 the Marine Corps Equipment Board(MCEB) briefly re-examined a proposal on camoflage clothing but based on a proposal by a civilian requesting money to manufacture clothing and helmet covers in "varied colored" tunics and helmet covers for the Marine Corps to evaluate.In short the board rejected the idea based on earlier "exhaustive" studies and also it had been tried out for many years in various forms since the great war.

 

It further states that that the development of the two piece Marine Corps camoflage uniform started days after Pearl Harbor when samples of camoflage fabric in two color schemes was submitted/delivered for evaluation by the Cranston Print Works of Cranston Rhode Island to the MCEB.The Marine Corps then asked Cranston to provide enough material to manufacture two uniforms.By March of 1942 the MCEB delivered to the Commandant a sample uniform made of this same material.The Marine Corps requested this suit replace the current utility shirt and trousers.(The one collectors call the P41 uniform).

 

Alec continues to write: It was not until May 5th (1942) that sanple uniforms were manufactured and shipped by the Depot Quatermaster Philidelpa.On May 13th 1942 the Uniform Board approved the adoption of the camoflage suit but was waiting for trials and word from the commandant as to the basis of issue.In a letter from the Commandant of the Marine Corps dated May 28th 1942,it states two piece herring bone suits in discriptive colors(sniper suits)were in the hands of troops for service tests and recommondations to the basis of issue.He further states that even with the first conttract of P1942s awarded the MCEB Experimantal Section was testing variations of the uniform design.Further stating that at least 8 different camoflauge blouse designs manufactured by the Philidelphia Depot of Supplies were being tested in November of 1942.No mention of helmet covers.

 

Alec states that the Army camoflage one piece suit Pattern 1942 was actually the first suit to be issued to the Marine Corps.It can be seen in photos and was of limited issue.The real first Marine COrps camoflage suits were nothing more than utilities or khakies died black and worn on the Makin Island raid early in the war.The Raiders didnt have the P42 suits at the time of Makin.

 

To me to have a helmet cover made for the 1917a1 helmet for or prior to the dates tested for the trials or submission of material to the MCEB isnt real plausible if the material is from a P44.This said there is a camo cover posted here that was made for a Navy Talker helmet.

 

Here is a picture from Alecs Book from the 1942 trials.

 

post-342-0-34803800-1467001905.jpg

 

The photo caption

 

post-342-0-18604900-1467003431.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

Very good information. Here's the photo where an M1917A1 cover appears, dated August 1942. It is odd that they would be making anything for the M1917A1, as M1s were already being issued.

 

post-98601-0-36712100-1404408089.jpg

 

post-98601-0-76135600-1404408109.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may add my two cents...

 

Some of you may have read my posts about my uncle & the work he did for decades with experimental items & testing. Although his work was a bit modern & Im sure things changed quite a bit since 40/41...

 

I have seen first hand many of the items he & his team had made & tested. Much of the craftsmanship was no better than a 1st grade kid with a bottle of glue & a pack of crayons. (he has a full set of body armor made entirely of cardboard & duct tape) The materials & supplies were often scavenged from standard issue items, and even from other hacked up experimental items themselves. They weren't intended to be anywhere near perfect. The intent was to put the idea into a physical form, and progress from there. If the item was taken out of service and made obsolete, the project was canned.

 

Personally, I like the covers. And I think they stand a chance, if for no other reason, maybe they fall into the category I described above. Maybe we will never know. Maybe someone will find the evidence to prove one way or another. There is photographic proof that these covers did exist. The extent of their existence, as well as their origins, may still be a mystery, but I still think they stand a chance. The poor stitching is on par with the quality of my uncles items. The unused condition is spot on for a item that was rendered obsolete almost as soon as the covers were made. It could go either way. But I still like 'em!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the argument that a M1917A1 wouldn't be used in mid 1942 by the USMC being brought up? I have seen photos of the helmets being used early on the Guadalcanal invasion. So I see no problem that they would be used for testing camouflage patterns etc.

just food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the photo where an M1917A1 cover appears, dated August 1942.

 

It may just be that the testing was aimed at evaluating and documenting the effectiveness of the camo pattern and the stateside unit involved still had M1917A1 helmets. The improvised covers were made to emphasize the value of the pattern for the test photos, using material taken from available camo suits. Posing the face-camoed soldier beside the splotchy birch tree trunk, with the speckles of leaves in the background was done to show how the frogskin style pattern helped a human figure to blend with "sylvan" (forest/woodland) surroundings as described in the caption. Just as Morlok describes, a handful of helmet covers may have been made for the testing and photo session with no intention of mass producing them for M1917A1 helmets.

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd that this item is quite obviously not an issue item and I believe nothing more than a fantasy cover, very poorly made from a jacket or coveralls and yet it is still being debated. The stitching tells all, look at the stitch line, it is absolutely atrocious and would never pass muster. I was a parachute rigger for 28 years and we would never let something like that out of our shop! Just because you got it cheap does not mean it isn't a fake. Look at all the re-enactor gear that is made these days, not to mention the stuff made to deceive people. "Buy the item, not the story"! In this case you are making up the story!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to proclaim expertise, but I look at A LOT of WWII camo and field gear. My first instinct was a modern piece made from original material. Construction, including sewing technique, finish work, and so forth cannot be excused. Even if this was a limited experimental run, they would have been made by highly experienced hands, on established equipment, using proven practices. The example up for discussion does not present - to me - as such. As others have said, if you're happy with it, that's what matters. Beyond that, I think it will always be viewed with skepticism by some portion of the community.

 

Philosophically, I don't accept the 'prove it's fake' argument. I feel the burden is really to prove it's real. Otherwise, it is a very slippery slope - which sets dangerous precedent for the hobby we love.

 

Bottom line, I think you paid about what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

I recommend you two to read Morlok's informative post about experimental items. The stitching, while a little sloppy, is very solid and was done on a machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just looking at the cover that Pump 150 has, I think that is an even worse fake than yours. Look at the seam where they left the rough edge unsewn and the brown thread and very poor stitch lines. Someone is making these up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I was a parachute rigger for 28 years and I was called upon several times to help prototype new gear and equipment, including flight suits, seat harnesses, lifting harnesses and uniforms. We never let anything that wasn't perfect leave our shop, I can guarantee you that the same mentality was present before, during and after WWII(pride in workmanship). None of these so called prototype covers displays anything near the quality that would have been required by the Quartermaster Corps. I'm sorry but this cover and the one on the other post are both fantasy items. I'm glad you like it, but deductive reasoning and good old logic tell us that these are both recently concocted fantasy items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

Like I said, I was a parachute rigger for 28 years and I was called upon several times to help prototype new gear and equipment, including flight suits, seat harnesses, lifting harnesses and uniforms. We never let anything that wasn't perfect leave our shop, I can guarantee you that the same mentality was present before, during and after WWII(pride in workmanship). None of these so called prototype covers displays anything near the quality that would have been required by the Quartermaster Corps. I'm sorry but this cover and the one on the other post are both fantasy items. I'm glad you like it, but deductive reasoning and good old logic tell us that these are both recently concocted fantasy items.

 

Concocted by whom?

 

Clearly not everything that was a prototype, or field made, was made nicely as proven my Morlok. What we do know is that these covers existed in August 1942, and we have picture proof of that. We know this was made from deadstock mint material, which would not exist post war in any quantity large enough, or cheap enough, to make multiple fakes of something most people wouldn't even know what it is. We know that the thread has been used in repaired USMC gear, and in repaired airborne helmets. We know 2/3 came from the Camp Pendleton area in California, where a supposed bundle of 5 was found decades ago.

 

As for it being a fake, all that you are going off of is "it isn't made properly". Well, unless someone can find the specifications for this where it would be made in a factory, not by Private Joe over in the depot, it is perfectly reasonable that it wouldn't have the greatest craftsmanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The marking comes from an overall or m-44

I haven't seen in the 42s but I am watching game of thrones and quite busy !

hello

one stamp on this one

100_6110.jpg

 

olivier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be.

I am sure there are more than 1 font size for the size printing.

 

Finding fabric for a project like this should be no problem back in the day.

Or simply cut up some shirts.....

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...