Jump to content

Experimental M1917A1 frogskin cover


GeneralCheese
 Share

Recommended Posts

Very interesting read to say the least, honestly was a bit surprised when my original thread drew a so called "ho-hum" attention level overall and quickly faded, as expected with no other examples seen I guess, but glad a couple more have surfaced to spark the conversation back up. GC hope you don't mind me adding my cleaned up photos and info here in your thread so that it can all stay together for future reference in one spot.

 

I fully understand the concerns expressed by fellow collectors as to the authenticity of these due to the total lack of past known examples and little documentation. As said in my thread, these pieces are what they are and have to be looked at as such and judged not only on their appearance, but also on what is known of its use in the past. Also as I stated before, I am not 100% claiming they were made for the tests, for a unit, or as a repro, just here is what was found and what can we all come up with in regards to our own opinions and further research.

 

 

Also glad to see the second example seen posted here as well. I have talked to each of the individuals who sold these covers over the last two years, the first two did have knowledge of the test covers. Mine thought it was a field made example not a true factory produced model, the second did think it was an experimental from the period and it's story was that it came from the estate of a long time collector in the region.

 

GC's was shipped out of Arkansas however was purchased from an out of state auction clearing house along with a wide variety of other period military items, this seller seemed confident from his past experiences with the dealer it was a legit used piece, but was rather surprised by what it was thought to be as evidenced by the selling price. Now those are the stories as told to date.

 

The construction of my cover does differ than the other two seen in that it does not have a true "USMC Cover chain stitch center seam". It is simply two pieces of HBT sewn together using a similar type thread as used on the rolled edge, however the overall construction method, material, edge roll, and drawstring does include it with the others.

 

If those are judged to be fakes that's fine, then mine must be a cheap knock off of a repro'ed fake. :D If mine helps in some way to determine one way or the other that's great too as it was the first one to surface two years ago. Here are a few photos -

 

post-98601-0-35876100-1467047592.jpg

 

post-98601-0-92829600-1467047621.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments here bring up the initial issue of the M-1 entering service as the end to all items related to the M-1917. However as expressed here recently the M-1917 was worn in rather large numbers by all services both overseas as well as stateside for much of 1942, and even a bit into 1943 depending on where you were stationed.

 

Just an example. These Marines are in England training with British forces wearing the M-1917 with a British made helmet cover, dated early 1943.

 

post-98601-0-68104100-1467050552.jpg

 

post-98601-0-66019900-1467050560.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must also be noted that during the 1940-1942 period there were a multitude of tests conducted on personal camouflage using a wide array of patterns conducted by the Army. As seen here the M-1917 was heavily involved in these tests, many with camouflage covers. The USMC Frogskin pattern was chosen from a pattern tested by the Army as seen in the previous photo of the cover.

 

post-98601-0-57673100-1467050788.jpg

 

post-98601-0-25418100-1467050799.jpg

 

post-98601-0-78522200-1467050760.jpg

 

post-98601-0-98791800-1467050772.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

Wow, very good pictures pump. As for your cover, could you post a picture of the size stamp? If it is 100% identical, it would further validate my idea that they came from the same uniform stack at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another period photo of experimental camouflage on m1917a1 helmets taken at Ft. Ethan Allen in 1942.

 

The fit and finish on the uniforms looks pretty crude as well.

 

post-270-0-95502400-1467051383.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-98601-0-54812200-1467051089.jpg

 

One of my favorites from the testing series. Released in late 1942 it shows an Army soldier wearing a Frogskin jumpsuit with another type cover. It appears to be or is very similar to the collector known "Maclaren" pattern named for the company that made the test uniform. One of the specially produced Army test covers were made from the pattern also.

 

post-98601-0-97198200-1467051125.jpg

 

 

A very nice photo of an add hoc combination during the testing.

 

post-98601-0-11599900-1467051100.jpg

 

post-98601-0-87325100-1467051108.jpg

 

Now again, this is not posted to prove mine and CG's cover's legitimacy as some may say, only to tell all known knowledge and history up to this point in order to spur conversation and research in order to hopefully find the truth.

 

Pump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I'm quite sure that Private Joe over in the depot had a supervisor, and that supervisor would have never let anything of this poor quality out of his shop. I have been collecting and selling WWII militaria for almost 40 years and I have never seen depot or field repair using that type of thread. And why wouldn't dead stock mint material(shirts) be available post war? I personally found a huge piece of Vietnam tiger stripe material last year at an estate sale and dead stock USMC camo uniforms are not that uncommon. US items were really not that much in demand until the early to mid 1990's. All I know is my 40 years of collecting this stuff and the 30 years I spent in the military as a parachute rigger, this would not have held up in the filed for more than a couple days and how can we explain the two different thread type and remnants of a pocket sticking out of the seam? I am appalled at the so called helmet collectors even entertaining the idea that this is real. Maybe a re-enactor or faker lives near Camp Pendleton? And that is also just a story, you really have no idea where these came from.

 

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

CG, here is a pic of the number at top. As I said I am not sure what it represents and I'm glad some uniform guys chimed in as well with their knowledge here, that one is a nice example of how they may be found marked, (thanks airborne53).

 

I left it on the helmet for now so a good size representation can be made making it not fully visible. It is the same size as the other cover I showed with the stamped "71".

 

post-98601-0-91524900-1467052760.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

All I can say is that I'm quite sure that Private Joe over in the depot had a supervisor, and that supervisor would have never let anything of this poor quality out of his shop. I have been collecting and selling WWII militaria for almost 40 years and I have never seen depot or field repair using that type of thread. And why wouldn't dead stock mint material(shirts) be available post war? I personally found a huge piece of Vietnam tiger stripe material last year at an estate sale and dead stock USMC camo uniforms are not that uncommon. US items were really not that much in demand until the early to mid 1990's. All I know is my 40 years of collecting this stuff and the 30 years I spent in the military as a parachute rigger, this would not have held up in the filed for more than a couple days and how can we explain the two different thread type and remnants of a pocket sticking out of the seam? I am appalled at the so called helmet collectors even entertaining the idea that this is real. Maybe a re-enactor or faker lives near Camp Pendleton? And that is also just a story, you really have no idea where these came from.

 

 

The difference is that your parachutes were responsible for a life, these covers, not so much. Also, I have seen even cruder field made covers, and actual issue military items with terrible stitching. It was just a few weeks ago I found a pair of dress pants that has the rear pocket folded into a triangle and accidentally sewn over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree to disagree, and although I was a parachute rigger, I never actually laid one stitch on a parachute, but hundreds of thousands on equipment and uniforms. I have seen hundreds of field made items, US, German etc. And I can say I have never seen anything with that type of stitching and poor quality. How could you say that a helmet cover is not responsible for a life, if that is the case, what was the point in making them? The military did and still does have strict guidelines for quality and this cover meets none of the criteria, it is simply a fantasy item meant for a re-enactor or to deceive. Your cover has none of the characteristics of the prototypes pictured in the war time photos. A prototype would be even more apt to be made of a higher quality than an approved item in production. I know how much you want it to be real, but it is not! That's what sucks about this hobby, fakes and reproductions have been made since the war and even during it, no matter how hard you want to believe this is real, it just ain't so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GeneralCheese

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree to disagree, and although I was a parachute rigger, I never actually laid one stitch on a parachute, but hundreds of thousands on equipment and uniforms. I have seen hundreds of field made items, US, German etc. And I can say I have never seen anything with that type of stitching and poor quality. How could you say that a helmet cover is not responsible for a life, if that is the case, what was the point in making them? The military did and still does have strict guidelines for quality and this cover meets none of the criteria, it is simply a fantasy item meant for a re-enactor or to deceive. Your cover has none of the characteristics of the prototypes pictured in the war time photos. A prototype would be even more apt to be made of a higher quality than an approved item in production. I know how much you want it to be real, but it is not! That's what sucks about this hobby, fakes and reproductions have been made since the war and even during it, no matter how hard you want to believe this is real, it just ain't so.

 

Well, just like I can't claim 100% that it is real, you can't claim it is 100% fake. I guess we will just have to disagree. Several very experienced camo and helmet collectors seem to agree with me, so I am not alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can tell you that if any experienced helmet collectors are giving you the ok on this, they either don't want to hurt your feelings or have lost their way(take that how ever you want). Not trying to upset anyone, but when I see something obviously fake or suspicious I have to say something.

 

Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I have been collecting US helmets and militaria for almost 40 years so I would put myself in the "very experienced camo and helmet collector" category.

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.

 

Im not in the real versus fake camp here.Im just discussing what was brought up by earlier discussion.

 

 

I didnt say the 17a1 helmet wouldnt be used as a helmet in the tests.Im very familiar with all of the photos posted of the camo covers used on the 17a1.

 

Im also familiar with items like Morlok mentioned of test samples,mock ups,production samples.concept models and patent samples etc.Everything starts with an idea and concepts and then formed into a working product wether it be made from wood,clay,cloth,plastic etc.

 

Im thinking you totally missed my point or misunderstood.

 

A member stated it was more likely made from a shirt or the coveralls due to the size stamping/ink marking.The poster mentioned the USMC pattern 44 shirt.

 

My reply was directed to more so the Marine Corps developement of the clothing and time line of production not the use of the helmet .Going with the post of the P44 shirt theory. one has to think by the time the shirt would have come into production which was late in the war and 2-3(?) years from tests conducted by the Army or Marine Corps why would the cover be made out of a P44 shirt which saw limited or very limited issue and use during WW2? Also by this time the testing was more than likely well over for the use of this pattern of camoflage as it was accepted and placed into production(both by the Army and Marine Corps) thus also helmet covers were in production so why would a late issue shirt be modified into a helmet cover when the 17a1 helmet was not standard or predominant issue at the same time as the P44 shirt would be.The photos from Alecs book show the Marine Corps using the M1 helmet and some type of cover in the form of what we see was adopted for use and issue.As recalled Alecs research with the MCEB stated the first proposal for camo uniform items was rejected and there testest were much later(or after) the Army if Im understanding his time line in the book and researchThis said the Army photos are real early ones and its expected to see the 17a1 in use.Also it seems to me when a unit is a test unit they typically have the newest items to test and would have the M1 helmet as well if testing a new uniform and suit.Again the Army testing camoflage and patterns very early are expected to be seen with 17a1s.

 

Thats why my comment that it would not be plausible to think a P44 shirt would be used to make a cover for a helmet that was limited standard issue/use by the time the the P44 would have been convieved,produced and adopted to replace other patterns.THis would then tend to place the cover here more plausible to be cut from a set of camo coveralls would it not??But we need to examine if the coveralls also used the small stamps you see used in the Marine camo clothing.

 

Just for intrest in discussion,here is a P44 shirt from my collection.I took the first one on the pile and reversed it to the tan / beach side.This shirt is maked 38.It is marked in 4 places.The numbers all are of the same consistant font and size.They measure almost 10mm or right at 1/2 inch in height.(photos posted below)

 

This is just discussing the theory of it being from a P44 shirt and there isnt any arguement about 17a1s not being used in testing.(by myself).The other thing that would be intresting is to examine the covers on the 17a1s and ask is there any noticible seam in the construction of the camo test examples or cloth covers that are consitant with a shirt or coveralls.

 

Right sleeve and chest near armpit where sleeve and shirt body join

 

post-342-0-00346900-1467056960.jpg

 

Left sleeve and chest area by the armpit where body and sleeve join

 

post-342-0-03074300-1467057040.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photo of the number on the main body panel

 

post-342-0-53877000-1467057528.jpg

 

 

Here you can see the full body panels of the front and the numbers(38) are seen near the armpit on righ and left side.

 

post-342-0-62361000-1467057629.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an older post on a test or trial shirt.Just posting as a side intrest for those intrested in trial or test items.You can see there is a color,button and lower pocket placement and other differances to the adopted pattern.Color can always vary to extent on anything due to batch or vat dyle lot,manfuacturer etc.

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23518-usmc-p42-camo-shirt/?hl=%2Bexperimental+%2Busmc+%2Bcamo+%2Bshirt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pump

 

Great photo but is the man on the right identified?

 

Im thinking hes not a Marine as there are British looking rank on his shoulder straps and the presence of British/Common weath unit patches seen.Brit webbing and the Enfield pistol holster.

 

post-98601-0-68104100-1467050552.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an original field made piece, or depot , they could have even had the base tailor make them , they have civillian workers that do tailoring / alterations, they could have easily had these made by them.

 

with one of a kind experimental items like this, none are going to be exactly alike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doylor,

 

Yes, the man at right is from British forces. I snagged the series of photos off the Life archive years ago due to the nature of the marines being in England, 17A1's and covers worn. It may have listed his name however I do not have that info.

 

BTW, thanks for adding those numbers, just what I was looking for as I am very limited on uniform issues, nice photos. Now these are size numbers for the piece correct? Does anyone know if the individual bolts were marked as such also with Lot numbers or something. Just wondering more how a "71" got on a First model cover...Lot number or inspector stamp maybe?? Very different to see there as well.

 

And just to make clear I was only showing the use of the 17A1 in use at a later date for those who are looking to learn here and to clarify, thanks again for all the info provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doyler,

I now understand your post, sorry for the mix up.

I see what you are saying now. It doesn't make much sense why an early/pre war experimental cover would be made out of a jacket produced almost 3 years later...

Is this piece still neat, yes. Do I believe that it was produced for the tests in 1941/42, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem.I just dont come across very well at times. :)

 

I think its intresting for discussion and we have to look at things outside the box.There were and are lots of ad-hoc or field/trial made items but often the details are over looked.This is a deep subject on reinforced jumpsuits as well or even more modern the Tiger stripe camo boonie hats and uniforms.Details are what can be the factor in many things.

 

There are some serious jump suit repros done in the 1980s that are accepted as originals.Real jackets and trousers were used.Period thread and canvas.Aged or worn and now its a DDay set.But the sewing details(or lack of) are the things that give these away in the end.With the jump suits one of the biggest traits is the sewing pattern and thread used.I can say I still have a hard time with reinforced suits.

 

Vintage cotton thread isnt hard to find.Finding the same type or cord-fiber thread isnt easy.Pretty much any auction here in the area on any given weekend you may find old sewing baskets with cotton thread or antiques shops as well.I even know a guy whos cousin runs an uhpostery shop and he has and still uses two of the industrial sewing machines that came out of one of BOYTs WW2 factories in Iowa Falls Iowa after the war.The machines are great for sewing as they can handle thick leather or canvas.he will use the doindg boat,car or truck seat covers and will even repair web gear but getting him to use vintage thread isnt always workable.

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...