Experimental M1917A1 frogskin cover

[Blacksmith]

GC, no hard feelings, and I hope your cover is real. What I will say, is that you've had very experienced camo and helmet collectors take BOTH positions. As far as using source and unsubstantiated stories as provenance, I think we agree on the standard we need to uphold - facts and peer review. Vesting single-source authentication in ANY one person, irrespective of experience, is dangerous. The effects of this can be seen in multiple examples, where the community long-held an opinion, only to get flipped on its ear decades later. Open minds and comraderie is what makes us a stronger community. For me, your cover is a post-WWII contrivance, using period fabric. Just one guy's opinion. Cheers.

[doyler]

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.

 

Pump

 

Great pic for sure.I like the USMC coveralls and the stencil on the mans upper left pocket.

 

As far as the numbers go I did a little more looking at 2 more shirts I had access to and two trousers.

 

All the shirts have 38 through out in the same places.Looking again they all have 38 in the neck area below the collar.Two of the shirts have #38 inked stamped ...neck,arms and chest area of main body.One shirt has green ink stampings the others are black.

 

Two of the trousers are both marked 34.One set is faint and they are marked in the lower crotch area near the leg openings.The faint set could have a 32? in one leg but hard to see.The other set which I photographed has 34 in each leg and 34 in the waist band.I took a measureing tape and measured across the front of the set and it was 17 inches.This converts to a 34 inch waist(in circumfrance) if measured accurately.

 

As for numbers being lot or size Im thinking with the trousers its evidently size as far as the stampings go.Maybe another with have better info on the stamps.At this point in my personal opinion Im thinking its a size stamping.

 

 

[BOLO]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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. 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.

 

 

 

I personally dont believe these are repros, they are so uncommon / unknown, it's not something somebody would likely try to fake

 

the quality of the stitching looks like somebody that knows how to sew made it, a skilled seamstress depot repair person probably made it, the ink stamp could be anything, it could even be a batch / inspection number off a roll of camo material, no proof it's a size stamp off a uniform.

 

 

another possibility, maybe they made these from scrap material that was leftover and they could also be worn on the M1 steel helmet?

 

have you tried putting the cover on one of your M1 steel helmets to see if it fits? maybe these could be depot made from the Korean War era, back when some troops were still using hand made burlap covers.

 

[GeneralCheese]

 

I personally dont believe these are repros, they are so uncommon / unknown, it's not something somebody would likely try to fake

 

the quality of the stitching looks like somebody that knows how to sew made it, a skilled seamstress depot repair person probably made it, the ink stamp could be anything, it could even be a batch / inspection number off a roll of camo material, no proof it's a size stamp off a uniform.

 

 

another possibility, maybe they made these from scrap material that was leftover and they could also be worn on the M1 steel helmet?

 

have you tried putting the cover on one of your M1 steel helmets to see if it fits? maybe these could be depot made from the Korean War era, back when some troops were still using hand made burlap covers.

 

 

It does not fit at all on an M1

[Bugme]

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

 

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.

 

I have been collecting since 1973 which means I've been collecting militaria at least 3 years longer than you. You know what that means? Absolutely nothing! Collecting what you collect and studying what you collect are two very different things. My focus has always been helmets. Every year I collect, I learn something new so, I've learned in all my years of collecting, even in the specialized area helmets, it is never an exact science.

 

So, that being said, I have no doubt that this is an original prototypical camo cover made from material available for experimental field testing. Some of the guys here really over complicate things and when they don't like what they hear or worse, can't support their argument, they make a snarky remark and stop posting on a thread. That attitude helps no one!

 

Jkash23868 asks some very pointed questions of the critics... and the response?... mostly, the sound of crickets. Period field trial photo's get posted and are all but ignored by those screaming fake. So, this is how we discuss things? C'mon!

[kammo-man]

I would like to own the cover all day long.

Its great.

 

owen

[sgtdorango]

I would like to own the cover all day long.

Its great.

 

owen

Me too...and well said Bugme...mike

[Username]

This could very well be orginal, but seeing as it's not a factory mass produced item with distinct features, it's about as easy to authenticate as any rigger made item. You kinda just have to go with your gut on this kind of thing. There is little to gain by arguing for or against it's authenticity because there is quite literally no way to tell exactly when or who sewed this thing together.

 

My personal gut feeling is this was probably field made for military use at some point in time. It's either that or it's a surplus store special. Either way, it doesn't really matter seeing as these were in fact made during the war and certainly had varying construction.

[anton67]

There is little to gain by arguing for or against it's authenticity because there is quite literally no way to tell exactly when or who sewed this thing together.

My personal gut feeling is this was probably field made for military use at some point in time.

 

+1

[pump 150]

Added here in order to further the discussion, another great photo from the period....GC's photo of the cover on the M-1 shell rung a bell with me as seeing something similar in the past. Found this photo from a thread back in 2010 discussing helmet covers for the M-1917 (probably where I found the one I posted originally).

 

The poster (General Apathy) stated it came from a 1942 newspaper supplement showing camouflage testing. While all are wearing the "Frogskin" pattern uniform, they each wear a different type helmet cover. Bottom right cover looks similar to a Frogskin type, while bottom left is of the sometimes called "Maclaren" type. Note the fit, even mentioned in the original thread that it was probably designed for the M-1917.

 

Also even with this image quality you can tell that the camo material was rolled or added at the edges for some reason.

 

 

link to the original thread -

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/78895-m1917-a1-helmet-camo-cover-early-wwii/

[Bugme]

There is little to gain by arguing for or against it's authenticity because there is quite literally no way to tell exactly when or who sewed this thing together.

 

My personal gut feeling is this was probably field made for military use at some point in time.

 

Really? There are stiching styles, types of thread, HBT fabrics, photographic proof of field testing on M1917A1's, period paperwork covering guidelines about making these. So there is nothing to discuss? Why? Because several very vocal people said we should accept that they are right and everyone else is wrong without one stitch of reason outside of: "My Feeling", "I think", "This is what I see"...?

 

With all due respect, Your last sentence sounds like something a politician would say to the press: An answer that answers nothing.

 

 

 

EDIT: I saw Pump 150's post after I made this post. So, thumbs-up for trying to get this back into a discussion.

[anton67]

Expertise is all about opinion based on training, education and experience.

[63 RECON]

The bottom right helmet cover does really look like it belongs on an M1917 helmet doesn't it? It's pretty Ill fitting.

Are there any other period pics that anyone knows about?

 

 

Added here in order to further the discussion, another great photo from the period....GC's photo of the cover on the M-1 shell rung a bell with me as seeing something similar in the past. Found this photo from a thread back in 2010 discussing helmet covers for the M-1917 (probably where I found the one I posted originally).

 

The poster (General Apathy) stated it came from a 1942 newspaper supplement showing camouflage testing. While all are wearing the "Frogskin" pattern uniform, they each wear a different type helmet cover. Bottom right cover looks similar to a Frogskin type, while bottom left is of the sometimes called "Maclaren" type. Note the fit, even mentioned in the original thread that it was probably designed for the M-1917.

 

Also even with this image quality you can tell that the camo material was rolled or added at the edges for some reason.

 

ARMY M-1 CAMO 1942.jpg

 

link to the original thread -

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/78895-m1917-a1-helmet-camo-cover-early-wwii/

[TsrorsT]

Woah!

Now that's new! Or old, new to me though!

 

Very nice cover, and here I am thinking regular frogskin covers are pricy 🤤

[fireman1]

Fascinating!  Another things I learn about that I did not know even existed.