jeeplover Posted November 25, 2020 Share #26 Posted November 25, 2020 i can only comment on what i read and on this site it talks about separation of color. the helmet you posted has separation of color. the pants do not so if i were to see these items in the wild i would take the helmet leave the pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #27 Posted November 26, 2020 @jeeploverHere are some more photos of the helmet I posted, you can clearly see that some of the colors are touching and aren't separated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #28 Posted November 26, 2020 I'll also post some other examples, to prove why I think authenticating something based on separation of color is not accurate. Here are two pairs of P44 trousers one issued and one NOS. The issued pair has the left leg made of fabric that you claim would be authentic because it has "separation of color", the right leg on the same pair of pants is made of a different run of fabric where the colors are touching and is similar to the P42 pants I posted, which you claim are fake. Issued pair, Left leg has hbt with colors that are separated, right leg has hbt with colors not separated Close up of left leg, same color separation as the helmet I posted earlier. Close up of right leg, has colors that are touching The Nos pair below has the same cammo pattern where the there is no color separation, identical to the P42 pants I posted. I'll post the size markings on the trousers to show you that it is authentic. None of the colors on these trousers are separated except for the left leg of the beach side that was made with a different run of hbt fabric than the rest of the trousers. The nos pair Close up of the pattern on the nos pair. Note there is no color separation. Size marks on the same pair of trousers to prove they are authentic. Only part of the trousers with color separation. The rest of the beach side's colors are touching. Can you really say now that every pair of frogskins you find is fake just because it doesn't have "separation of color". That's why I think its a bogus way to authenticate something. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 26, 2020 Share #29 Posted November 26, 2020 if what you say is true then this should be fixed. i got my info from here. i see color separation on all the photos. what reference material is out there that will tell you the difference? https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/178391-usmc-wwii-frogskin-covers-rethinking-the-norm/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #30 Posted November 26, 2020 In Harlan Glenn's book "United States Marine Corps Uniforms, Insignia and Personnel Items in WW2" on page 122, there is a slitted helmet cover shown just like the one I posted that has colors touching on the jungle side. None of the reference books I own ( Grunt Gear and Dungarees) and frogskin talk about "separation of color". There is also a P42 uniform displayed on page 90 in the same book I mentioned above that have the exact same cammo pattern of HBT with the colors touching that looks identical to the NOS pair of p44's and the p42 pants I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 26, 2020 Share #31 Posted November 26, 2020 if you believe what you are posting i am the wrong person to talk to. until the article is changer or until another member chimes in and confirms what you say. i have to go with what i know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aef1917 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #32 Posted November 26, 2020 11 hours ago, SouthShore 8754 said: In Harlan Glenn's book "United States Marine Corps Uniforms, Insignia and Personnel Items in WW2" on page 122, there is a slitted helmet cover shown just like the one I posted that has colors touching on the jungle side. None of the reference books I own ( Grunt Gear and Dungarees) and frogskin talk about "separation of color". There is also a P42 uniform displayed on page 90 in the same book I mentioned above that have the exact same cammo pattern of HBT with the colors touching that looks identical to the NOS pair of p44's and the p42 pants I posted. There's never been a questionable item in a reference book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #33 Posted November 26, 2020 @jeeplover I went through the post you cited, I’ve read through it before, the post discussed whether or not the helmet covers without slits came before the ones without the slits. There was no mention of the color separation you were talking about. There were even camo uniforms and helmet covers posted that looked similar to the examples I posted that had the colors touching. So I don’t know how you are drawing your conclusions. I can see that your mind is made up so I won’t try to confuse you with any more facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aef1917 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #34 Posted November 26, 2020 This thread discusses the color separation. https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/174440-usmc-wwii-3rd-pattern-helmet-cover-wrong-pattern-stitch/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #35 Posted November 26, 2020 @aef1917 He asked me what reference material I had that showed it, and I answered his question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 26, 2020 Share #36 Posted November 26, 2020 rude!!!!!! others on this site i wont say who told me here is the convo minus name ((Yes, it is a reproduction. Also note that the colors touch. Originals have a thin line of color between the blotches. Do you have an original you can compare these to?)) ((this is an original, but it is seriously overpriced:)) https://www.ebay.com/itm/WW2-USMC-Pattern-1942-HBT-Camo-Helmet-Cover-1st-Pattern-Original-RARE-NOS/124450353650?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D229880%26meid%3D8de32b904ed540f8ad4775d6c2d5e2d0%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dpf%26sd%3D203178722338%26itm%3D124450353650%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWebWithBBEV2bDemotionHighArwV3&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 An original WWII USMC helmet cover has the following characteristics (see photos). 1. The center seam on the brown side has a chain stitch. 2. The brown side has a zigzag (saw-tooth) stitch along the edge. 3. There is a sliver of color separating the shapes, the shapes rarely touch one another. For pattern shapes see this section: if someone else backs up your claim i might agree but until then you are some guy trying to prove your fake stuff is real. sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FT.Monmouth1943 Posted November 26, 2020 Share #37 Posted November 26, 2020 Wow. Call me crazy, but I don’t see anything wrong with the camo that SouthShore posted. Some color separation is more obvious than others. SouthShore shows some pieces with minimal color separation, and there is nothing wrong with that. I would personally focus more on the pattern, stitching, and the HBT weave than the “color separation” to determine authenticity. If someone else would like to chime in, please do. - Jakob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 26, 2020 Share #38 Posted November 26, 2020 according to him there is no color separation. i see it and am glad someone else sees it he wants to argue with me that is dumb i did not produce the article others did so it should be his mission to convince them not me. i can only go by what reference's i have at my disposal i have all of the books and no they do not seem to cover fake/original. i also agree items need to be taken as a hole and 100% evaluated. when going through a show or a garage sell i need to be able to identify quick. if the cover is on a shell and they wont let me remove it i look at the camo and look for pac man. K.I.S.S. if i have more time then yes i can post and have a discussion about it. this is not always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdk0911 Posted November 27, 2020 Share #39 Posted November 27, 2020 The colors do touch but rarely. he is my camo cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivedrab1970 Posted November 27, 2020 Share #40 Posted November 27, 2020 52 minutes ago, mdk0911 said: The colors do touch but rarely. he is my camo cover Complete fake! You should let me take this off your hands for $100 and buy one of those $600 covers everyone is talking about. Ha Ha! This is a beautiful frogskin cover and I myself really like the slit covers most of all. Thanks for sharing! Robin- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivedrab1970 Posted November 27, 2020 Share #41 Posted November 27, 2020 Here are my examples of 100% genuine USMC frogskin camouflage helmet covers for perusal, I wish I still had all the covers I have sold and traded over the years to accompany this group! Robin- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 27, 2020 Share #42 Posted November 27, 2020 @jeeplover "...if someone else backs up your claim i might agree, but until then you are some guy trying to prove your fake stuff is real. sorry." Dude I'm confused, you site a post Usmc wwii 3rd pattern helmet cover-wrong-pattern-stitch that shows a picture of a set of P44's with the same camo pattern I posted. The post says that it is an authentic example to compare a fake too. Then you tell me every example I posted that matches the pattern in the post you cited is fake. Then you posted a message from an undisclosed forum member and suddenly its gospel that the cover I posted is fake, then another forum member posts a slitted cover below that shows the colors rarely touching, which looks like the example I posted, only in much more pristine condition. Not to mention you originally said "If I saw that in the wild, I'd take the helmet and leave the pants." So now the cover you thought was ok initially is now fake? You see what I am getting at? You've been running around in circles this whole time, so now you just point the finger and say everything is fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 27, 2020 Share #43 Posted November 27, 2020 leave me alone you are talking crazy. your stuff has color separation you say it don't get your eyes checked i have shown proof off of this site you have show some helmet and some pants and say there is no separation there is again the argument is not with me but the people who did the article and made it a sticky. apparently you can not see or something so here is who wrote the article. 3 names bother them and tell them they are wrong.STOP BOTHERING ME I DID NOT COMPOSE THE ARTICAL usmc grunt mdk0911 fordmustanggt_350 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 27, 2020 Share #44 Posted November 27, 2020 all 3 of these guys were contributors to the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 27, 2020 Share #45 Posted November 27, 2020 😀 https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/178391-usmc-wwii-frogskin-covers-rethinking-the-norm/ https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/174440-usmc-wwii-3rd-pattern-helmet-cover-wrong-pattern-stitch/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 27, 2020 Share #46 Posted November 27, 2020 the second link is a open discussion so go argue with them you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FT.Monmouth1943 Posted November 28, 2020 Share #47 Posted November 28, 2020 I think you misunderstood what I said. While there are parts that have separation on his pants, there are also a lot that clearly don’t. If someone is under the impression that any lack of color separation equals fake, they will miss out on a lot of good items. And I agree that it is confusing when you say you think a members item is fake, accuse him of trying to prove the legitimacy of his fakes (even though they are real), and then say the item is real. - Jakob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 28, 2020 Share #48 Posted November 28, 2020 ok maybe i should be more clear here. this hole discussion is not about his stuff until he made it about that. it is about a cover on ebay. the comment i made was not about someone backing up his stuff the comment was about i want others who have posted these links we posted to come and say you are correct southshore 8754 until they do that for all i know he is a guy trying to validate his fake stuff. if you read i said i see color separation in his helmet the pants were harder when i blew the image up i could see so was i calling his stuff fake? if that is how you see it i guess i did not explain myself better sorry. still no one is backing his myth claim even his own proof shows it is not a myth. so instead of throwing shade my way you should talk to the people who did the post. he said ((I tend to disagree with the separation of color myth. Just look for the chain stitching on the beach side, the saw tooth edging on the beach side and the shape of the pacmen .Also, the color of the brown on the beach side is pretty telling as is the brown on the jungle side. I’ll post some photos below of an authentic cover and pair of p42’s. The colors on them are not separated in some parts.)) so they still have separation so how is it a myth? no one said every color had to be separate. look at the cover in question there is no separation of color no where. this being said any further comments should be addressed to( usmc grunt ) ( mdk0911 ) ( fordmustanggt_350 )so get one of them to tell me it is a myth i will believe it harass them not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthShore 8754 Posted November 28, 2020 Share #49 Posted November 28, 2020 @jeeplover I'm going to end it with this. Here is a repro ATF cover, every color is separated. That is why I said: (I tend to disagree with the separation of color myth. Just look for the chain stitching on the beach side, the saw tooth edging on the beach side and the shape of the pacmen .Also, the color of the brown on the beach side is pretty telling as is the brown on the jungle side. I’ll post some photos below of an authentic cover and pair of p42’s. The colors on them are not separated in some parts." The cover that was in question was an SM wholesale repro. Other repros are getting better and as you can see above, companies that produce repros are starting to employ patterns that have the colors separated. Authentic examples, which are attached to this thread, that other forum members posted clearly showed what I was asserting in the initial post, that the colors on authentic covers are not completely separated, they are touching in some areas. That is why I said " The colors on them are not separated in some parts." I showed you two examples that I had because I wanted to back my point up. You were commenting originally on what was different between the P44 jacket and fake ebay helmet cover, so I showed an example of a helmet cover and a pair of HBT pants in my initial post to explain my point. How else would I have tried to prove the point I was making ,if I did not have some examples to explain my point. It never was about me or you it just was about how to tell a real cover from a fake one. It only got a bit more personal when in subsequent posts, you started saying that all the examples I showed to back up my point were fake, obviously I had to defend myself. I also agree with the statement that another forum member previously posted : "If someone is under the impression that any lack of color separation equals fake, they will miss out on a lot of good items." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeplover Posted November 29, 2020 Share #50 Posted November 29, 2020 all i have to say is . let me set the scene you are at a show you see the cover on a helmet you ask the guy can i remove the cover he says no what do you do then? IMO you first look for pac man well if that is good look at the color separation you can not always look at the beach side. if i had a helmet strait from a vet i would not let you take it apart either. i am done with this this is my last post on this i still do not think you proved it was a myth but what ever no one else has said it is a myth so again what ever. it dont mean that you have to stop holding a point of view different then mine. you need to stop blustering and trying to convert me to your way of thinking. As I have said numerous times, you may feel however you want to feel. talk to the members listed they are the people you have issue with not me they made that post years ago and no one but you has disputed it but you dispute it with me not them so go talk to them and have a good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now