Original USAAF Crusher?

[SterlingArcher]

All,

 

What are your thoughts on the WW2 USAAF crusher cap. Does it look original?

 

Regards,

S. Archer

WWII original USAAF Army Air Forces true _Crusher_ uniform hat cap _ eBay.html

[SterlingArcher]

Another:

 

 

[Wake1941]

Real yes, crusher no 

[SterlingArcher]

Thanks Wake. Just curious, how this is not a crusher..looks like the right material etc., what is off on this?

[manayunkman]

The visor should be very thin and be able to roll it up.

 

Technically this visor could be a pilots crusher but in collecting circles the thin visor is considered the true crusher.

[bbmilitaria]

Single ply leather with a beaded, non stitched brim are considered true crushers.

[dmar836]

We all mean well but the advice is a sentiment held by many as a simple answer. The term was born from the popularity of the Bancroft Flighter and the Flightweight - names of the era given to later- war visor caps that were produced without a grommet, and smaller crown, and with a short, flexible visor. They became immediately popular with those who wore a headset over their visor caps. BUT, they were produced because airmen were already doing this with their standard visor caps and thus there was a demand.

Headsets over the visor did not start once the "crusher" became available. It had been going on all along. The original term, "50 mission crusher" was coined for a visor crushed for use on as many missions and was the look so many wanted.

Yours has the thinner, softer visor that this was often done to before these "production crushers" became available. Some will also point out that a backstrap was often preferred by the AAF guys(not sure why other than a hint to cavalry or just for style) which yours doesn't have. There isn't a lot pointing to yours being an original 50 mission crusher but the fact it doesn't fit the above description of a Bancroft is not why.

The non-simple answer - one gleaned from history and not just collector lore - is yours is an authentic crusher(really the only "true crusher") only if it was actually used as such. That's tougher to prove. It's not a "production crusher" but those were purchased and worn in the thousands by vets who never saw the inside of a cockpit.  IMO, the early crushers pressed into service from standard visor caps are far more valuable and difficult to find and thus are discounted for the easy to identify Bancroft Flighters, etc.

Unless you find who the owner was and what he did, it is likely just a nice visor that has been made to look the part. This has been done for many years - even before this new term "crusher" became synonymous with only a select few styles of caps.

   

[dmar836]

I  always have to give this example. Is this a "true crusher"?

50missions? Not sure about that many. This salty example, made in London, and worn for two years in the ETO by the XO of a BG. It most certainly was.

I also have what experts would call a true crusher - a Flighter or two but this one is an example of how the whole concept was born and is much harder to find.

New collectors would likely say, Take that real crusher - that Flighter over there and pass on this standard service cap. Actually, the opposite was more commonly true.

 

 

 

ii

[SterlingArcher]

Wow!! Great info guys! I am trying to cancel the order on ebay! Yes, yes, I know, ebay... I'll have to be more patient in my quest. Thanks again!

 

Regards,

SterlingArcher

[dmar836]

Google USAAF combat crews and view only those with crews in actual checked-out flight gear. I couldn't even find one with a "true crusher" in the pic. Lots of crushed service caps like yours, but no Bancrofts, etc. in my brief search. So why would we use that term?

Again, I'm not implying your cap is a real "crusher" but I simply dissent to the "collectorism" that now tends to outshine reality. At one time the collector community didn't think this way - any crushed cap was more desirable. That's when standard caps were altered for sale - to add desirability and perceived value. Along came a fashion cap in the last year or so of the war to make it easy for us.

Here are a few - some are famous crews. Not a "true crusher" in the lot. Someone really should have told them.

 

[manayunkman]

There is no doubt that the 2 ply visor was used by pilots and took on the crusher look.

 

The single ply with the beaded edge is the more desirable piece and brings a higher price.

 

 

[manayunkman]

This isn’t the only thread about crushers.

 

There have been some good ones.

[Allan H.]

13 hours ago, dmar836 said:

We all mean well but the advice is a sentiment held by many as a simple answer. The term was born from the popularity of the Bancroft Flighter and the Flightweight - names of the era given to later- war visor caps that were produced without a grommet, and smaller crown, and with a short, flexible visor. They became immediately popular with those who wore a headset over their visor caps. BUT, they were produced because airmen were already doing this with their standard visor caps and thus there was a demand.

Just to set the record straight, the Flighter and Featherweight caps were made and sold with an easily removed grommet, which gave them the look of a standard officer's visor cap. It was up to the owner to remove the grommet if they wanted the "crusher" look.

 

Allan

[phantomfixer]

Always love reading the debates on crusher versus service cap....a salute to Dave for having the patience to type all that out...his response was right on target...the produced "crusher" was a mid war, designed product targeting a specific market with an out of the box designed look...a 50 mission crusher was the indirect product of being worn around the airplane, exposed to sweat, sun, rain, kit bags, cockpits and greasy hands...

 

there are guys that will turn beat red debating the legitimacy of a crusher...

to be honest, I will call a service cap a service cap regardless of use or look, and save the crusher term for the later, engineered crush cap....

 

One thing I look for is the angle between the visor and the badge...not definitive, but love the look of the low angle, almost flat line... the flop look....

[AZPhil]

Excellent info Give Gent's. Thumbs Up!!!

 

Not sure if this is an official "Crusher" or just a  normal officer visor in wear.

 This is Lt Bedsole.  Was KIA on 13 April 1944 on the 384th BG  mission to Schweinfurt. 6 out of 7 B-17's of the 545th were lost that mission

His name is listed on that post I make very April 13th to honor those who lost their lives that day.

 

Would love to have that A-2 with 545thBS patch in my collection.

My Holy Grail!!!

Semper Fi

Phil 

 

[Allan H.]

LT Bledsoe is wearing a fur felt topped cap. Collectors wouldn't call it a crusher, but it was definitely worn that way!

 

Allan

[AZPhil]

Thanks Allen,

So just a 29 mission crusher!!

 

Semper Fi

Phil

[MattS]

I really don't want to get into the "crusher" debate again.

 

 I'm confused as to why you would want to cancel the eBay transaction. It's a legit WW2 Army officer's cap, and could be ID'd using the laundry mark inside.

[TheCrustyBosun]

A “true crusher” in my opinion, is the result of wear and tear on a service cap through usage.  Bancroft and others tapped into a fashion market by making “ready-made crushers”. They sold a product to customers who wanted the look without the experience.  That’s not to say that Flighters and others didn’t see service in the cockpit. The real value (should) comes with provenance, whether it’s a crushed service cap or a flighter. If you can ID a cap to an aviator, it’s golden to me.  The collector market is what it is and in the end, it’s only worth what a person will pay. Mileage may and most certainly will vary.  I’d be happy to own the cap in question. 

[Dave]

This is probably the best thread to beat the dead horse on the "is it a real crusher?" debate:

 

 

 

[Dave]

There are also these threads:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MattS]

Thanks for posting those Dave, but I still don't want to wade back into those waters. 

 

I would be happy to have the OP's cap (regardless of whatever label someone wants to attach to it) assuming the price was right. What was the sale price?

[SterlingArcher]

The sale price was $210.

[SterlingArcher]

The sale price was $210.

[dmar836]

I wasn't commenting on the cap auction at all. I think it's a nice cap. The fact the OP now wants to cancel the auction is proof of how misleading these simple, one-sentence descriptions can be.

There really isn't an argument in this at all if we all just stand back and look at the progression of visor caps and what "crushed" meant. I've seen the books that started this and I think even they were misquoted. I don't want to "win" but what is commonly said could be misleading to newer collectors. As for names, since there are only a handful of makers of "production crushers" I have never had an issue just calling them by their manufacturer names - easy.

A-2s could be similar. Some look entirely different than others. Some look nice with the collar up, some look silly. A seal Aero with red knits isn't considered a "true A-2" while other contracts are just flight jackets. We call them by their contracts. It's just difficult to hear "not a 'true crusher'" when those words really don't mean what they say.

Incidentally, my late friend (adopted "grandpa") flew P-47s but showed me his Bancroft Flighter. So he had one but obviously wouldn't have worn it in the plane. A mutual friend now has it but I sure would like it someday. When a known vet is attached to a cap the collector opinions of what it should be called is really irrelevant.