Are uniforms with holes and patches less desirable?

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

5 minutes ago, Blacksmith said:

I personally think, unless they come from an unquestionable source, we're left to guess on the combat question.  If that's something that is important to a collector, maybe other items would be less elusive.  Take canteens for example.  While there are still no guarantees, you generally were only issued one of those.  So, if it's ID'd, and the veteran was in some scrapes, there's a good chance his canteen was too.  Same could be said about helmets, and some other select items.  Again, there will always be exceptions.  

 

In terms of how long field uniforms ("utilities") lasted, there are numerous variables there.  I do like the reference that dmar836 posted above, regarding Saipan.  I interviewed many WWII Marine combat veterans over the years, and we talked about gear regularly.  One Marine that I spent a lot of time with, said their "dungarees" (as he called them), lasted about two weeks on the islands - and he participated in four campaigns, to include Peleliu and Okinawa.

 

 

 

 

Yes, being used in combat is important to me for some reason.  I’ll never know that for sure about a utility by buying off eBay.  The only way I would know if a utility was worn in combat would be to buy from a veteran personally.  That is, of course, difficult.

[patches]

16 hours ago, Amateur Vietnam Collector said:

The seller is asking $49.99 for it.  I didn’t realize the patches were merrowed edge, indicating it was a “late war” uniform.  I thought that, because the shirt was made in 1964, it would have been “early war”.  I now understand this not to be the case.  The name tag does seem to be hand written in another  picture.  Also, can you help me understand what “theater made” means?

Shirt worn at Ft Carson Colorado after 1970 without a doubt, 4th Infantry Division is there by late December 1970.

[patches]

16 hours ago, Amateur Vietnam Collector said:

The seller is asking $49.99 for it.  I didn’t realize the patches were merrowed edge, indicating it was a “late war” uniform.  I thought that, because the shirt was made in 1964, it would have been “early war”.  I now understand this not to be the case.  The name tag does seem to be hand written in another  picture.  Also, can you help me understand what “theater made” means?

Shirt worn at Ft Carson Colorado after 1970 without a doubt, 4th Infantry Division is there by late December 1970.

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

8 hours ago, patches said:

Shirt worn at Ft Carson Colorado after 1970 without a doubt, 4th Infantry Division is there by late December 1970.

May I ask where you find this information so that I can use it for future reference?  I’ve just been using Wikipedia, but maybe there’s a better source?

[Surfgent]

Amazing some of this stuff survives at all. I think you got a great piece of kit 

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

It is amazing. I think that’s why I’ve gotten into collecting uniforms.  They are true treasures and I like the hunt.

[Blacksmith]

1 hour ago, Amateur Vietnam Collector said:

May I ask where you find this information so that I can use it for future reference?  I’ve just been using Wikipedia, but maybe there’s a better source?

 

Knowing Patches, through his contributions here, I’m going to guess his “source” is knowledge gained through decades of collecting and research.

 

For starters, I would point you to the very uniform section of the forum that you posted this topic in.  Go back and read the old topics, look at the uniforms being discussed, and what members say about them.  A very helpful indication of when / where a uniform was worn is the construction of patches, and other insignia, on it - name tapes being one of those.  

[US Victory Museum]

This type of discussion seems to pop up frequently among neophyte
collectors:  "Did this uniform ever see combat?"

 

The answer, despite all their wishing it to be so, is almost never.
More accurately, it depends on the war.  Southerners in the Civil War
did not have a giant industrial base with the ability to continuously
re-supply their troops with fresh uniforms or marching shoes.  Those
troops had to make do with what they had, and wore their uniforms to
tatters.  At war's end they were discharged with the clothes on their
backs.  (This is why Confederate uniforms are rare and worth their
weight in gold.)

 

Soldiers of the AEF had a large industrial base continuously resupplying
men with fresh uniforms.  Those troops serving on the front lines (i.e.
combat zones) frequently wore their clothing for weeks without bathing
in filthy rat infested trenches.  After coming off the lines, clothing
was flash steamed, laundered, and some minor repairs were made.  Clothing
with major problems was destroyed before being turned over to French
rag mills for material salvage for secondary use.  

 

It must be remembered, the Great War didn't end with a winding down of
operations.  It ended with a sudden collapse of Germany.  Domestic
uniform manufacturing was still going full speed; moreover, there was
likely a huge amount of clothing sitting at dock warehouses and re-supply
zones when the war ended.  When America's "boys" came marching down from
the gang plank they weren't going to be seen wearing battered or tattered
uniforms.  They were issued new uniforms which many collectors call
"stepping out" uniforms.

 

Although I have seen bespoke officer's uniforms with Parisian labels,
most of those were made at the end of the war (also stepping out), or
were worn in rear zones far from combat operations.

 

During the Second World War, pacific island campaigns were so brutal on
clothing that many soldiers were continuously resupplied.  The European
campaigns differed little.  Living in the field for weeks with minimal
sanitary facilities, soldiers put their clothing to hard use.  Once again
at the end of the war, a soldier would have gone through many uniforms.
Even if he did stuff some battered articles of clothing into his bag,
everything was subject to inspection before embarking home.   Anything
that didn't pass muster was removed and new replacements were issued.

 

My father served in both Korea and Vietnam.  He described living in
his clothing in the "field" for weeks without a shower.  His fellow
soldiers paid the indigenous Montagnard women to "wash" their clothing
in nearby streams.  The army issued clothing he returned to America with
was issued to him before departure.  He retained one set of duck hunter
camo that he brought with him to Vietnam, a set he used for "inspection"
purposes that he kept looking nice.  The others he had brought were
worn out and burned.  Everything else, right down to the tiger stripes,
was brand new issued prior to departure.

 

The most recent Middle East wars may differ in that there was never a
long term field condition.  Troops lived close to sanitary facilities
with the ability to freshly launder clothing on a continuous basis.
Combat operations were much less arduous, infrequent, and shorter in
duration.  Nevertheless, burning of old clothing frequently occurred
to prevent their being used for nefarious purposes rather than making
the material available for salvage by locals.

 

It is a fantasy and a desire to believe that clothing was "there".
That the uniform grandpa' wore home was the same one he was wearing
on D-Day, at Shuri castle, or on Guadalcanal.   The harsh reality is
that the odds are close to slim - nil - and none.

 

When collecting *anything*, the rule to remember is "Buy the steak, not
the sizzle."

 

My opinion.

[Old Marine]

That was perfectly stated.  

[patches]

8 hours ago, Amateur Vietnam Collector said:

May I ask where you find this information so that I can use it for future reference?  I’ve just been using Wikipedia, but maybe there’s a better source?

Other online sources, plus BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS, ask any member interested in the aspects of unit orders of battle, uniforms etc etc from any period really, not just the Vietnam War, and he'll say BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS.

 

Here's one, the various pages put out by the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

 

The operative section from the below site.The month it's not mentioned. but it will be December

 

1970 5th Infantry Division reflagged as the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado. 5th Infantry Division inactivated.

 

 

In a nut shell, Reflagging will be a exchange of Unit Flags and Colors, Guidons, Unit Crests and Shoulder Patches only, the unit that is present remains, its people. its equipment, IE its Mess Gear, its Field Gear etc etc etc, its supply dumps, its vehicles, its armored fighting vehicles, its weapons in every category remains in place, in some cases the unit that was reflagged is inactivated, in some the divisions are both still active, they just changed titles and stuff. It however can get complicated in rare cases, and this is where expert study comes in, years of study I.m afraid, like with the 4th Infantry Division, in their case they inherited a infantry brigade from the 5th Infantry Division, but that's only because one of their brigades was still fighting in South Vietnam when the other two brigades and divisional elements flags and colors returned, and thus was shy a brigade, so one of the 5th Infantry Division had to remain Active, they just being assigned permanently to the 4th Infantry Division and would now wear the 4th Infantry Division's shoulder patch

https://history.army.mil/books/Lineage/reflag/appA.htm

 

 

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.  Thank you all for your input. 

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

3 hours ago, US Victory Museum said:

This type of discussion seems to pop up frequently among neophyte
collectors:  "Did this uniform ever see combat?"

 

The answer, despite all their wishing it to be so, is almost never.
More accurately, it depends on the war.  Southerners in the Civil War
did not have a giant industrial base with the ability to continuously
re-supply their troops with fresh uniforms or marching shoes.  Those
troops had to make do with what they had, and wore their uniforms to
tatters.  At war's end they were discharged with the clothes on their
backs.  (This is why Confederate uniforms are rare and worth their
weight in gold.)

 

Soldiers of the AEF had a large industrial base continuously resupplying
men with fresh uniforms.  Those troops serving on the front lines (i.e.
combat zones) frequently wore their clothing for weeks without bathing
in filthy rat infested trenches.  After coming off the lines, clothing
was flash steamed, laundered, and some minor repairs were made.  Clothing
with major problems was destroyed before being turned over to French
rag mills for material salvage for secondary use.  

 

It must be remembered, the Great War didn't end with a winding down of
operations.  It ended with a sudden collapse of Germany.  Domestic
uniform manufacturing was still going full speed; moreover, there was
likely a huge amount of clothing sitting at dock warehouses and re-supply
zones when the war ended.  When America's "boys" came marching down from
the gang plank they weren't going to be seen wearing battered or tattered
uniforms.  They were issued new uniforms which many collectors call
"stepping out" uniforms.

 

Although I have seen bespoke officer's uniforms with Parisian labels,
most of those were made at the end of the war (also stepping out), or
were worn in rear zones far from combat operations.

 

During the Second World War, pacific island campaigns were so brutal on
clothing that many soldiers were continuously resupplied.  The European
campaigns differed little.  Living in the field for weeks with minimal
sanitary facilities, soldiers put their clothing to hard use.  Once again
at the end of the war, a soldier would have gone through many uniforms.
Even if he did stuff some battered articles of clothing into his bag,
everything was subject to inspection before embarking home.   Anything
that didn't pass muster was removed and new replacements were issued.

 

My father served in both Korea and Vietnam.  He described living in
his clothing in the "field" for weeks without a shower.  His fellow
soldiers paid the indigenous Montagnard women to "wash" their clothing
in nearby streams.  The army issued clothing he returned to America with
was issued to him before departure.  He retained one set of duck hunter
camo that he brought with him to Vietnam, a set he used for "inspection"
purposes that he kept looking nice.  The others he had brought were
worn out and burned.  Everything else, right down to the tiger stripes,
was brand new issued prior to departure.

 

The most recent Middle East wars may differ in that there was never a
long term field condition.  Troops lived close to sanitary facilities
with the ability to freshly launder clothing on a continuous basis.
Combat operations were much less arduous, infrequent, and shorter in
duration.  Nevertheless, burning of old clothing frequently occurred
to prevent their being used for nefarious purposes rather than making
the material available for salvage by locals.

 

It is a fantasy and a desire to believe that clothing was "there".
That the uniform grandpa' wore home was the same one he was wearing
on D-Day, at Shuri castle, or on Guadalcanal.   The harsh reality is
that the odds are close to slim - nil - and none.

 

When collecting *anything*, the rule to remember is "Buy the steak, not
the sizzle."

 

My opinion.

Extremely informative.  Thank you so much.  I’m saddened by the fact that most uniforms never saw combat.  To be honest, I’m thinking, “What’s the point in collecting them?”  But the uniforms did belong to individuals that served in the wars and, for that reason, I still find nostalgia and the desire to collect.

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

On 4/7/2021 at 9:48 AM, US Victory Museum said:

This type of discussion seems to pop up frequently among neophyte
collectors:  "Did this uniform ever see combat?"

 

The answer, despite all their wishing it to be so, is almost never.
More accurately, it depends on the war.  Southerners in the Civil War
did not have a giant industrial base with the ability to continuously
re-supply their troops with fresh uniforms or marching shoes.  Those
troops had to make do with what they had, and wore their uniforms to
tatters.  At war's end they were discharged with the clothes on their
backs.  (This is why Confederate uniforms are rare and worth their
weight in gold.)

 

Soldiers of the AEF had a large industrial base continuously resupplying
men with fresh uniforms.  Those troops serving on the front lines (i.e.
combat zones) frequently wore their clothing for weeks without bathing
in filthy rat infested trenches.  After coming off the lines, clothing
was flash steamed, laundered, and some minor repairs were made.  Clothing
with major problems was destroyed before being turned over to French
rag mills for material salvage for secondary use.  

 

It must be remembered, the Great War didn't end with a winding down of
operations.  It ended with a sudden collapse of Germany.  Domestic
uniform manufacturing was still going full speed; moreover, there was
likely a huge amount of clothing sitting at dock warehouses and re-supply
zones when the war ended.  When America's "boys" came marching down from
the gang plank they weren't going to be seen wearing battered or tattered
uniforms.  They were issued new uniforms which many collectors call
"stepping out" uniforms.

 

Although I have seen bespoke officer's uniforms with Parisian labels,
most of those were made at the end of the war (also stepping out), or
were worn in rear zones far from combat operations.

 

During the Second World War, pacific island campaigns were so brutal on
clothing that many soldiers were continuously resupplied.  The European
campaigns differed little.  Living in the field for weeks with minimal
sanitary facilities, soldiers put their clothing to hard use.  Once again
at the end of the war, a soldier would have gone through many uniforms.
Even if he did stuff some battered articles of clothing into his bag,
everything was subject to inspection before embarking home.   Anything
that didn't pass muster was removed and new replacements were issued.

 

My father served in both Korea and Vietnam.  He described living in
his clothing in the "field" for weeks without a shower.  His fellow
soldiers paid the indigenous Montagnard women to "wash" their clothing
in nearby streams.  The army issued clothing he returned to America with
was issued to him before departure.  He retained one set of duck hunter
camo that he brought with him to Vietnam, a set he used for "inspection"
purposes that he kept looking nice.  The others he had brought were
worn out and burned.  Everything else, right down to the tiger stripes,
was brand new issued prior to departure.

 

The most recent Middle East wars may differ in that there was never a
long term field condition.  Troops lived close to sanitary facilities
with the ability to freshly launder clothing on a continuous basis.
Combat operations were much less arduous, infrequent, and shorter in
duration.  Nevertheless, burning of old clothing frequently occurred
to prevent their being used for nefarious purposes rather than making
the material available for salvage by locals.

 

It is a fantasy and a desire to believe that clothing was "there".
That the uniform grandpa' wore home was the same one he was wearing
on D-Day, at Shuri castle, or on Guadalcanal.   The harsh reality is
that the odds are close to slim - nil - and none.

 

When collecting *anything*, the rule to remember is "Buy the steak, not
the sizzle."

 

My opinion.

I had to look up what “Buy the steak, not the sizzle” means.  What exactly does it mean in regard to uniforms?  Do you mean we should buy strictly on the features of the uniform and not on any feelings it elects?

 

One more thing...I’m unclear as to what you stated about the Vietnam uniforms. You said your Dad did bring some home that were worn out and burned them.  If the shirts didn’t see combat, why might they have gotten worn out?

 

Thanks,

 

Josh

[Bravo2zero]

On 4/6/2021 at 12:18 PM, Amateur Vietnam Collector said:

Hi All,

Here’s a question that has been perplexing me since I started collecting uniforms: Why do uniforms  with holes or patches in them seem to be less desirable?  To me, it seems like they would be more desirable, as they are more likely to have seen combat.
 

Take this Vietnam era shirt on eBay for example. I’m not interested in it, but it’s been on there for months.  The price is good, it has a DSA number indicating it was manufactured in 1964, and it has both a left SSI and right SSI (combat patch) of units that participated in Vietnam war.  However, there are a few holes and patches in it, making me wonder if that’s the reason it’s not selling.  Thoughts?

 

this is my shirt dated 1968 with in country patches , the US Army is stateside and the rest are local tailors. 

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

4 minutes ago, Bravo2zero said:

 

this is my shirt dated 1968 with in country patches , the US Army is stateside and the rest are local tailors. 

Do you mean you are a Vietnam vet, and this is the utility you wore?  The special forces patch is one of the patches that are theater made (made in Vietnam), right?

[Longbranch]

It all really just depends. An unissued as-new jump jacket will be worth less than a well worn reinforced example with solid provenance to a 101st Airborne vet.

 

USMC UNIS marked uniform items and gear also tend to bring a premium.

 

Vietnam related jungle jackets with nice theatre made patches/badges, even if not worn in the field, were almost certainly worn while serving in Vietnam. Nice examples of these, even when well-worn, with provenance and fully patched to “desirable” units tend to bring significantly more than similar unpatched examples in nice condition. 
 

There is no simple answer to the OP’s question. It all just depends.

 

I’ve had several examples of OEF/OIF uniforms that are 1000% certain to have been used in the field during combat operations. I’ve even had several with photographic proof of them being worn in Iraq or Afghanistan. I’ve also had several Vietnam War uniforms that were definitely used “in the field”. So it’s certainly possible to find uniforms from those conflicts that were “there”.

 

The fact that not many “field used” utility uniforms and uniform items (including helmets, jackets, etc.) were brought back from the battlefields of WW1 and WW2 means that finding them today is difficult. But it is possible, and when the item has some interesting history and rock solid provenance, it is very expensive. LOL.

 

 

 

 

[Amateur Vietnam Collector]

“It just depends” is the answer to a lot of questions in life, so it doesn’t surprise me that this is the case.  Thank you for your perspective. I hope the well-worn uniform I own was one of the few that was “there”.  I’ll never know for sure, though, sadly. 

[patrick_usmc]

A bit of a late response on this one, but I thought I’d chime in just because I remembered the Eugene Sledge mentioned that he wore the same P41 jacket through Peleliu and Okinawa. He brought it home, and it’s now on display in the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg. 
 

While certainly not the rule, especially in wet campaigns, some combat worn uniforms are still around. And the only way we know this is his combat worn uniform is because he brought it home and told us so. So I guess that goes to show that provenance is everything and “buy the steak, not the sizzle”. :)

Just thought I’d add a notable example, and second (or third?) that it really just depends. 
 

Patrick