I honestly don't know where to put this so feel free to move this topic where you see fit. I have been noticing that ucp/acu's aka mw2 ranger camo are starting to get popular with military collecting/reenactors and airsofters. Even i have to admit looking at ucp camo today its so bad its kinda good. But 5 years ago ucp was just straight garbage any collector would or at least 90% would agree. Don't get me wrong it still is a bad camo but its also starting to become drippy. I remember 5 years ago surplus stores would refuse to buy anything ucp/acu. Now they are actually starting to buy it more frequently and they are selling it frequently too. Even gwot mannequins are starting to pop up more frequently. And some of the acu gwot displays look cool like it hits differently today vs  5 years ago. I think 2 things helped make this camo popular. First is definitely the og mw2 and second id say warfare. Watching warfare actually made acu's look cool. And we can't forget mw2 ranger camo, I can't lie looking back mw2 ranger camo does hit differently now. But what are your thoughts?

I would venture to say post WW2 since you got them in a surplus store that stuff is usually well picked over before it hits the sales

When my kids were young we visited him and actually bought some OPFOR insignia at the base uniform shop, separate from the heat it was a nice visit. And thank you, we buried him at Arlington a couple of years ago

Thank you Kurt!

My apologies, I am not trying to 'dog pile' here, and it doesn't matter to me if this bag is real or fake / "tribute".     But when you make a statement like "Everything you supposedly have wrong with this I have explained and proven" - respectfully, you haven't.   I'm going to move on after this, so will simplify to say that there is NO logic (in my mind) as to why: A bag that was painted in Hawaii - or after - would have UNIS markings on it, especially those that had been over-painted / redone Why one would use UNIS alongside unit insignia painted 'in the clear' Paint would be on top of all staining unless it was painted after it ceased use as a seabag  Name would be applied with initials at the end - Marines didn't use that, and what is generally practiced is init / init / surname That it was found with other original items does not equal authentication, in the same way that original items found with fake stuff does not make all of it fake.   I understand why you would want it to be original.  We all like to believe that we pull plums out of the woodwork - though in so doing, it behooves us to maintain objectivity as much as humanly possible.   I have gotten myself stung a few times over the years, and each time it was because I refused to see warning signs.   Anyhow, as always, the above is solely my opinion.  Good luck and thank you for sharing your bag.  It's a neat piece no matter what.    

Sure thing, glad you have his things.  Good luck with the inventory. 

Just found this thread. We’ve had a beloved example of no. 353 in our family for generations, and never knew where it came from - and I’m married to a Japanese woman, and lived in Japan for twelve years!! Thanks so much for this invaluable post! 

That lines up with my brother being stationed at Ft Irwin' I cannot thank you enough

When the UIM returned it was Black and of uniform size and length, the pre 75 UIMs were based on unit length and size and generally in Navy Blue also the construction went from cut edge to merrowed edge.

The earliest is the mid 80,