Jump Smock Opinions please.

[ZR1Jan]

The always correctly Germans actually corrected this misaligment on the next batch of smocks. Best Jan

Daniele´s FW smock from august 43 with misaligment rollars.

And Bill´s FW smock with corrected rollars.

[John Hodgin]

Jan, I consider this more "edge blurring" of the pattern on the smock in the period photo, as can be subtly seen on the smock on p.70 of my book. It does not appear to have the strong roller misalignment as on Gary's smock. Perhaps something in between?

Yes, that is an unissued Habelt (0001) smock. Bet it had leather tabs; don't tell Steve!!!!!!

[SMP]

Originally Posted by John Hodgin

Well Erwin, as much as I have greatly enjoyed teasing Steve about this over the years, some late smocks were actually issued and worn this way. So yes, Steve is correct about this, and has been all all along. It pains me to admit this now, and so ending any possible future teasing of him on this subject! Enjoyed it Steve, sorry.
!

OMG ! I think I need a lie down !

Look John, can't we just pretend you never said that and carry on as before ? My life will have no purpose otherwise

[ZR1Jan]

Hi John
I don´t think that there can be any doubt it´s a modified rollers print on the photo, your super nice and special smock on page 70 would turn up on period photos exactly like this one from florence in august 44, same date as you smock(this pattern I´ve first seen February 44).
This pattern is not misaligned rollers, but just a “natural” space all around, between the colors. Best Jan

[John Hodgin]

Originally Posted by SMP

OMG ! I think I need a lie down !

Look John, can't we just pretend you never said that and carry on as before ? My life will have no purpose otherwise

Uh oh, Steve found the thread Jan!

: laughlaughlaughlaugh:

Hi Steve, been sitting on that period photo for too many years, nice to finally "fess up." Should have emailed a copy of the photo to you long ago, but yes, now we need to find something else to disagree about or life will become rather dull.

And actually Steve, I really do not think that Habelt smock ever had zippers. Don't think I can get used to saying this...........

And Jan, perhaps there are smocks with degrees of misalignment? Remember seeing others with much more pronounced printing errors than Gary's.

[kammo man]

This just turned into a great thread .


owen

[ZR1Jan]

Originally Posted by John Hodgin

And actually Steve, I really do not think that Habelt smock ever had zippers. Don't think I can get used to saying this...........

And Jan, perhaps there are smocks with degrees of misalignment? Remember seeing others with much more pronounced printing errors than Gary's.

something in this life are esspecial hard to swallow John

I think you´re right about some misaligment smocks are more than others, take the F. Habelt smock at Military Collectibels Inc right now for examble. best Jan
http://www.militarycollectiblesinc.c...oducts_id=7523


You´re right Owen

[Willi Z.]

I don't know guys. This "misalignment" seemed to have occurred to alot of '43 and '44 water pattern smocks in the exact color combination. Why can't it be just yet another water pattern variation rather than something that needed to be corrected? It sounds like we are reading too much into a variation.

[ZR1Jan]

Hi Willi
I think it´s no coincident that the misaligned pattern turn up on a smock as early as august 43 on a Berlin firm, and it just seem to fit in fex. the F. Habelt first come in 44, as this firm seem to be a little behind the Berlins firm and maybe inherite the old patterns, being outside Berlin.
It´s too bad that the other firms that uses this pattern isn´t dated so we probably won´t know for sure, but it just seem likely to be the natural way of the germans always trying to perfect things.
Best Jan

[Willi Z.]

Hi Jan, respectfully disagree on several points. I think in 1943 most (if not all) smock manufacturers were from Berlin, and only in 1944 did many others come on board. I do not think the roller "misalignment" was a mistake which needed to be improved. If they had a problem with it, the Germans would have stopped it early on. I really don't think there was a goal of a perfectly executed camo print. I used to collect Heer camo and recall endless water pattern variations and cringed when collectors/ authors called them the "1943 pattern" or the "1944 pattern". Nonsense IMO. Heck, let's look at the printing issues with SS camo. Gaps of white can be found on certain ones.

I think there is a danger when collector vanity and personal preference obscure objective critical thinking. It does the entire hobby a disservice. I see it in so many insignia, field gear, buckles, etc, etc areas of interest.

As you know I am opposed to the "this manufacturer must have this exact eagle" way of authentication. I just simply do not think we have seen enough of a statistical valid sampling to draw such conclusions. They used what they had on hand at the time. Years ago (and only a few in some cases) people insisted that NO smock could have a wool eagle or HBT eagle. Now we know that is not the case as one can encounter two smocks made by the same manufacturer in the same month and one will have a wool eagle and the other will have a GM eagle. Or one might have a subdued eagle and one a white one. Look how long it took to get a consensus on the missing pull tabs. I don't like it either, but reality is reality. I bet it will take another few years to get a consensus as to when the tabs would have been added to the zippers in the first place.

But, back to smocks. I think there are endless camo pattern variations (both in color and print) and trying to place them in neat tidy boxes with ribbons is not logical.

[Willi Z.]

Two of mine which are not handy, but these photos are. The top one certainly has "gaps" between the soft and hard patterns. The lower one, dated 12-44 and of a different manufacturer, also has some of these gaps, though they are very tough to see. I suspect we can find something on most smocks.

I think it is just a normal part of the manufacturing process.

[ZR1Jan]

Hi Willi
As always its great to hear your take on things and I really love these discussions we take, not for trying to be right, but to focus on subjects and try to come a step forward.

You actually said a lot of things I´ve also have “grown” to think, and agreeing with. All about that they used what they had at the time, which is evident in many cases. I do not fully agree with the overall theme of your answer though, that they aren´t seeking to perfect things.

In short I think that they, If they could they would made things as perfect as we see in the prewar and early war, but by midwar and later on they are hampered in this by the lack of materials and time, and that is what obscure/distorts things sometime.

And in my mind I just can´t stop thinking in boxes and development of items, maybe because we see this development clearly in things we know such as jump smocks, parachutes and so on. And I think that the manufactures were in an ever and ongoing battle to develop things to ultimate save the precious lives of the ever growing number of falling German soldiers. I can picture myself the owner of the factory going around and strictly trying to improve and install perfection among workers and products, chanting “We must do our best…Remember this is to save lives” as we see in the Peek & Cloppenburg pictures(I think it is).
And putting things in boxes helped us in the case of zipper pulltabs , so we at least know that factories most along the way fashioned their own zipper pulltabs, most likely before they were installed in the smocks. But these now know facts were obscured by out of the norm coincidences were the tabs were missing, or removed or in some cases where I think could look like some of the zipper firms also did their own tab work.

In the case of camo variations, I think we should ask ourselves, why shouldn´t we see development and progress within the Marsh/Sumpf variations, when we so clearly see in on the smock it self, and other camo types, and even in the eagles appearance going from white to subdued?
If all smocks were dated with month and year I think the progress would be clear, but because they are not, I still believe we could, work this out, if we were willing to put all data and our minds together, and maybe find a pattern, which IMO probably are there, and the corrected rollers fabric are just one indicator of this IMO. But I also have come to the same opinion as you about the “marsh 43” and “-44” dividing, but I wait with my theory until next post.

I have the feeling that some of they old collectors would say why should we bother, but we are the new breed collectors and I think we should, but still as you say with objective critical thinking, but we have to risk putting up theories, because as Bear Grylls says “If we risk nothing, we gain nothing” which also are the experience I´ve got, from this forum, progress comes from.

Best Jan

[John Hodgin]

It would take some solid evidence to convince me the misalignment in some Sumpf patterns was intentional.

Although this discussion is about Sumpf pattern jump smocks, it is incomplete without any consideration of splinter pattern smocks. So, has anyone seen a splinter pattern in which the pattern was printed misaligned?

I haven't. Any theories why?

In the print industry misaligned is called "out of register," and it is certainly considered a mistake, a very bad mistake. You do not encounter misalignment in the modern print or fabric industry. With modern computer controlled presses this is less an issue. However, prior to computers, misalignment often occurred during the long run of presses and pressmen had to be ever vigilant to assure the presses remained in register. When misalignment occured, they stopped the presses and re-adjusted, and any out of register pieces were discarded. SOP.

We encounter varying degrees of out of register Sumpf printing, and the longer a press runs uncorrected the greater the misalignment becomes. Gary's fine smock is indeed clearly out of register. I do not consider this another variation of Sumpf pattern, but a printing anomaly which was used, not discarded. So what if it is out of register, why would it be discarded? Especially by wartime Germany which made good use of everything. Unlike a printed pattern in fashion, camouflage is meant to cloak and "break up" the normal visual perception. "Out of register" camouflage still clearly does this, so neither correcting it, nor discarding it, would be as important as it would when printing any other type pattern.

John

[ZR1Jan]

Hi John
Thanks for your interesting insight in printing techniques, and your thoughts on the subject.
I fully agree with that they of cause would use the fabric even with the out of register print, as we are as you say talking about camouflage.
I also think the Printers, standing by the printing machine, would feel the “out of register” as a flaw they felt compelled to correct, as the perfectionist they in general were, and used to correct things, many of them being civil clothing manufactures, before the war.

Best Jan

[SMP]

Originally Posted by John Hodgin

Although this discussion is about Sumpf pattern jump smocks, it is incomplete without any consideration of splinter pattern smocks. So, has anyone seen a splinter pattern in which the pattern was printed misaligned?


John

I think some of the late, heavy duck smocks show some mis-printing. Also, I have seen a few late, tight-weave splinters where the green colour has run.

The tight-weave smock with printing errors was RbNr 0/0250/2476.(The type that is sized marked in cms )