Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:24 am
The hat sold for $997.98. Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
RayG/Wisconsin
The forums are closed - content is for archival purposes only
https://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/
Originally posted by rayg
The hat sold for $997.98. Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
Nice photos, and nice items.Originally posted by rayg
It is amazing how much old things bring now days. Actually I thought the price was very reasonable for it. I figured it would go for more then it did. It was in great shape, super contract and depot marked, and with it's original chin strap and hat cord. Couldn't ask for a better one. I saw one that was almost as nice but not as well marked about four years ago at a show go for $1200. Maybe because the seller was from out of the country it didn't meet it's potentional value.
I have three 1904 campaign hats but none of them hold a candle even close to this one.
Wish I would of had the money to bid on it but I recently spend all my money on four items I've been after for a long time, they all came within two weeks of each other. Here's the photos of were my money went.
First was a eagle snap Cavalry M1912 bandolier for the 1903 rifle and a set of M1907 suspenders to go with my eagle snap M1912 cartridge belt, Next was an original sling to go with my US Navy/Marine Winchester Lee rifle, (real hard to find on the loose and not cheap), the last was a Russian WWII SVT rifle with an "original" mount and scope.
Sorry for being long winded but I guess I have too much time on my hands, Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
Is that cartridge belt original for the Lee also? I'll bet the sling was very tough to find.Originally posted by rayg
Thanks Pat. I haven't shot either one yet but have put together the components to reload for the Lee so hopefully I will be shooting it in the near future. The SVT, as I mentioned, I had just gotten and do plan on shooting that also. Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
I'll scan the base and post it. I looked at it just today, and it says something like "6mm U.S. Navy". I've always assumed it was a commercial cartridge, as I found it out on the range while kicking around on somebody's place, but I don't know that much about the stamps on them.Originally posted by rayg
Pat you are right the M1895 Win-Lee was way ahead of it's time. The small calibre 6mm round, (approx. 24.2) at about 2700 fps plus (even with the powders back then), was a hot little round for it's day compared to the 30 cal Krag rd. at approx 2200-2300 fps. The rifle was also loaded by five shot charger clips like the 1903 Springfield used years later.
The cartridge belt is for the rifle and the pockets are for the cartridge clips. The belts complete with the suspenders are very scarce however of all the things most hard to find, was the sling. A sling on the loose is hardest item to find for the rifle. I know of a couple slings that sold for more then I paid for my rifle. I was fortunate to find one and for a lot less, but still it wasn't cheap.
I believe all the 6mm cartridges were commercial purchased by the Navy not arsenal made, so your case could have been issued for the Lee, Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
Originally posted by rayg
Oops I see Corney does mean rabbits hair. However I know I read some where that they used another animal's hair in Australia. Wish I could remember where I read it. Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
rayg wrote:Here are the photos of the Win-Lee rifle with the sling and cartridge belt and the 1912 belt with the bandolier etc. that were deleted, Ray
rayg wrote:I think I have a sickness [:(]as I can't seem to pass up any of these early campaign hats when I find them at a reasonable price. Here's one I just got at a local military show a couple of weeks ago for a reasonable price. I now have ten of them, (6)- 1883/89's, (1)- 1899, and (3)-1904's. and would you believe that I actually had parted with a couple of others a few years back. Most of these hats are on manikin displays, I just took them all off for a "Group Photo" [:D], Here's my recent one, Ray
RayG/Wisconsin
Kelton,Kelton Oliver wrote:Practical items just keep on going and going. Here is my favorite hat...crushable, water repellent, and rugged...
http://www.sheplers.com/i/p/096/096606/ ... 1_770x.jpg
I like it so much, I bought three, just in case they quit making it. It also comes in a lighter color which is very close to the color of the early 1900s service hats:
http://www.sheplers.com/hats/outback_hats/096a25.html
I think the Army should scrap all their other utility hats/caps and just use these. In fact, I think I'll put a cavalry cord on mine.
Construction would be very different, however.Kelton Oliver wrote:Practical items just keep on going and going. Here is my favorite hat...crushable, water repellent, and rugged...
http://www.sheplers.com/i/p/096/096606/ ... 1_770x.jpg
I like it so much, I bought three, just in case they quit making it. It also comes in a lighter color which is very close to the color of the early 1900s service hats:
http://www.sheplers.com/hats/outback_hats/096a25.html
I think the Army should scrap all their other utility hats/caps and just use these. In fact, I think I'll put a cavalry cord on mine.
No argument about fur felt hats being "better" -- but you can't get one for $39.95 and you can't stuff it into your coat pocket and have it come out with its shape. Fur felt hats require more care and I abuse the h*** out of mine. I once ran over one with a tractor and 5 foot mower deck (running) and it had so little damage that I kept wearing it for several more years. If I could find a fur felt hat which was truly "crushable" like the wool ones I like, I'd buy it in a minute. And no, I've never had one shrink. I can't imagine the Army adopting a hat that cost $400. Fur felt was probably cheaper once upon a time, but it ain't an option for any sort of general issue today. I haven't handled any of the original hats pictured; were they more "crushable" than the common "cowboy" hats of today?Pat Holscher wrote:Construction would be very different, however.Kelton Oliver wrote:Practical items just keep on going and going. Here is my favorite hat...crushable, water repellent, and rugged...
http://www.sheplers.com/i/p/096/096606/ ... 1_770x.jpg
I like it so much, I bought three, just in case they quit making it. It also comes in a lighter color which is very close to the color of the early 1900s service hats:
http://www.sheplers.com/hats/outback_hats/096a25.html
I think the Army should scrap all their other utility hats/caps and just use these. In fact, I think I'll put a cavalry cord on mine.
These are wool felt hats. Wool felt hats are generally thicker and less durable that fur felt hats. Modern fur felt hats are stiffer than wool hat, and much more water repellent and durable. Prior to the mid 20th Century, fur felt hats were softer than they are now, as the felting process was different than the current one (it featured mercury, which was dangerous to the hat makers). They were just as durable as the current fur felt hats, but considerably softer. The campaign hats depicted in this thread were fur felt (coney). M1911s, however, were sometimes, and perhaps often, wool felt. Or at least the general issue one often was.
I'm not condemning wool felt hats, but if a person gets a really good fur felt hat, it's a revelation. They're so far superior to anything they compete with, including ball caps, boonie caps, gortext hats, or anything else, that when a person gets a good one, that fits, they tend to abandon other hats for prolonged outdoor use. The others all have their uses, to be sure, but there's no comparing them to a fur felt hat.
Fur felt hats are actually more durable than wool felt hats to a very considerably degree (although wool is durable), but you can not roll one up and put it in a pocket, that's for sure. Still, people sometimes imagine fur felt hats to be more delicate than they really are, and they don't require very much care, or even any care, as an outdoor hat, if a person doesn't mind that they'll begin to look pretty outdoorsy. Sometimes I think the inclination is to take more care of them so they don't begin to look that way, particularly for a dress hat, as they are pricey. I only just retired a beaver felt hat that I'd been using hard for about 19 years. In that period of time, it had suffered every sort of abuse a hat can suffer, and had taken on an odd color (it was a silverbelly hat), due to the combined effects of horse snot, cow slobber, rain, snow, blood of various types, cow flop and rabbit urine.Kelton Oliver wrote:
No argument about fur felt hats being "better" -- but you can't get one for $39.95 and you can't stuff it into your coat pocket and have it come out with its shape. Fur felt hats require more care and I abuse the h*** out of mine. I once ran over one with a tractor and 5 foot mower deck (running) and it had so little damage that I kept wearing it for several more years. If I could find a fur felt hat which was truly "crushable" like the wool ones I like, I'd buy it in a minute. And no, I've never had one shrink. I can't imagine the Army adopting a hat that cost $400. Fur felt was probably cheaper once upon a time, but it ain't an option for any sort of general issue today. I haven't handled any of the original hats pictured; were they more "crushable" than the common "cowboy" hats of today?