Is this authentic kepi?

[chirper97]

Is this an authentic Civil War kepi?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[pippinwhitepaws]

i believe this is solved.
i reexamined the links...and while the cap posted is not identical...it could be a different manufacture, combined with one hat is a museum piece, in constant care, the other an attic find...of course they don't match.

i believe the stitching he is speaking about is clearly shown in the link...but, perhaps the bead shown in the photo is what they look like out of the haberdasher's story, and the used condition, no maintenance leads the bead to Lay flat.

am i making sense here?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Montana Jim]

Thanks pippin...

I want to post some comparitive pictures from the last link I found because maybe I'm just all screwed up.

However... I stand by the attribution.

NOTE: I cannot post the comprison pics due to copyright... please look hard at them yourselves...

Notice the only difference in caps is the original (top) looks like the bill has about three million layers of shoewax on it and I'm sure at one time it shinned like a mirror.

The same stitching, button placement, buckle placement to include the "X" cross-stitch opposite the buckle on the strap. Also, the same shape and distance between sweat/breather holes. The only differences I see are buttons, the original having a "muffin" style and the second example having a standard shape. Both easily applied aftermarket to match uniform button style just like the infantry rifles and artillery cannons.

But maybe I'm just missing something obvious... since it's so obvious.

 

[PBK]

It does indeed appear to be a Model 1895 enlisted man's forage cap.

Source: United States Army Headgear, 1855-1902 by Edgar M. Howell

An additional clue to the period of its usage is the artillery insignia, which is that prescribed by General Orders Number 132, 31 December 1902.

Source: History of the Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry Branch of Service Insignia by Leon W. Laframboise

 

[deathhare]

The differences are pretty obvious but me being a photographer that looks at details of images all day long might make me a little more attune to them. No insult to you, BTW.

In the below pic you can clearly see the difference in alignment of the end of the strap/the cap bill and the vent holes. This is no small difference and even with varying hat sizes it wouldnt be this large of a difference. Also the lack of a buckle piece. Now clearly things like this can get lost over time but one would have to physcially remove one of the eagle buttons to remove the buckle and then replace the strap and button without the buckle. It couldnt just fall off and in the context of the other details I think this weighs on the side of a copy IMO. There are also differences in the vertical thickness of each band of fabric composing the barrel or side of the hat. If you compare some of the other pics you can see that this could also be questionable.

These details in comparison with the details of a known authentic CW era cap, along with the previously mentioned perfect machine sewing lead me to believe that this hat could be a copy.

edit: I meant to post this pic too. If you do the same comparison of the cap in this pic to the other known CW era hat in the other linked post you can see that the two known CW era hats match in regards to the end of the strap/bill and how it lines up with the vent holes and this one, like the other one does not match the cap that the original poster posted in this thread.

 

[Montana Jim]

I see the points your speaking of now. No insult taken by golly! I enjoy the banter.

And I must say - good eye!

I also must say that based on different manufactures, those differences are expected and does not indictate a different style forage cap. I am correct with the attribution of this cap.

Case in point: I wore a blue beret with my military uniform for almost 25 years... the same style, the same color, the same dang thing for almost 25 years. At any given time you could take ten guys and compare the head gear and it's always different. Depending on who made it the shading might be different a little bit, the breather holes might be further apart or closer together... sometimes not there at all! The felt might be thicker and the band might be leather or sometimes cloth. The seam in back might be a few degrees off one way or another... some looked awesome when worn, some looked terrible - but they were all the required blue beret worn by that particular air force profession. Same style, same requirements, same dang blue beret.

I do NOW see what you saw though and understand the differences you see.

This hat was made until the early 1900s before a new style was required so I can see many being "different".

Check out how many "eagle" button varieties were made over the years!

Regards... and with both cases being made it's up to chirper to decide how he views his cap.

Out

 

[chirper97]

I see the points your speaking of now. No insult taken by golly! I enjoy the banter.

And I must say - good eye!

I also must say that based on different manufactures, those differences are expected and does not indictate a different style forage cap. I am correct with the attribution of this cap.

Case in point: I wore a blue beret with my military uniform for almost 25 years... the same style, the same color, the same dang thing for almost 25 years. At any given time you could take ten guys and compare the head gear and it's always different. Depending on who made it the shading might be different a little bit, the breather holes might be further apart or closer together... sometimes not there at all! The felt might be thicker and the band might be leather or sometimes cloth. The seam in back might be a few degrees off one way or another... some looked awesome when worn, some looked terrible - but they were all the required blue beret worn by that particular air force profession. Same style, same requirements, same dang blue beret.

I do NOW see what you saw though and understand the differences you see.

This hat was made until the early 1900s before a new style was required so I can see many being "different".

Check out how many "eagle" button varieties were made over the years!

Regards... and with both cases being made it's up to chirper to decide how he views his cap.

Out

This has been a wonderful discussion! Thank you to all of the members taking the time to search, consider, and post.

My perspective is the cap is authentic. Look at the wear in the headband. It is essentially a dead ringer for the museum cap with very minor deviations. The quality of my cap is of military grade. The cap wasn't all that popular by the referenced article, so it is unlikely that a copy this good would have been made.

I am looking forward to getting more information from the army archives regarding the 61st Regiment.

Treasurenet is the best!

ex animo!

 

[Blacksheep]

Found one very similar to yours here, sold price isn't too bad.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

 

[chirper97]

Found one very similar to yours here, sold price isn't too bad.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

Thanks Blacksheep; I have bookmarked that site!

 

[fortbball9]

Here is a post CW Kepi,check it out
http://cgi.ebay.com/Post-Civil-War-...5|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:1|293:4|294:50

fortbball9

 

[chirper97]

Also the lack of a buckle piece. Now clearly things like this can get lost over time but one would have to physcially remove one of the eagle buttons to remove the buckle and then replace the strap and button without the buckle. It couldnt just fall off and in the context of the other details I think this weighs on the side of a copy IMO.

The buckle on my hat, photo 616 of my original post, is identical and in the same position as in the photo of the museum pieces, you posted, reply 25. Look at the page shot you posted.

Thank you for your scrutiny and analysis, but this cap is the real mcCoy.

 

[deathhare]

Also the lack of a buckle piece. Now clearly things like this can get lost over time but one would have to physcially remove one of the eagle buttons to remove the buckle and then replace the strap and button without the buckle. It couldnt just fall off and in the context of the other details I think this weighs on the side of a copy IMO.

T

Thank you for your scrutiny and analysis, but this cap is the real mcCoy.

Im sure you want to believe it is and I do hope it is.
Either way, cool hat and definitely worth a few hundred bucks if its real.
Oh and no matter what...youve learned alot about these hats in the process and research I bet.
I know I have.

 

[deathhare]

What are the chances of this being a train conductor’s hat that someone simply added the branch insignia? There is always that possibility.

I think the chances are zero.

 

[Montana Jim]

What are the chances of this being a train conductor’s hat that someone simply added the branch insignia? There is always that possibility.

I think the chances are zero.

I originally thought that and looked at tons of them - a few come close but I feel they are made differently, with a rigid side and not a forage type cap. Similar - but different.

Here are some pics:

 

[fortbball9]

found another kepi,take a look at this one

http://www.johnnyg.westhost.com/civilwar.html

fortbball9

 

[clifffoto]

Can someone give advice on this Civil War Kepi and it's authenticity?

 

[Fullstock]

Can someone give advice on this Civil War Kepi and it's authenticity?View attachment 1204981View attachment 1204982View attachment 1204983View attachment 1204984View attachment 1204985View attachment 1204986

It appears to be an Indian Wars period kepi. I base that on the trim around the bill, Civil War kepis didn't have that.

 

[ikesdad]

It's an 1895 forage cap for sure.
Page 85 in this link.

http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/HistoryTechnology/pdf_lo/SSHT-0030.pdf