I confirm Tony's statements. Oxidation inconsistency between the fillings and the looting. For me, this is called a "composite" hairstyle. There is no wicker frame inside. ? Then there are signs of doubt: It would take a photo of the rear of the Feldzeichen, it seems to me to be a repro, and anyway it is "Uffz-Portepee", while the cockade is "troop". Then, the inking of the journals does not seem good to me, I have the impression of seeing only 2 folding latches, instead of the central cross and the 2 lateral ones.
You should know that the Colbacks of the Leib-Prussians and of Brunswick are very copied, hacked, tinkered with, reassembled etc ... from identical "Eigentum" reproductions, made by the old establishments of the time, under the Republic of Weimar, for cinema and veterans' commemorations.
You do not have to apologize! This is totally understandable. We are all here to learn. As another example, the French word "troupe" translates in English as "enlisted", rather than troop. And "colback" is only French; English speakers refer to a busby, and Germans to a Pelzmuetze as you know. As of the wicker frame, you find both on these Eigentum/non-commissioned officer busbies: some have it, some don't. I have an NCO busby that is, inside, indistinguishable from an enlisted model. Only the fur makes the difference.Yes, I see that once again the "google" translator does not translate as it should. For the chinstrap attachments, I actually went on the M91 / 94 troop trunnions, whereas here we have an "Eigentum" with an officer type chinstrap. So 0K, on this point. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize for it. But I can't see the wicker frame inside.