Inspection instructions of the clothing office for pickelhauben and shakos from 1897

[Sandmann]

Hi Sandy,
I would expect a certain allowable size margin, the same way that margins in weight are indicated.
Can you share where you found the size specifications for the Wappen?
Interestingly enough, the Bekleidungsordnung 1903 describes the whole helmet including sizes, but not the size of the Wappen?
Regards,
Lars

Hello Lars,
unfortunately I have no size information for the helmet eagles of the enlisted men, as I haven't seen the mentioned appendix in the clothing regulations for enlisted men anywhere. But according to my measurements, the sizes of enlisted men's and officers' helmet eagles are pretty much the same. It was this lack of information that was the reason I started my measurements in the first place.

 

[Sandmann]

Thank you very much for your kind words, I really appreciate your opinions

 

[Sandmann]

Since we're mentioning my measurements, I don't want to keep the results hidden from you. The helmet weights from the inspection regulations for the clothing departments are already included.

 

[Tony without Kaiser]

Today's precision of copies was difficult to implement at that time and very expensive. Of course, casts could be made, but cutting the mold was always done by hand. With so many details, 100% copies were definitely expensive. [Tony- When Sandy say's "copies" he means exact duplication of the War Ministry] And since every effects manufacturer in the country would have had to have absolutely identical molds made for all the different helmet plates, the helmet would have become even more expensive.
Maybe we are the only ones who notice the small differences in detail, because at the time, due to the great effort involved, no one even thought about demanding 100% copies at all. Ultimately, the soldiers only had to look identical and good from a distance of 1.5 meters, when they line up or when they march past. I therefore believe, just like you, that the motif was only specified on the basis of a drawing and the size and that some artistic freedom was allowed in the implementation.

Sandy your posting 06 June 2022 (above) also suggets these slight variations in the sizes. The Probe' samples which were supplied to manufacturers as the standard to meet, would still certainly have resulted in small variations. There had to have been quality assurance all along the production line and final acceptance by the Army. It’s good to remember that not only did manufacturers change as different contracts were let out, but also some Wappen were made for many years. Example: Preussen 1871 Adler for Foot Troops were made from 1871 to 1894. Over 20+ years, manufactures change and techniques change. Close was good enough, which is why you find so many variations on originals. This is why it is so difficult to be accurate with measurements. The best you can do in my observations, is to obtain an average.

 

[Sandmann]

Tony, if I remember correctly, the thread in question was about differences in design, but I agree with you.
However, if the correct size is not relevant at all, I wonder why such crooked dimensions were specified? An explanation could be the conversion from inches to the metric system, but I can hardly think of any other reason. And another thought about the samples: Only the mold had to be produced exactly, the pressed emblems then should always be identical in shape and size. So it would be relatively easy to keep to the correct dimensions.

 

[Tony without Kaiser]

Yes I agree with all. I did not mean that variations in sizes was not relevant, it’s just that there were so many manufacturers, over so many years, that small variations in size are to be expected yes?

 

[Sandmann]

I think we are talking about the same thing my friend

 

[CLOVIS 57]

Hello Sandy,
Very pertinent comments and observations. I already explain the difference in size of many trims by the size of the hull (e.g. the length of the rear spine, the visor edge trim).
We're obviously comparing the same vintage, M95 or M15 for example, because we know that dimensions and weights have changed over time.
For me, the millimetre dimension was utopian; it was supposed to be imposed, but it was only an indication. Technically an approximate value. It's not just the plates that have 'manufacturers' approximations', it's also the case for the points, post sides, keys and chinstrap loops etc...
Below are comparisons of different (field) chinstrap linings for different M67, M87 and M15 "infantry" tips.
Out of 10 M87 or M15 points, I only have 2 or 3 that are strictly identical. I think the variations are simply due to manufacturers' variations in detail.



Spike M67

Spike M87



The first point 15 is removable, but has 4 ventilation holes. The second tip has a different shape, with a higher bayonet bead. The last tip cannot be dislodged and has 8 smaller holes. Incidentally, the M15 tips are not always interchangeable on button bases, because of the difference in dimensions.

 

[Sandmann]

Thank you very much Thierry, I really appreciate your opinion
It seems I have to rethink how to find out the presumably given sizes of the guard and grenadier eagles before 1895. If the measurements vary so much, I would have to measure at least 100 emblems to get a reliable average. However, I will probably never have access to that many helmets or emblems.
Anyway, without a few hurdles our hobby would only be half as interesting