UR 17 Tschapka with wrong " schuppenkette".

[michiel]

recently I acquiered this Sachsen Well marked UR17 EM tschapka, it was very affordable, maybe because nobody liked the chin scales that are obviously much too long.

It is marked 17U.. 1896, (witch is correct for Sachsen)
being it dated 1896 I think it should have Knopf91 instead of the older style to long chin scales. (do you agree?)

It has retained its form beautifully, and has the correct Feldzeichen.

It has much too long older style chin scales, when removed it seems the impression of earlier placed Knopf91 are to be seen,

As I have loose leather chinstrap and Knopf91 schuppenketten of the correct length (old once badly restored set, but original, see photo) I decided to buy two Knopf91 at Kpemig.de.
But as I did not check the thickness the schuppenkette don't fit, what was to be expected as on al pickelhaubes with schuppenketten on Knopf 91 the Knopf have a slightly larger (longer) size (as is wel illustrated in the french Pickelhaube book I highly recommend (Uniformes Hors serie 31 le casque a pointe), it is a very good reference work extremely dense in important information, I add some photographs to show it), but it is in French so maybe not everybody will be able to read it), it really is a fantastic reference work on Pickelhaubes enlisted man haubes.

So instead of the old restored curved schuppenkette I placed the leather strap that fits the knopf91. , looks already a lot better than with the long chin scales. (at least I think so).

for now it will do,
But if anyone has the correct Knopf91 for sale in the higher variant, let me know.
(also if you think I should have left the other chin scales let me know)

(I really like tschapka's , got quite a lot of variants, but I still miss the Bavarian version, so interested in one of those ...).

 

[cptbob]

Congratulations

 

[michiel]

I just thought to add some information,
I was not aware that apart from different length / height (to accommodate either a ordinary leather strap or a schuppenkette), I eluded on this yesterday, see above; there are also different versions in which way the Knopf 91 was attached to the helmet body, either a dual split pen, or a quadruple split pen with adjacent extra rods, (see photo's I found on internet)
as details of the helmet body showed at the inside a distinct ring impression (I think of the round reinforcement disc on the inside of the knopf) and a small pinpoint hole next to the bigger hole I imagined it should accomodate the quadruple type Knopf91 with the additional rods (also the diameter of the hole is too small for the broader dual split pen type, whereas the quadruple version fits)

as I never before studied the details of the knopf 91 as I never thought about changing them, I don't have a lot of knowledge on this:
do you think my estimate that being it from 1886 and having it the impression of the disc on the inside and the extra pinpoint hole next to the major hole indicates it should have the version Knopf91 with extra rods? , or am I wrong altogether and should it have the other chin scales older style I removed because they are way to long and seem a later addition?

 

[Lars13]

Hi Michiel,
Very nice helmet
I recently read an article / post about the Knopf 91, but can't remember where. From what I remember, the dual split pen was introduced during the first world war, the quadruple split pen with adjacent extra rods being the older version.
The too-long Schuppenketten certainly looks strange, but I'll leave it to other Tschapka owners to say if that is unusual / incorrect, I simply don't know. Does the Schuppenketten attachment to the helmet look untouched, or were there sign of interference? (typically scratches and/or the prongs not lying flat)
Regards,
Lars

 

[michiel]

Hi Michiel,
Very nice helmet
I recently read an article / post about the Knopf 91, but can't remember where. From what I remember, the dual split pen was introduced during the first world war, the quadruple split pen with adjacent extra rods being the older version.
The too-long Schuppenketten certainly looks strange, but I'll leave it to other Tschapka owners to say if that is unusual / incorrect, I simply don't know. Does the Schuppenketten attachment to the helmet look untouched, or were there sign of interference? (typically scratches and/or the prongs not lying flat)
Regards,
Lars

thank you lars,

The old schuppenkette seems odd to the helmet, hard to say why, just a gut feeling being a collector for decades, and it attached far to loose to the body (it should be kind of "snug", all the other helmets with the old style schuppekette I posses the kette fits nice to the body, not the case here , now there was a space of several mm ),

I mistyped in the text above, the body is dated 1896 in stead of 1886 (correct in first post, wrong in second)