1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap UPDATED

[deand]

Does anyone own an original and or reproduction of the 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap? If so, would you post a few shots of it? I'm trying to get an accurate sense of the color of 'sage' used. The MASH-Japan site that sells a repro just doesn't give me the level of representation of the color that I'm looking for. Thanks in advance for going to the trouble of doing this for me.



dean

 

[flightmac]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

I have one around here somewhere. When I find it I'll be glad to take some pictures of it for you.

 

[deeb7]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

Lee-Jackson will usually have something ... just that you have to scroll down about 300 feet.

http://www.ljmilitaria.com/geargeneral/headgear.htm

 

[USMC_GAU-21]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

he he he....that was funny, as Lee's website drives me crazy....but he got nice stuff!!!!

r - Gy

 

[Weasel_Loader]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

I'll second that about Lee Jackson. Incredible stuff and some really difficult to find patches.

Oh and incredible prices too!!! But hey, it's his business and he's got a corner of the market.

 

[deand]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

Thank you, all, and I have been to Lee's long scroll and he does have a wide and varied colllection. The big thing about this cap is that if I can get the color right, it would make just one more companion for my nylon jacket collection as it grows. Assuming it will. Eventually.



dean

 

[deand]

Acquired this original USAF sage cap. Considering that MASH-Japan charges something like $48 for a reproduction, I scored this cap for around $20 shipped! No need to wonder about the color anymore. I figure it will be a nice compliment for my growing nylon jacket collection. Someday...a BZ, perhaps used, but who knows.

dean

 

[watchmanjimg]

Re: 1950s USAF Sage Man's Field Cap

I'll second that about Lee Jackson. Incredible stuff and some really difficult to find patches.

Oh and incredible prices too!!! But hey, it's his business and he's got a corner of the market.

In fairness to LJ I should point out that although his prices are high, his trade offers are very fair if you have something he wants. Awhile ago I got those 3 gorgeous B-15D Mods from him and it cost surprisingly little cash, but my patch collection took a hit.

 

[deand]

I received my cap today, and began to wonder if it's a repro, so I re-checked the MASH-Japan site with pictures of their reproduction of this cap, and found the markings to be very similar in locationa, style, and info. But...the biggest difference brtween their cap and the one I have is rather stark! They call theirs a FIELD cap, and have it marked "CAP, FIELD, MAN'S". Mine is marked "CAP, UTILITY, MAN'S". So, questions arise:

a) Are they incorrect in their designation of their repro?

b) Or, did the nomenclature change at some point from "field" to "utility"? Therefore I have an original? The contract info in the markings is a bit different than the repro at the MASH site.
Theirs:

Mine:

c) Or is the cap I have a repro by another maker who has made an error, and if so, who else would bother to repro this cap?

I really think I have an original. The only reason I suspected it might not be is that I have an original 1962, Olive Green cap and it just feels more substantial than this one. The visor is larger and thicker, and the material feels heavier. The markings on the inside of it have faded way too much to read.




dean

 

[deeb7]

I really think I have an original.

I'm sure it's fine ... a MASH copy will always have the M.O.C Ltd marking, so it's not one of theirs.

 

[deand]

Thanks, David.








dean

 

[watchmanjimg]

Did the seller claim it was a repro? I see no reason to doubt its originality. The early sage-green USAF sateen uniforms aren't exactly growing on trees anymore. I know of a mint shirt around here that can be obtained cheaply if you need it. Let me know.

 

[deand]

No, the description used the word 'vintage'. The seller offers a variety of items, flea-market-like. I still find the shift from 'field' to 'utility' interesting, in addition to the visor size variation, namely, the sage cap visor is a bit less round and rather stubby, campared to the OG 1962 I have. It's a minor size difference, less than 1/4 inch, but more of a shape variation.


dean

 

[watchmanjimg]

I had one of these over 25 years ago and distinctly recall the differences from the OG cap, not only in the visor but in the shape of the crown. It's from the glory days when the various branches had unique field uniforms, before McNamara called for standardization across the services.

 

[deand]

I had one of these over 25 years ago and distinctly recall the differences from the OG cap, not only in the visor but in the shape of the crown. It's from the glory days when the various branches had unique field uniforms, before McNamara called for standardization across the services.

What about the 'field' versus 'utility' issue? And thanks for your interest in this, by the way.





dean

 

[watchmanjimg]

I wouldn't get too hung up on that. Perhaps one contract called for the "utility" designation while another used "field." The original USAF caps I saw on LJ's site are stamped "field" but these are later OG-107 versions which retain the distinctive shape.

Happy to be of service, by the way.

 

[deand]

So, are these sage caps really that rare? Not that I'm looking for it to be worth some enormous amount of money, what interests me is the time period, the MASH site mentions mid-fifties, then refers to 1957, and my cap has "QM (C (or) O, TM) 6780-C-60" which I'm taking to mean 1960. A shirt for the cap would be interesting. Pants and boots would next. I'd love a black pair of boots like my dad had when he was in the Army, 1954 to 1956. He said they had to blacken brown boots, which explained why he had both black and brown in his duffle bag. Lousy tread pattern on them, as I remember.



dean

 

[watchmanjimg]

I'd say the sage utility/field uniforms are relatively rare due to their having been issued for a short period of time beginning over 50 years ago. They're not worth a ton of money, but should command perhaps a bit more than a typical OG-107 sateen garment. For me much of the interest lies in the unique Air Force identity of these uniforms. The shirt had a fly front to prevent the buttons from snagging and the trousers were fitted with tool pockets much like painter's pants, as they were intended to be used by maintenance personnel and the like. I scrounged this picture from the Internet:

Regarding footgear, in this era the USAF issued a black ankle boot almost identical to the WW2 Army Type II service shoe but with a full rubber sole of the type used in the M43 double-buckle combat boot. In the first years of its existence the USAF dyed russet footwear black, just as the Army did in the latter part of your dad's era. I'm sure the "McNamara" welt-construction combat boot was also worn as it became available. And yes, the tread pattern was nothing to write home about. This issue was not addressed on a service-wide scale until the introduction of the direct-molded-sole (DMS) combat boot in the late '60s, although personnel stationed in Southeast Asia could wear tropical combat boots which had a more aggressive tread pattern.

 

[deand]

Thank you! Any more info you feel like posting would be appreciated, but I'm aware that this is becoming more a 'militaria forum' thread, than it is a 'jacket forum' thread. Thnak you again.





dean

 

[flightmac]

Actually, I have the Sage Gray "Field" cap in addition to the sage utility caps and it is different. The field cap is for winter with a satin lining and ear flaps. Also it's constructed of a polished cotton outside shell. I stopped looking for it when you updated your post, but I'll start again. When I find it, I can email it or maybe post it up.