Crusher vs "Crusher"

[horseback leader]

Paddy has recently posted some items for sale, and one of those items he lists is a fur-felt crusher. The phrase got me thinking. Dave could probably jump in here (and sorry Paddy for jumping on your words.. I'm just being curious, I mean no harm or disrespect to you or your posting) is a service-cap or visor-cap that's stiff and rigid and not intentionally a Crusher (IE: Bancroft Flighter, Lewis Flyweight, etc) still a 'Crusher'? I asked this question of some locals and was told by a number of collectors that the molding of non-intentionally-designed-visor caps into crushed caps is a post war way to make a lesser value cap have the AAF crusher 'look'. Did the vets crush the fur felt caps, or was it just the true Crushers only back then?

Dan

 

[deeb7]

... Did the vets crush the fur felt caps, or was it just the true Crushers only back then?

Yes, at first they modified the existing caps, but if it has a rigid brim, it isn't really a true crusher, and is of lower value.

 

[dmar836]

Until the real Dave stands up, I will be another one to comment.

I would respectfully disagree with your locals and maybe even with Dave. I have seen collectors scoff at a service cap used by a documented bomber pilot during the war yet clamor over an unnamed Bancroft that might have been worn by a desk jockey. The serious collectors aren't swayed by this soft billed issue.

"A crusher is what a crusher was." By that I mean that the functional use of a crusher cap preceded the manufacture of soft-billed caps. Those caps(Flight Weight, Flighter, etc.) were made to fill an existing need that had, true, become a stylized look. There are many misconceptions in militaria collecting and this is just one. Since the terms "Crusher" or "50 Mission Crusher"(what about the 25 and 30 mission crushers from those who got out earlier?!) originated not from the ability to roll a cap up and put it in a pocket, but rather from removing the spring stiffener and grommet from a regular service cap in order to allow the wearing of earphones, it is logic to see that it was done to the earlier(i.e. more stiff-billed) examples. Also true is that many service caps were modified to look like crushers since the war.

Now as to what people would want?... I cannot say. I would certainly wear a soft crusher if I saw the need to wear one at all but what I know from experience is that this misconception has now made the rarest of all caps an earlier service cap period-crushed by a pilot for actual combat wear. More rare and hard to spot because they blend in with the modified caps so only provenance will proof those.

JMO,
Dave
P.S. I can add some pics of my examples if anyone wants.

 

[PADDY_M]

The crusher I have for sale had the grommet (which kept the upper material in a rigid shape) removed. The material used is English Felt which is softer and much more malleable than the more common gaberdine and makes for an ideal crusher to fit earphones/headset over. No - the bill doesn't fold over on itself

 

[unclegrumpy]

Until the real Dave stands up, I will be another one to comment.

I would respectfully disagree with your locals and maybe even with Dave. I have seen collectors scoff at a service cap used by a documented bomber pilot during the war yet clamor over an unnamed Bancroft that might have been worn by a desk jockey. The serious collectors aren't swayed by this soft billed issue.

"A crusher is what a crusher was." By that I mean that the functional use of a crusher cap preceded the manufacture of soft-billed caps. Those caps(Flight Weight, Flighter, etc.) were made to fill an existing need that had, true, become a stylized look. There are many misconceptions in militaria collecting and this is just one. Since the terms "Crusher" or "50 Mission Crusher"(what about the 25 and 30 mission crushers from those who got out earlier?!) originated not from the ability to roll a cap up and put it in a pocket, but rather from removing the spring stiffener and grommet from a regular service cap in order to allow the wearing of earphones, it is logic to see that it was done to the earlier(i.e. more stiff-billed) examples. Also true is that many service caps were modified to look like crushers since the war.

Now as to what people would want?... I cannot say. I would certainly wear a soft crusher if I saw the need to wear one at all but what I know from experience is that this misconception has now made the rarest of all caps an earlier service cap period-crushed by a pilot for actual combat wear. More rare and hard to spot because they blend in with the modified caps so only provenance will proof those.

JMO,
Dave
P.S. I can add some pics of my examples if anyone wants.

Nicely said Dave!