See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278783936

Faking the Afrikakorps: Contextualizing the Manufacture and Trade in

Imitation Afrikakorps Material Culture

Article · June 2015

CITATION READS

1 8,018

1 author:

Mike Seager Thomas

University College London
93 PUBLICATIONS   196 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The UCL Institute of Archaeology Rapa Nui Landscapes of Construction Project (LOC) View project

Prehistoric pottery from south central and southeast England View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mike Seager Thomas on 11 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Faking the Afrikakorps
Contextualizing the Manufacture
and Trade
in Imitation Afrikakorps
Material Culture

by
Mike Seager Thomas

ARTEFACT SERVICES RESEARCH PAPERS 3 2015

Artefact Services
Lewes
[email protected]

Research Papers 3

Faking the Afrikakorps (revised 2018)

by Mike Seager Thomas

Text, editorial, graphics and page set by Artefact Services

© 2018 Mike Seager Thomas
Cover photo: members of the Afrikakorps surrendered to Australian troops at Tobruk.
Australian War Memorial
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 1

Faking the Afrikakorps:

Contextualizing the Manufacture and Trade in Imitation
Afrikakorps Material Culture

by Mike Seager Thomas

For many students of World War 2, there is something romantic about the
Afrikakorps: it had all the style and dash of Nazi Germany yet managed to
avoid the opprobrium justly heaped upon other parts of that regime and its
military machine. For the UK, this goes back to the lauding of its commander,
Erwin Rommel, by Sir Winston Churchill (1950, 176–7), by the military
historian Basil Liddell-Hart, who compared him to Lawrence of Arabia
(1953, xiv), and by Rommel’s British biographer, Desmond Young (1950),
and resonates today both in histories of the period, which represent the
Afrikakorps as blameless and the North African campaign of 1940–43 as a
‘war without hate’ (Bierman & Smith 2002; McGuirk 1987, 7), and in British
military culture, from the Falkland Islands campaign, during which the British
taskforce commander sported an unofficial cap modeled on an Afrikamütze
(the Afrikakorps’ famous peaked cap) (Hastings & Jenkins 1983, pl. 42), to
Afghanistan, where the Queen’s Royal Lancers adopted for their emblem a
modified Afrikakorps palm (Fig. 1). Another manifestation of this phenomenon
is a flourishing collectors market both in authentic Afrikakorps objects,
and—the focus of this essay—Afrikakorps fakes.
The study of material culture belonging to the past is a way of bringing
it to life. Collectors have additional motivations of course, some of which
I will touch on below, but to step through time from the mundane present
to a romantic, if bloody past is a powerful one. Afrikakorps and related
material culture, therefore, have a very special cachet (Seager Thomas 2018).
The faking of Afrikakorps material culture covers everything from
uniforms and insignia, through webbing, to helmets and heavier equipment
like gasmask cases, binoculars and jerry cans (Fig. 2); the fakes themselves
ranging from genuine continental and later tropical items described as
Afrikakorps, through reproductions, which were not originally intended to
deceive but were later passed off as real, to out and out fakes—non-tropical
items modified to make them look tropical and reproductions modified
to deceive or intended to deceive from the start. All of these are common
on the market; and all have crept into collections, onto online collectors’
forums, into the literature and even museum collections as the real thing.
In this essay I consider their nature, the purpose behind them, the methods
used by the fakers to purvey them, how to distinguish them from the real
thing (and visa versa), and how it is, given the considerable knowledge
of the collecting community and the free availability of much of this
knowledge online, that they continue to circulate and fool. I also consider
the part played by the collector/ enthusiast in creating them, and their wider
2  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

implications for our understanding of World War 2 material culture; and I

consider the possibility of a role in the study of Afrikakorps material culture
generally for academia. The observations made and the views expressed
here, I should note, are those of a researcher into material culture, not a
collector.

Figure 1.
A modern British Army take on the Afrikakorps palm.
Photo: U.S. Marine Corps: Gunnery Sgt. C. Runyon

Sources

I will begin with a brief summary of our sources of knowledge on Afrikakorps

and related material culture. The principal source of evidence for its study
is material in the hands of collectors and dealers. There is also some period
documentation, a lot of period photographs and lot of anecdote. In terms of
understanding Afrikakorps material culture, these sources are of variable use.
The greatest source of information is undoubtedly the collecting community.
The best books are all by collectors (e.g. Bender & Law 1973; McGuirk 1987)
and there are also several useful, if not always accurate, online collectors
forums (the Afrikakorps Forum,1 the War Relics Forum2 and the Wehrmacht
Awards Forum)3 and dealer websites (e.g. VirtualGrenadier).4 In some cases
these state or we can infer from them that objects were obtained directly
from or can be traced back to a particular veteran (e.g. Fisher 2011, 29, 38;
McGuirk 1987, 182.46, 183.61 & 183.63) or some other unimpeachable
source. There is also some cross-referencing of objects using anecdotal
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 3

material from veterans (McGuirk 1987), surviving German documentation

on dates of issue and withdrawal (Bender & Law 1973) and by named makers
(mostly online). For most individual items, however, provenance is either not
known or not given and in these cases it can be difficult to untangle fact from
opinion. Photographs taken at the time help but often only in terms of date and
general configurations (when, where and how objects were used and worn,
rather than precisely what they look like and how they were fashioned). They
are good for historians; less so for material culture specialists. Finally, many
military and war museums have Afrikakorps material. That in Regimental/
unit museums can have a good provenance, most having been acquired

Figure 2.
Afrikakorps soldier,
Panzergrenadier Günter Halm,
wearing the Afrikamütze.
Everything that he is wearing
occurs faked. Photo: Schicksal
Nordafrika

in the first place by soldiers of the regiment or unit. National collections,

however, differ little from most private collections. Objects in them may
have accession dates that take them back earlier than the inception of faking,
donations to them may have an unimpeachable veteran provenance (e.g.
Imperial War Museum, cat. nos INS7130 & 7131), but many more objects,
either because they were themselves bought on the collectors market or
inadequately accessioned, lack an interpretatively useful provenance (e.g.
Australian War Memorial, cat. no. REL28078; IWM, cat. nos INS20602–4 and
23447).
4  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

The Intention to Deceive

The motivation of fakers and the sellers of fakes is straight-forward. A minority

of sellers believe that the fakes in their possession are authentic, and their
representation of them as real is an honest mistake, but most either don’t
know whether they are authentic or not, or know very well they are not, and
their description of them as such is a deliberate fraud carried out in order
to cash in on the very high prices realized for the real thing (Tab. 1). The
victims of this fraud are the naïve, the young, the ignorant, the stupid and the
enthusiastic.
Among the more potent of the motivations behind collecting is the
desire to own a piece of history. The object is part of the historical record;
and touching it creates a link to the person who owned it and the period to
which it belonged. But there is a lot more to it than that.
Collecting and the study, classification and ordering of what is collected
gives the collector a sense of purpose, and thus a sense of worth. Collecting
is also a social act, the sharing of objects and the collector’s knowledge of
them, a medium through which like-minded people are brought together.
Members of collectors’ forums are often described as ‘friends’, even ‘family’,
though as with all such groups, not everybody fits in. Because collectors are
not bound by academic constraints and are free to be inspired, good books
are often written by them. Collecting and collectors therefore can be both
creative and socially positive. For some, however, collecting is accompanied
by a restiveness akin to that of addiction or infatuation, and in extreme cases
collectors will overspend, cheat, neglect their friends and family, even steal
in order to satisfy the craving for the next object (Muensterberger 1994). And
although some are well-informed, many others lack the detachment and the
analytical skills necessary to distinguish the real from the fake, are unwilling
or unable to trace their knowledge back to an unimpeachable source, and
rely instead on gut feeling or ‘authority’—usually another collector. The
acceptance of this sort of thinking amongst collectors means that it is very
often impossible to untangle good from bad information. The faker knows
and takes advantage of these characteristics of collectors and collecting,
exploiting the collector’s knowledge and the collector’s willingness to
share this. He uses the need, the craving to touch the past, and—where it
exists—he uses the undisciplined scholarship. In this way the collector is
complicit in the corrupting of the record by the faker and his or her own
duping, but the intention to deceive lies with the faker.
The methods of the purveyors of Afrikakorps fakes are the same as those
of the purveyors of every other modern fake (cf. Fay 2011, 455–57), the aim
being a good financial return for the time invested. Afrikakorps fakes made
from scratch tend to be those that are cheap to make, such as cuff titles,
or that have the potential to yield a sizable return, such as early pattern
Afrikamützen; whereas modified items include anything available that can
be modified and still yield a profit. Thereafter it is a matter of presentation.
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 5

Object eBay (£) United Kingdom (£) Continental USA ($)

Europe (€)

Afrikakorps cuff title 48–145 125 90–150 200–425

Afrika cuff title 30 395 150–270€ 350-495
Army tropical tunic 200 280–325 300
eagle
Sonderverband 288 500 500–650
patch
Tropenhelm shield 30–50 65
Officers’ Afrikamütze 15000–16500
(with soutache)
ORs’ Afrikamütze 2200–50005 4250–10500
(with soutache)
ORs’ Afrikamütze 1695 2100 1500–1900
(without soutache)
Sidecap 650–885 480-750 750–1350
1st pattern 126–230 450 375 285–900
Tropenhelm
Helmet with desert 995 1500–3998
camouflage
Officers’ tropical belt 450–890 750
ORs’ tropical belt 250–385 450 350–795
1st pattern tunic with 2950–5000
ORs’ insignia
1st pattern tunic with 1500 6950
officers’ insignia
Long trousers 750
Short trousers 51 425–485

Battleflag Militaria; Militärische Bay State Militaria;

Centurion Military Col- Antiquitäten Emig; Collectors Militaria;
lectibles; Hiscoll; German War Helmets;
Helmets & Headgear Militaria Plaza; I buy World War 2;
Dealers consulted
(Scot); Helmut Weitze Jim’s Militaria;
the Militaria Dealers; Militärische Ken Niewiarowicz;
Military Antiques; Antiquitäten Oakleaf Militaria;
M & T Militaria Virtual Grenadier

Table 1.
The prices of Afrikakorps material culture in Europe and the US,
June 2015
Fakes are declared to be ‘100% original’, a genuine sounding context (and
where necessary an explanation of their shortcomings) is invented, and the
fake modified or distressed to make it look authentic. A selection of recent
eBay descriptions of Afrikakorps fakes is typical — ‘found while clearing
out the attic’, ‘brought back by my grandfather who served with the 8th
Army in North Africa’, ‘from an old collection’ (Fig. 3), ‘from a veteran’s
estate’—all of which could be true of authentic artefacts, but certainly were
not true of the objects for sale. A fake Afrika campaign title was said not
to ‘glow under fluorescent light which means that the material does not
contain any acryl / polyester… an easy way to check whether a cloth item is
6  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

Figure 3.
Fake Afrikamütze on eBay ‘from an old collection’. The cap has been deliberately
distressed to make it look more authentic

period-correct’! Another favorite is ‘a rare variant’, used to describe bad

fakes. I have a fake, bought at auction in the UK, that was accompanied
by several authentic, but common and therefore inexpensive items, and a
yellowed label in a shaky, elderly person’s hand naming the Afrikakorps

Figure 4.
Fake Sonderverband 288 patch (left) supposedly cut from an overcoat by an
Australian soldier. The patch has been sewn onto a piece of (non-German)
greatcoat-type fabric and distressed to make it look more convincing. Much smaller
authentic patch (right) brought home as a war souvenir by an US soldier. Scale 100%.
Photos: Afrikakorps Forum
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 7

formation to which it belonged. Deliberate modifications include staining

and wear, positioned so that they look as though they were acquired through
use, bleaching, ‘evidence’ that the object had formerly been attached to a
uniform (Fig. 4), the application of plausible-looking stamps (Fig. 18) and so
on. Anything that might persuade a potential buyer that an object is real, not
fake.
Finally, purveyors of fake Afrikakorps material culture make savvy use
of contemporary digital media to disguise, enhance and contextualize them,
playing games with shadow and image resolution and presenting the fakes
side by side with period pictures of the real thing. The object then enters the
record, is quietly shelved, or recycled onto the market by the duped collector,
eager to get his money back.

Figure 5.
Authentic late issue World War 2 German Army binoculars for sale on eBay as ‘WW2
German DAK Afrikakorps Binoculars Dienstglas’. The dark yellow paint was applied
in the factory and was standard, not just tropical issue

The Real and the Fake

Afrikakorps fakes come in a variety of different forms—continental and late

tropical items described as Afrikakorps; reproductions not originally intended
to deceive; and out and out fakes. The impact of each on our knowledge and
understanding of World War 2 material culture differs. Typical of the first group
are late war metal equipment items, such as binoculars, which were painted
dark yellow in the factory for use in all, not just ‘tropical’ theatres (McGuirk
1987, 150; Rottman & Volstad 1991, 4) (Figs 5 & 6); and the felt, 2nd pattern
tropical pith helmet or Tropenhelm, which period photos suggest were not
8  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

used in North Africa, both of which are persistently described as Afrikakorps.

The faking here lies in the description. None of these objects are actually
imitation. Nor for that matter are post war commemorative items, which
include rings, enamelled pins featuring Afrikakorps heraldry and facsimile
cuff-titles. But none are Afrikakorps either. The second group comprises
deliberate reproductions made for films, re-enactors, and display. These are
very abundant and include almost everything necessary to equip a facsimile
Afrikakorps ‘soldier’, down to his—or her—socks. Their accuracy, and therefore
their potential impact on the record, varies from not very accurate to very

Figure 6.
Early issue WW2 German Army
binoculars. Photo: Mike Donne
coll.

accurate. At the not very accurate end of the range are the two Afrikamützen
shown in Figure 7. Neither would stand up even to superficial scrutiny by
anyone familiar with the real thing, but similar caps are occasionally described
as such. At the accurate end of the range are the shorts shown in Figure 14,
which could fool the unwary. Deliberate fakes fall into four categories: original
items modified to make them look as though they belonged to the Afrikakorps;
‘honest’ reproductions of the sort described above that have been modified to
deceive; restorations; and reproductions intended to deceive from the start.
These too vary from not very accurate to very accurate. Typical of the first is
the painting of continental issue helmets in sand colours post war (Fig. 12,
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 9

top); of the second, reproductions that have been ‘distressed’, that is, faded,
bruised and stained artificially (Figs 2, 10 & 19); of the third, the attaching
of army insignia to authentic 1st pattern Luftwaffe Tropenhelme, an unissued
cache of which was found in post war Czechoslovakia; and of the fourth, the
application of World War 2 German army insignia to post war helmets (Fig.
13), the near perfect reproduction of Afrikamützen (Fig. 8) and Afrikakorps
cuff titles (Fig. 9, bottom), and the design and manufacture from scratch of
completely made up items of uniforms, equipment and insignia (e.g. Seager
Thomas 2018, 12–14) (Fig. 20). The best of these can contaminate the record
to the point that it is no longer possible to distinguish the real from the fake.

Figure 7
Two reproduction Afrikamützen, made ‘for re-enactors, enthusiasts and collectors’.
Scale 10cm. Photo: author

Irrespective of type, the principal difficulty encountered in attempting

to distinguish real from fake material culture is the accuracy of the latter,
accuracy encouraged by collector demand and inadvertently aided by the
thoroughness of their research and their enthusiasm to share this. For some
objects, only the most dedicated student can remain ahead of the game. Also,
although the designs of the of the objects used was fixed ‘by order’, owing to
changes in these, variations in the materials available and differences between
the techniques of different manufacturers, and different use histories, colour,
texture, stitching and shape vary considerably (McGuirk 1987, 134; Seager
Thomas 2019). Then there is the problem of distinguishing fact from opinion.
We do have some assistance, however. The real thing always possesses a
10  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

set of interrelated characteristics—design, material, quality of workmanship,

weathering, dating (derived or inferred from surviving orders or marks placed
on the objects themselves)—related to the period to which it belongs and its
likely use history, to which, more often than not, even a good fake will not
measure up. There are just too many things to get right. Obvious giveaways
include the use of petroleum-based synthetic fabrics; the anachronistic
association of insignia, equipment and uniform parts; mismatches in or
non-functional wear patterns and unnatural corrosion products (both
suggestive of deliberate distressing); the wrong camouflage; the absence of
characteristics that are difficult or expensive to imitate; different makers marks
placed on identical objects and identical makers marks placed on quite different
objects; a maker’s stamp belonging to a maker that did not make the type of
object on which it occurs; misspellings; fresh smells (of leather for example);
non-functional modifications and so on. The aim of the faker, remember, is to
make money, not a perfect imitation.
The reproductions and fakes below are fairly typical of the koine.

Figure 8
Good quality fake Afrikamütze
attributed to the hat maker, Clemens
Wagner, who is thought not to have
made the army tropical peaked cap.
Apart from its attribution, it is given
away by a fake cockade and its
‘non-period’ officers’ piping.
Photo: Ralph Heinz

The Afrikamütze.
One of the most familiar pieces of Afrikakorps material culture and a faker
favourite is the Afrikamütze (Figs 2 & 6), a cotton twill cap with a prominent
peak, a false turn-up with a scallop at the front, a pair of initially green, then tan
enamelled eyelets on either side, each of which was riveted to a countersunk
washer to the rear, a distinct red lining and, after early 1942, a leatherette and
cotton sweat band. Insignia consisted of separately applied national eagle,
cockade and, at least till July 1942 when its use was ordered discontinued,
a coloured soutache or inverted chevron indicating the wearer’s branch of
service. The officers’ version was piped in silver or gold around the scallop
and the top edge of the cap (Bender & Law 1973, 193; Seager Thomas 2019).
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 11

The reproductions shown in Figure 7, the first by Sturm Mil-tec (on the
left) and the second by Adolf Uniformen (on the right), are loosely modelled
on the early pattern other ranks cap (Fig. 2). As already noted neither would
stand up even to superficial scrutiny by anyone familiar with the real thing:

Figure 9.
Three of just a handful of authentic Afrikamütze eyelet variations (left). The eyelet is
one of the key features by which real caps can be distinguished from fake caps. Fakes
(right) are the wrong colour (for the date), painted rather than enameled, brass rather
than zinc (or occasionally steel), and lack the characteristic countersunk washer to
the rear. Photos: Afrikakorps Forum; VirtualGrenadier

the first because of its plastic peak, its eyelets (which are too small and of
brass) (cf. Fig. 9), a lack of stitching on the underside of the peak and above
the peak at the bottom of the turn-up, and the absence on the interior of a
gathered seam, running from the front to the back, where, on a real cap the
12  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

outer shell was sewn to the lining; the second because of the absence of a red
lining and the eyelets, which also differ from the real thing. The other three
caps shown are typical of reproductions deliberately distressed and presented
with the intention to deceive. Those in Figures 3 and 10 are what collectors
would call ‘one look fakes’. The first was described on eBay as ‘a stunning
German WWII DAK infantry cap… from an old collection.’ It is given away
by—again—the lack of stitching on the underside of the peak, the clumsy
way it has been distressed (the exterior looks like it has been rubbed with
chalk, yet the interior is in almost new condition), and its made up maker’s
name. The eyelets are hidden in shadow. It sold for £62—far too little for the
real thing; but far too much for a poor, if honest reproduction. The second
(Fig. 10), also on eBay, was described as ‘vintage WWII German tropical

Figure 10
Another fake Afrikamütze for sale on eBay. Note the incorrect eyelets

M43 hat DAK Afrika Korps’. Its weathering is more convincing. But it too has
no stitching on the underside of the peak, no gather running from the front
to the back on the inside where the outside was sewn to the lining, and its
eyelets are countersunk and painted (rather than enamelled) on the outside.
It sold for US$92—again far too little for the real thing and far too much for
an honest reproduction. A much closer approximation to the real thing is the
cap shown in Figure 8, which is modeled on an early pattern officers’ cap
(Fig. 6). One of several similar but differently stamped caps by a single faking
operation, it incorporates period-looking materials and is correctly sewn,
but its cockade is fake (embroidered instead of ‘Bevo’ woven),6 the officers’
piping used for it differs from that used on period caps and it is stamped with
the name of a hat maker who did not—as far as we know—make the tropical
peaked cap (Seager Thomas 2019).
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 13

Steel helmets.
Most and possibly all German steel helmets worn by the Afrikakorps were
of the M35/ 40 pattern, which had an inward rolled edge. This was issued
in continental colours and painted a sand colour ‘in theatre’, the colours
and finish varying depending on the arm to which it was issued (Army
or Luftwaffe), what paint was available and the skill of and the technique
used by the painter. Often the paint was mixed with or coated with sand.
Helmets are found both with and without their decal(s) painted over (Figs
11 & 12, bottom), and with the paint extending to the rim of the helmet
only or into the inside (Bender & Law 1973, 190–91; Kurtz 2004, 216–28;

Figure 11.
Major Georg Briel wearing a worn, desert camouflaged M35/ 40 steel helmet. Photo:
Mike Donne coll.

McGuirk 1987, 150, 173). Occasionally they were not painted at all (e.g.
AWM, cat. no. REL32447). Photos taken in Tunisia show more un- or dark
painted helmets as well a few M42 pattern helmets, which had a slightly out-
turned ‘razor’, rather than a rolled over edge. The best fakes are continental
M35/ 40 helmets that have been re-painted in Afrikakorps colours post war,
which, owing to the inherent variability of the real thing, may be more or less
impossible to distinguish from them (Fig. 12). For the same reason, authentic
Afrikakorps helmets, if detached from their original veteran provenance,
can be indistinguishable from fakes. For both, clues include paint colour,
which may or may not be typical of the real thing, the pattern of wear,
14  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

which may or may not be plausible, the relationship of the paint to any rust
on the helmet (the later should of course have developed after the helmet
was painted), and the occasional mark left in the paint by a decal under it.

Figure 12.
Modern fake and period
hand-painted desert camouflage
on M35 (top) and M40 (bottom)
helmets. Photos: the Saleroom;
Afrikakorps Forum

In my view the camouflage paint on the upper helmet shown in Figure

12 is probably fake—but I am not certain. It is oddly stained, a possible sign
of deliberate ageing, and in places it overlies signs of earlier weathering;
the double decals were heavily scratched before the helmet was repainted,
yet when it was repainted, were masked (an action which seems doubly
odd when one recals that the use of the national colours on helmets was
discontined in 1940, before the Afrikakorps was deployed); the name on the
interior is naïvely done for a German helmet; and the metal frame around
the lining oddly bright. It sold for over £900! The other is more believable.
Easier to identify are fakes such as that shown in Figure 13. This one was
described on eBay as ‘German WW2 Afrika Korps steel helmet shell [no]
5511’. It is an M42 pattern helmet, a type that rarely—if ever—occurred sand
painted in North Africa, and the paint, which is similar to the dark yellow
paint applied to late war metal equipment items (cf. Fig. 5), factory applied—
again out of the question for the period. The national colours decal is also
anachronistic (see above). At the time of writing a helmet of the same type,
albeit more complete and in better condition, was being marketed by a US
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 15

militaria dealer as a ‘near excellent combat helmet with most the DAK paint
remaining’, with a price tag of US$849. The one shown here sold for £102.

Figure 13.
M42 helmet for sale as Afrikakorps

Trousers
Tropical trousers and shorts were made out of the same olive green cotton
twill as the Afrikamütze. Both have two slanting pockets at the front, a single
pocket at the back, on the right hand side, and a small watch pocket at
the front, also on the right hand side. Both also have a hidden belt, with a
three-tined (often painted) buckle. The buttons are metal (Bender & Law 1972,
177–8; Kurtz 2004, 94–95, 98–99; McGuirk 1987, 143–44). Trousers are not
an obvious thing to fake but, like all other parts of the Afrikakorps uniform,
they are. The shorts shown (Fig. 14) are ‘honest’ reproductions, and were sold
as such, but the long trousers (Fig. 15), which are almost certainly by the same
maker, were marketed on eBay as ‘DAK Afrika Korps WW2 German uniform
trousers (höse) genuine’. The outside of the shorts is very like that of the real
thing, the main differences being the colour and material of the belt, the form
of the buckle and the width and stitching of the belt loop (on originals seen by
me, the belt is buff, rather than green, the buckle does not have a protective
plate over the tines and the belt loop is wider: Fig. 14, inset). Giveaways on
the inside are the location of the button holes at the waist, which should
overlap the seam between the waist band and the fly, the absence of studs
from which the underwear was suspended, and the internal waist band,
which on originals overlaps the fly, but on the reproduction shown underlies
it. The posted photographs of the long trousers were too blurred, and the
view of the trousers too partial, for a full comparison with the real thing to
be made, but the buckle is identical to that of the reproduction shorts, and
gives them away for the fake that they are. On this occasion they did not sell.
16  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

Figure 14.
Reproduction German WW2 tropical shorts with (inset) the belt buckle and fly of the
real thing. Scale 10cm.
Photo: author

Figure 15.
Reproduction German WW2 tropical trousers for sale on eBay as the real thing. The
belt buckle is identical to that of the reproduction shorts shown in
Figure 14
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 17

The Afrikakorps cuff-title

The official Afrikakorps cuff title (Fig. 16, top) was introduced in July 1941 for
wear by German troops who had served two or more months in Africa. It was
usually worn on the right sleeve. On it, AFRIKAKORPS was woven in silver
against a dark, sea green background, edged by two cabled lines, also in
silver. The backing cloth was olive green. Though many soldiers were entitled

Figure 16.
Real Afrikakorps cuff title (top) and fake Afrikakorps cuff title (bottom). Note the
different letter shapes, the differences in the cabled bands, and the ‘tartan weave’
on the back of the fake. The real cuff title was authenticated by comparison with
examples brought home as war souvenirs by British and Australian soldiers.
Photos: author
18  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

to wear it, period photos suggest that few did. When worn, its outer edges
were often turned in and stitched under the cuff title (e.g. Seager Thomas
2018, fig. 2). The official cuff title was preceded by several unofficial variants
in white lettering on a black background and superseded, in January 1943,
by the Afrika campaign cuff title (Bender & Law 1972, 196–8; McGuirk 1987,
154). A variant of the official Afrikakorps cuff title on tan, as opposed to olive
green backing cloth, appears not to have been issued. For other variants, the
jury—at least for some of us—is still out.
Definite fake Afrikakorps cuff titles come in a variety of forms. Best
known amongst these is the ‘tartan weave’ or ‘diamond back’ (Figs 16, bottom
& 17). These are very similar to the real thing, though there are a number

Figure 17
Fake Afrikakorps cuff title for sale on eBay. It is of the same sort as that shown in
Figure 16

of giveaways. These are, on the front, the triangle in the first ‘A’, which is
misshapen, the merging of the first and second ‘A’ with the letters adjacent
to them, the breadth of the ‘A’s, which are narrower than on many (though
not apparently all) authentic cuff titles, the arms of the ‘F’, which are longer,
the holes in the ‘R’s and the ‘P’, which are the same size, the shape of the
terminal ‘S’, the top part of which is longer than on most authentic cuff titles,
the angle and dimensions of the cabling, which are less steep and thinner;
and on the back, the ‘tartan’ pattern on the letters, the diamond shape of the
hole in the ‘O’ and the very narrow holes in the ‘R’s and ‘P’. Some of these
characteristics occur on the real thing, but not all, and not as a group.7 The
example shown on eBay (Fig. 17) was described as ‘Very nice original WW2
German bevo woven DAK cuff title… No glow under UV light’ and was for
sale at US$225. It was withdrawn from sale. But at the time of writing what
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 19

(from the front) looks like an identical cuff title, described as an ‘original
sleeve title from the German Africa corps -- absolutely original! Not one of
the fakes that are floating around’ is for sale at US$295 from a US dealer.
The second fake shown (Fig. 18) turns up on eBay UK again and again,
described as an ‘Original German left cuff, Afrikakorps, manufacturer –
WW2.’ Questions about it from me have been ignored by the seller. The form
of this cuff title corresponds with neither the official nor any known unofficial
variant of the Afrikakorps cuff title. The real giveaway, however, is the ‘RZM’
stamp on the back. The Reichzeugmeisterei was the Nazi party quartermaster
and had jurisdiction over the SS, Hitler Youth and other party organizations,
but not the army, and Afrikakorps insignia would never have been marked
with its stamp. At the time of writing the cuff title remains on sale at £199.
Any takers?

Figure 18
Another fake Afrikakorps cuff title for sale on eBay. The stamp on the reverse says
‘RZM’. This would never have been applied to army insignia

Sonderverband 288 patch

Finally I want to return to the Sonderverband 288 patch illustrated above (Fig.
4). The real patch, which was worn in Tunisia by members of an élite motorized
unit attached to the 90th Light Division (and therefore not strictly part of the
Afrikakorps), was oval and shows a sunburst and a palm tree surrounded by a
laurel wreath emerging from a swastika. Between the sun and swastika, is an
impression of sunlight reflected on the desert sand. In this version, which was
worn on upper the right sleeve of the tunic, the background was woven in
sea green, the sun in pale yellow and the wreath, the swastika and the palm
20  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

in white. The reflected sun consists of slightly undulating horizontal lines of

all three colours. The backing cloth, which was also sea green, was usually
trimmed and turned in when the patch was applied (Fig. 4, right). The principal
diagnostic characteristics of the fake shown are its large size, the blurring of
the leaves on the lower right hand side of the palm, the speckled appearance
of the woven background, the very distorted swastika, the backing cloth,
which is white and orange (a colour absent from the real thing), and the white
thread, which melts when burnt. Fakes of this sort often also have separate
cloth backing sewn to them. At the time of writing one described as ‘a rare
unit patch worn by members of the Sonderverband 288… This example is in
extremely good condition in bevo with a cotton backing,’ was on sale from a
UK dealer for £525.
*
Afrikakorps fakes of these and other types are common. Almost every day on
eBay there is an Afrikakorps fake for sale and they are common in auctions and
on dealer websites, though more on some than on others! In different forms,
they have crept into both the literature and museum collections. For example,
Dal McGuirk’s book, Rommel’s Army in Africa, among the best informed
available, shows what he subsequently recognized and acknowledged to be a
fake Sonderverband 288 cloth patch (McGuirk 1987, colour pl. 23; D. McGuirk
pers. comm.). They are so common indeed that collectors have become quite
sanguine about their proliferation, and consider ‘being stung’ an occupational
hazard, and on their forums spend much time patiently debunking fakes
passed off on the unwary. The fact remains, however, that they represent a
deliberate and massive fraud: on the public, on the material culture record and
on history itself. Though made easier by the digital market, this goes back to
the 1970s, if not earlier, and at the time of writing remains largely un-policed.

Whose Paradigm?
While it is certain that the collecting of Afrikakorps material culture generates
knowledge, it is equally certain that the market in it, a market that depends for
its existence upon the collector, harms the record we have of it. As with the
looting and faking of archaeological material, the injury caused is to the very
things that give the record meaning: integrity and context. Damage is done
by removing material from its source—the veteran—without making a proper
record, by breaking associated groups for individual sale, and by diluting
the record with mistaken inferences drawn from the wrongly ascribed, the
previously unrelated and the out and out fake. The result of this is two-fold:
firstly we can no longer interpret with confidence. Even things of which
we were once confident, such as the identification of desert comouflaged
M35/ 40 helmets as Afrikakorps, we may come to doubt. The second is that
it destroys the emotional link, craved for by the collector, which material
culture gives us to the past.
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 21

In other fields of material culture, similar negative effects have been

enough to damn collectors and the collectors’ market (e.g. Renfrew 1993).
Material culture is only to be collected and studied by those trained and
approved by the academic establishment, while the lay enthusiast is left to
look at it from behind glass.
But who says the academic paradigm is better than the collector’s? The
academic. And just whose heritage is it anyway? Why should members of
the public not own these things? Indeed, is it not possible that their presence
in the community generates more interest and more knowledge than their
curation in museum cellars? The collectors’ forums to which I have referred
to through this essay and the ‘best books’ on Afrikakorps military culture to
which I referred above, are examples of this. And do the minutiae of World
War 2 material culture matter anyway? Who cares if there are a few, or even
a lot of fakes knocking about? In answering these questions I would turn
the last around and ask whether it matters if someone fakes a Piltdown Man
or a Greek red figure vase. For many, the answer to this question is ‘no’.
Nonetheless years both of lay and academic scholarship have been spent on
these things. This is because knowledge and understanding of our past, even
when it has no practical application, is considered interesting, important and
valuable. It enriches us as human beings. And this applies every bit as much
to our knowledge and understanding of Afrikakorps material culture, as it
does to our knowledge and understanding of human evolution and antique
vase painting. It follows therefore that all should be treated in the same way.
If these things differ, it is in what they are valued for.
It is high time that we changed the way we think about fakes. On the one
hand, fakes are part of material culture, generated by and for the culture that
produced them; on the other, they may themselves have intrinsic qualities—
as works of art, for example, rather than as the product of a particular Greek
vase painter or particular period of Greek vase painting. Today’s Afrikakorps
fakes are a part of contemporary material culture and tell us a lot about
ourselves as a culture and should be valued as such. But, like Piltdown Man,
they are without intrinsic value. They are neither works of art nor a part of the
history to which they purport to belong and can bring nothing to life. Indeed,
by compromising the integrity of the material culture belonging to it, they
make this more difficult. Nor can they lead us to a deeper knowledge of that
material culture. These are properties that are possessed only by the real thing.
Finally, we need to ask ourselves whether we should be studying the
Afrikakorps, let alone collecting its material culture at all. It is difficult to
resist Anthony Quayle’s Hauptman Lutz in the 1958 film Ice Cold in Alex
when he says to his British captors after their trek from Tobruk to Alexandria:
‘All against the desert—the greater enemy.’ More of us perhaps can resist
a pair of Afrikakorps shorts. But the theme is the same: war. And even if
this one was indeed ‘without hate’, as it has been represented, there is a
dark side to the Afrikakorps as well, whose stylish uniforms and heraldry
were a part of the Nazi regime’s seductive self presentation, who were a part
22  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

of its aggressive military machine, and who as POWs, were considered to

be recalcitrant Nazis (Fay 1945, 193). Romance and totalitarian aggression:
both are integral to our conception of this period of our past, and if we are
fully to understand this and our relationship to it, we must acknowledge it.

Figure 19
Fake Luftwaffe belt buckle
hand-painted a sand colour and
distressed (continental equiptment
camouflaged by the Luftwaffe for desert
use tended to be sprayed, not
hand-painted: McGuirk 1987, 170).
Photo: Townsend Auctions

Collectors on Faking the Afrikakorps

Prior to submitting this essay for publication I posted a version on both

Academia and ResearchGate, with a link to the latter on the Afrikakorps Forum,
requesting comments. As an interested outsider, rather than a collector, I was
sure that the essay included factual errors, which well-informed collectors
might help me correct. Within a fortnight, the draft on ResearchGate had
been viewed 62 times and downloaded 42, outstripping papers uploaded by
me up to eight months earlier on prehistoric pottery, Neolithic Italy and Easter
Island, while the draft on Academia, to which there was no link on the forum,
had been downloaded 4 times and viewed 23. (As of October 2018, the total
number of ‘reads’ on ResearchGate is 2,780). Clearly, therefore, the topic is of
wide interest. That said, however, only a handful of individuals responded to
my request, four forum members and a collector, not a member of the forum,
who was directed to the essay by a friend ‘who does occasionally look at it’.8
Three reviewers, one (probably) from the British Isles, one from the US
and one from New Zealand, said the essay contained errors, and that I was
not qualified to say what I was saying. For the Briton and the American this
observation extended into to an attack on academic involvement in the study
of Afrikakorps material culture generally and a defence of the pre-existing
collector paradigm:
I […] asked you how many original tropical uniform items do you
have in your collection? In my honest opinion you need to study
many more original and fake German tropical uniform items than
you actually have, as your conclusions will be more accurate
(Commentator 1, Afrikakorps Forum).
You seem to imply that Academia is more knowledgeable &
would somehow improve upon the experienced DAK [Deutsches
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 23

Afrikakorps] collectors on the subject of DAK collecting. There

are just as many fakes in Museums (read — probably more) as
there are in DAK collections. Some of the nicest DAK items have
come out the backdoor of museums into DAK collections around
the world. But this is a common thing, not just DAK items are
going out the backdoor...
The DAK collecting community has done fine, or maybe even
exceptionally well without the PC Academia World’s help for over
70 years. The DAK collectors have tried to preserve the original
integrity of the few remaining original DAK items & making sure
that the excellent fakes of past, present & future are labeled as
such. The PC Academia World would not be as interested in that,
but would have its own agenda, just like you Mike (Commentator
2, Afrikakorps Forum).
DAK collecting and determining fakes is something that takes
more than a lot of books and websites to learn. It takes lots of
‘hands on’ experience & a lifetime of connecting with other
experienced collectors and even then there is still always more to
learn (Commentator 1, Afrikakorps Forum).
There is no need for any academic analytical study paper on
faking German tropical uniforms, insignia and equipment
(Commentator 1, Afrikakorps Forum).
Meanwhile the New Zealander attacked what he perceived as my reliance
on collectors forums, one of which he characterized as, ‘a toxic mix of fact
and fiction, good and bad, and all points between these extremes’, pointing
out that there is more and better information out there if only I would do my
research.
In my opinion, within my areas of expertise and knowledge,
your paper contains a number of serious errors, both of fact and
interpretation of fact, and reveals to anyone knowledgeable in
the subject area of collecting just how little you know about it
(Commentator 3, email to the author).
Serious criticisms indeed.
None of the three, however, was prepared to say what my errors were,
though in the case of both the Briton and the New Zealander, it was clear that
they were not all factual. In particular the Briton was offended by comments
by me, which left open the attribution—real or fake—of Afrikakorps cuff titles
in which the holes in the ‘R’s and the ‘P’ are the same size (see note 7), a
question he felt he had settled once and for all on the Afrikakorps Forum
using what is at best circumstantial evidence. In this he proved my contention
above that at least some collectors ‘lack the detachment and the analytical
skills necessary to distinguish the real from the fake’. (The same reviewer also
took offence at my comments on collectors and collecting generally, which
24  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

he read as a personal attack on himself). More helpfully, the New Zealander

drew my attention two important online reviews (McGuirk 2012a & b) that I
had previously missed, which enabled me to identify and correct a number
of small, but significant factual errors in my original discussion.
Equally serious is a possibility, raised by the American, that in writing
this essay I too was helping the faker.
Thanks for pulling the grommet thread on the DAK Forum,
could’ve lead to too much knowledge for the fakers that are
watching the Forum. The DAK community know what good
grommets are only from experience but the fakers are also
experienced in taking our information and producing excellent
fakes these days. Still the grommets have not been duplicated to
fool collectors yet [...].
I have seen my words used by the fakers directly within days...
(Commentator 2, email to the author).
I would like to see any information or photos that I have given
removed from the essay altogether. Will be much more careful as
to the information given in the future as well.... (Commentator 2,
Afrikakorps Forum)
This of course is an issue of personal philosophy, not scholarship. Some of
us believe in freedom of information and are prepared to pay the price for
it; others of us are prepared to sacrifice freedom in order to avoid paying the
price.
Finally, a view opposite to that of the American was expressed by a
reviewer from France, while a reviewer from Cyprus balanced delicately on
the fence between them:
Your work is really appreciate[d]… (Commentator 4, Afrikakorps
Forum)
This kind of projects are helping the new collectors to spot fakes
but as [the American] said it’s a good guide for the fakers to
correct their mistakes.
On the other hand our public discussions here and in any other
collectors’ forums, are helping both sides again.
No matter what we do it’s always going to be a two-edged sword
(Commentator 5, Afrikakorps Forum).
Though they have left a sour taste in my mouth, it would be purposeless
to comment further on these criticisms except to say that where I was able to
identify factual errors, or where others pointed them out to me, I of course
corrected them. There is nothing more I can do. They are useful, however,
in that they provide examples of collector psychology that relate directly to
the collecting, and by extension the faking of Afrikakorps material culture.
Knowledgeable collectors of Afrikakorps material culture will share, want
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 25

to share their knowledge, but only up to a point and only on their terms.
And this leaves a huge loophole for the faker to exploit. A first task for the
academic in the study of Afrikakorps material culture would be to close this
loophole.

Figure 20
A fantasy object. Authentic World War 2 German bayonet etched “Deutsches Afrika
Korps“. Photo: the Saleroom.

Conclusion

Afrikakorps material culture has been systematically faked. Fakers are

thieves. They steal money from the individual and, in distorting the record
and undermining the emotional link that it provides to the past, they
steal from society as a whole. This is true of the fakers of fossils; it is true
of the fakers of antique vases; and it is true of those engaged in faking the
Afrikakorps.
To date the study of Afrikakorps material culture has been left to
collectors alone. Not that in this case their work lacks merit—far from
it. This essay is a testament to its usefulness. But like other parts of our
material culture heritage, Afrikakorps material culture is a finite resource,
its living context—the veterans who brought it back from the war—
on the verge of disappearance, and both it and this should be properly
recorded; and collectors are not always sufficiently detached or sufficiently
well-trained to do this. This weakness has encouraged and sometimes
facilitated the faker. Guilt, however, lies squarely with the faker, not with his
or her victim.
The past, even a difficult one such as that represented by the Afrikakorps,
belongs to us all. For this reason academia must play a part in its preservation
and study; but in so doing, it must address the proprietorial, theoretical and
moral issues that surround it, and instead of pariahizing the members and
knowledge of the collecting community, as it has in other fields of material
culture research, it would be well advised—albeit cautiously—to embrace it.
26  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

Acknowledgements
I could not have written this essay without the help of members of the
Afrikakorps Forum and without access to the many pictures posted on it. I would
also like to thank the five anonymous reviewers referred to above for their
comments, and Allan Jeffreys of the Imperial War Museum for providing access
to Afrikakorps and related material culture in the collections of the Imperial
War Museum, London. The opinions expressed here are of course my own.

Notes
1
http://afrikakorps.forumcrea.com/
2
http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/
3
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/index.php
4
http://www.virtualgrenadier.com/
5
I am indebted to a member of the Afrikakorps Forum for the upper figure suggested here.
6
Woven on a Jacquard loom.
7
Unprovenanced tan backed variants of the Afrikakorps cuff title in the Imperial War
Museum collection (cat. nos INS20604 and INS23447) have narrow ‘A’s, thin cabling
and long and short ‘S’. Neither has the same sized holes in the ‘R’s and ‘P’, the diamond
shape to the back of the ‘O’ or tartan backs to the letters. The museum also has four olive
backed ones, including two with good veteran provenances (INS7130 and 7131). These
are identical to the authentic cuff title shown except for one (INS20602), which has a
rounder hole in the ‘O’. I have yet to see a variant with the same size holes in the ‘R’s and
‘P’s with a verifiable veteran provenance or period applied to a tunic and am uncertain
of their aurthenticity. According to the Afrikakorps Forum, it ‘has always been acceptable
among knowledgeable AKCT collectors. Someone with little experience in AKCT’s labeled
this variation a fake years ago & got this myth started... the construction & materials match
other known originals exactly.’ The ‘tartan weave’ or ‘diamond back’ fake is perhaps copied
from the tan backed variant with a long ‘S’.
8
The comments posted on the Afrikakorps Forum were subsequently removed.

Abstract
Almost every day on eBay there is an Afrikakorps fake for sale. These
include everything necessary to equip and Afrikakorps soldier and range
from genuine continental and later tropical items, described as Afrikakorps,
through reproductions, which were not originally intended to deceive, but
later passed off as real, to out and out fakes—non-tropical items modified to
make them look tropical and reproductions modified to deceive or intended
to deceive from the start. All of these are common on the market; and all
have crept into collections, onto online collectors’ forums, into the literature,
and even museum collections as the real thing. This essay considers their
nature, the purpose behind them, the methods used by fakers to purvey them,
how to distinguish them from the real thing (and visa versa), and how it is,
given the wide knowledge of the collecting community and the free availability
of this online, that they continue to circulate and fool. It also considers their
wider implications for the understanding of World War 2 material culture.
The faking of Afrikakorps material culture is undermining both our record
 FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 27

of the period of the past to which it belongs and the emotional link that it
provides to this. As with other categories of faked material culture, collectors
are complicit in the trade, albeit unintentionally, and while their contribution
to the study of Afrikakorps material culture is applauded, it is suggested that
its study should not be left to them alone.

References

BENDER, R. & LAW, R. 1973. Uniforms, Organization and History of the

Afrikakorps. Mountain View, CA: R.J. Bender.
BIERMAN, J. & SMITH, C. 2002. Alamein: War without Hate. London:
Viking.
CHURCHILL, W. 1950. The Grand Alliance. London: Cassell.
COWDERY, R. 1982. Nazi Buckles: Psychology and the Fighting Spirit.
Lakeville, MN: Northstar.
FAY, E. 2011. Virtual artifacts: eBay, antiquities, and authenticity, Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(4), 449–64.
FAY, S. 1945. German Prisoners of War, Current History 8(43), 193–200.
FISHER, D. 2011. Afrika Korps. Military Mode.
HASTINGS, M. & JENKINS, S. 1983. The Battle for the Falklands. London:
Michael Joseph.
KURTZ, R. 2004. Afrikakorps. Tropical Uniforms, Insignia and Equipment of
the German Soldier in World War II. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History.
LIDDELL-HART, B. 1953. Introduction, in The Rommel Papers. New York:
Harcourt Brace & Co.
MUENSTERBERGER, W. 1994. Collecting: an Unruly Passion —
Psychological Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace & Co.
McGUIRK, D. 1987. Rommel’s Army in Africa. London: Stanley Paul & Co.
McGUIRK, D. 2014a. The German Army Tropical Field Cap 1940-1941,
and associated topics, Wehrmacht Awards Forum. http://www.wehrmacht-
awards.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6587454&postcount=2 [Accessed
10th October, 2018].
McGUIRK, D. 2014b. A historical snapshot, Wehrmacht Awards
Forum. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showpost.
php?p=6587503&postcount=2 [Accessed 10th October, 2018].
RENFREW, C. 1993. Collectors are the real looters, Archaeology 46(3),
16–17.
ROTTMAN, G. & VOLSTAD, R. 1991. German Combat Equipments 1939–
45. Oxford: Osprey.
28  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

SEAGER THOMAS, M. 2018. Charisma, fakes and the material culture

record of the Afrikakorps, Artefact Services Research Papers 7. https://
archive.org/details/ASRP7CharismaTheAfrikakorps2018 [Accessed 10th
October, 2018].
SEAGER THOMAS, M. 2019 (forthcoming). The Afrikamütze database: a
guide to the identification, context and interpretation of the German Army
tropical field cap, 1940–43, Artefact Services Research Papers 8.
YOUNG, D. 1950. Rommel. London: Collins.
FAKING THE AFRIKAKORPS 29
 30  MIKE SEAGER THOMAS

View publication stats