Stetson Sweat Stamps/ LOT **XX

[jlee562]

Far from being a far reach for certainty, it's just the opposite- it's the closest thing to certainty.

Not really, no.

As long as we are wildly theorizing, it's equally possible Stetson sold components.

Add me to the skeptics list. There certainly are things accepted as general wisdom without 100% verifiable proof, but there's not enough here for me to say that this is one of them. More research needed.

 

[MikeinRome]

Not really, no.

As long as we are wildly theorizing, it's equally possible Stetson sold components.

Add me to the skeptics list. There certainly are things accepted as general wisdom without 100% verifiable proof, but there's not enough here for me to say that this is one of them. More research needed.

This is just another attempt to explain away the evidence staring you in the face. Or that's how it seems to me.

 

[jlee562]

This is just another attempt to explain away the evidence staring you in the face. Or that's how it seems to me.

Why is my explanation less logical than yours? Please, detail the evidence as to why it is more likely that the whole hat was manufactured rather than just the sweatband. If you can't show that your claim is more likely than mine, we should not consider it as such. Both are possible explanations for the appearance of lot numbers in non Stetson hats. For that matter, it's also possible the lot number originates from a supplier. Stetson had to get the leather from somewhere. Proving something is true also involves disproving alternative explanations. You simply have not done that, you hand wave it away and pretend we're the ones being irrational.

Your "evidence" is just your hunch. Actual evidence would be Stetson manufacturer tags. Why would they use the same identification system on just the sweatbands and not other parts of the hat? Actual evidence would be documentation showing hats ordered or hats shipped.

 

[MikeinRome]

Why is my explanation less logical than yours? Please, detail the evidence as to why it is more likely that the whole hat was manufactured rather than just the sweatband. If you can't show that your claim is more likely than mine, we should not consider it as such. Both are possible explanations for the appearance of lot numbers in non Stetson hats. For that matter, it's also possible the lot number originates from a supplier. Stetson had to get the leather from somewhere. Proving something is true also involves disproving alternative explanations. You simply have not done that, you hand wave it away and pretend we're the ones being irrational.

Your "evidence" is just your hunch. Actual evidence would be Stetson manufacturer tags. Why would they use the same identification system on just the sweatbands and not other parts of the hat? Actual evidence would be documentation showing hats ordered or hats shipped.

I started to add to my reply to you that it was going to be my final remark on this topic. And so it is. It's a waste of time, I can clearly see.

 

[RossRYoung]

Well said Jared.

This is not the first, and most certainly won’t be the last of the unsubstantiated claims. I’d even go as far as saying is ruining the credibility of all the work done before. At least for those not willing to dig deep enough through the old posts and threads.

 

[Bamaboots]

"evidence"

This. This is all anyone has asked for. I’ve gone over that hat, sweat , lot number and all related posts ad nauseam. Now granted, my entire career revolved around evidence and perhaps I’m jaded or even cynical at times but all I’ve seen is a lot number that looks like the one on Stetson hats from a certain era. Maybe it’s exactly the same, I don’t know. Even if it is, the gap from lot # to Stetson is so wide that such assumptions never occur to me. And the thought that someone with nothing more to offer as evidence would be so insistent, occurs to me even less.

@RossRYoung. I don’t think there is any doubt in what you say.

 

[Just Daniel]

I think you guys are right - it is one piece of evidence.

I am on the Lounge less and less, so for me just as important is to see that opinions are expressed well and politely.

Thanks for being mostly patient and kind.

Well said Jared.

This is not the first, and most certainly won’t be the last of the unsubstantiated claims. I’d even go as far as saying is ruining the credibility of all the work done before. At least for those not willing to dig deep enough through the old posts and threads.

 

[MikeinRome]

Stetson Boss Raw Edge, The Fray. Lot Number 3739, indicates hat made about 1915-16. See pages 9 and 12 for 2 other hats from this period.

 

[MikeinRome]

Stetson Number 1 Quality, BOP style hat. Has 2 3/4 inch brim and about 4 5/8 inch open crown. Lot Number 6086. The leather hatband says "Stanford 28", which I interpret as 1928. I'm also posting this hat on the Boss of the Plains thread. So I think this hat was made in 1927 or 1928. This helps me a lot to confirm the estimated dates for some of my other hats.

 

[Randall Renshaw]

Always great to find a dated Stetson, or supplier, factory stamp to corroborate, or corrode Lot Number dating.
Here’s a 7 3/8 bowler I’ve had a good while but never bothered looking at the lot number and labels till tonight.
Appears to be dated 1911. A good year for Colt semi-auto ******s and KJV Bibles as well.
The Lot # seems to be 16something9?
Sweat’s in great condition and so is the hat, though missing its faux sweat bow.

And here’s a recent BRE acquisition that had a bit of provenance that this hat was bought in 1916 with a 3 number Lot#.

 

[MikeinRome]

A Lot Number of 768 seems more like around 1906 to me, instead of 1916. Approximate manufacturing date versus supposed purchase date.

 

[Just Daniel]

I’ve got a bowler posted back there on page 16 with Lot #1582, dated 1909. That seems like a pretty good match with yours.


Always great to find a dated Stetson, or supplier, factory stamp to corroborate, or corrode Lot Number dating.

Here’s a 7 3/8 bowler I’ve had a good while but never bothered looking at the lot number and labels till tonight.
Appears to be dated 1911. A good year for Colt semi-auto ******s and KJV Bibles as well.
The Lot # seems to be 16something9?
Sweat’s in great condition and so is the hat, though missing its faux sweat bow. View attachment 733253 View attachment 733254 View attachment 733255 View attachment 733256
And here’s a recent BRE acquisition that had a bit of provenance that this hat was bought in 1916 with a 3 number Lot#.
View attachment 733261 View attachment 733260 View attachment 733263
View attachment 733265

 

[Randall Renshaw]

I’ve got a bowler posted back there on page 16 with Lot #1582, dated 1909. That seems like a pretty good match with yours.


Always great to find a dated Stetson, or supplier, factory stamp to corroborate, or corrode Lot Number dating.

Thanks, Daniel, for sharing info.
Yes they do seem to be in line with each other. But what about my BRE that’s dated 1916 having a 3 digit Lot# ?
Do you think maybe stiff hats were on a different sequence and numbered separately than soft? The reset theory?
Who can really know?…

I’d like to think there’s something to the Lot numbers, and it seems there is, to a degree. But heck, mystery is a spice adding flavor to vintage hat collecting.

 

[Rmccamey]

A Fray stamp with an actual date! A lot of good history in that old hat. Great find, Randall.

Always great to find a dated Stetson, or supplier, factory stamp to corroborate, or corrode Lot Number dating.
Here’s a 7 3/8 bowler I’ve had a good while but never bothered looking at the lot number and labels till tonight.
Appears to be dated 1911. A good year for Colt semi-auto ******s and KJV Bibles as well.
The Lot # seems to be 16something9?
Sweat’s in great condition and so is the hat, though missing its faux sweat bow. View attachment 733253 View attachment 733254 View attachment 733255 View attachment 733256
And here’s a recent BRE acquisition that had a bit of provenance that this hat was bought in 1916 with a 3 number Lot#.
View attachment 733261 View attachment 733260 View attachment 733263
View attachment 733265

 

[Randall Renshaw]

A Fray stamp with an actual date! A lot of good history in that old hat. Great find, Randall.

I’m sorry, Randy, but I must’ve been confusing with my post, the hat with the date stamp is a 1911 bowler. The Fray hat is the 1916 BRE. It’s not dated, but had a bit of believable provenance stating it’s from that year. And all the dating clues line up with that decade.

 

[Rmccamey]

I'll have to read more carefully next time. Both great hats.

I’m sorry, Randy, but I must’ve been confusing with my post, the hat with the date stamp is a 1911 bowler. The Fray hat is the 1916 BRE. It’s not dated, but had a bit of believable provenance stating it’s from that year. And all the dating clues line up with that decade.

 

[MikeinRome]

Pre-WWI Marshall Fields & Co w/ Stetson Lot #5442

That's a 1920's hat, not pre- WW1.

 

[MikeinRome]

My Gene Autry signed Stetson Number 1 Quality dated August 15, 1941 by Autry. Lot Number 7686. The hat was brand new, meaning just purchased, when he signed it.

 

[MikeinRome]

Mid 1920's Chamois brand hat made by Stetson. Lot Number 5481. The Chamois mfg tag is basically identical to a Stetson tag and the serial number is also on the sweatband. This hat was in an eBay auction earlier today. The seller dated it from the 1890's to 1910's, but I can't agree.

 

[MikeinRome]

Mid 1920's Chamois brand hat made by Stetson. Lot Number 5481. The Chamois mfg tag is basically identical to a Stetson tag and the serial number is also on the sweatband. This hat was in an eBay auction earlier today. The seller dated it from the 1890's to 1910's, but I can't agree.

I had forgotten that Chamois hats are listed in the 1922 Stetson price list, with the notation that they don't bear the Stetson name. They call them Chamois Quality, not Chamois brand.