DougB exposes "Champagne Rune" SS Decal Fraud and Adds a Coffin Nail to XRFacts

SE M40 DD SS

According to research, the SE factory never made SS helmets. The DD SS SE M40 that Doug is referring to in Hicks p.158-159 appears to be a blue gray former Luftwaffe helmet.
page 257 and 258 of SS-Steel shows photos of this same helmet (although a bit washed out).

"This party shield was added after the helmet was issued, and even shows some sanding preparation to the paint surface prior to application. Such an unusual helmet was possibly worn in a concentration camp." (K. Hicks)

These WAF posts were back in 2010 when everything was original. No mention is made of the blue-gray color or that fact that there are sanding marks where the Luftwaffe decal once resided.
 

Attachments

  • SE SS M40.png
    SE SS M40.png
    114.5 KB · Views: 39
  • SE SS M40 II.png
    SE SS M40 II.png
    114.1 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:
M45 said:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416906&highlight="GOLD+STANDARD"&page=2

WAF: SOS XRFacts Presentation

This screenshot is discussing XRFacts, but Doug makes the comment about magnification.
Click to expand...

Glenn McInnes is the WAFmod who decided that XRFacts was the "savior of the hobby" and thus, the waftard party line, with high post count members such as " Nutmeg " recommending that XRFacts was such a savior that it be used for uniforms, insignia, other helmets, etc. Critics and their opinions were purged. I have no doubt that the waf "conventional wisdom" on the Champagne Rune was similarly "vetted".

I never followed the Champagne Rune discussions there as I have no real collecting interest in SS helmets and I know that sect of the hobby has, IMHO, been corrupted for a long time. Accordingly, IMHO, and due to the censorship at WAF, that discussion was to me more interference and misinformation to protect "big wig" interests than an actual objective discussion.

So, thank you for excerpting it here as the end of this will certainly involve a review of what the people involved were representing. It is good to preserve this for the record.
 
M45 said:
hkp M42 SD SS Champagne with COA
Click to expand...

tjg79 said:
Well, if Kelly says it's good, then I'll pay your asking price.
Click to expand...

M45, thank you for uploading that COA. It is important to this discussion legally.

The Hicks COA sets forth that it is a lifetime guarantee of authenticity for the "bearer". It is thus equivalent contractually to "bearer paper". This means that whomever has it with the helmet is entitled to a refund if the rune decal is shown fake. I wonder how many COA's like this Kelly Hicks has out there for "Champagne Rune" helmets? Hicks is a stalhelm demi-god at WAF, particularly among the SS lid krewe. At $3000-5000+ a pop, there could be some significant refund liability for Hicks created by these revelations and the proof provided by DougB.
 
tjg79 said:
I've seen several in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

As soon as DougB posts the proof, the owners of these helmets and holders of these COAs need to then put copies of the printed out DougB postings along with the COA in a certified letter to Hicks demanding refund. Those who move the quickest are those who should get refunded quickest.
 
Hambone said:
As soon as DougB posts the proof, the owners of these helmets and holders of these COAs need to then put copies of the printed out DougB postings along with the COA in a certified letter to Hicks demanding refund. Those who move the quickest are those who should get refunded quickest.
Click to expand...

Hambone, correct me if I'm wrong, but sellers could simply insist on the helmet's originality and refuse a refund. If buyers go to the Better Business Bureau with Doug B.s claims, BBB will just say it's a matter of 'he-said, she-said' and refuse to get involved. However, if an independent lab is hired to determine that C-SS are painted on and not a celluloid decal like known originals, this might be a game-changer.
 
Anything can happen if it ultimately ends up in court, but I don't think that would happen. If this issue, that C SS lids have post war painted shields, becomes well established, then I don't think any seller issuing a "lifetime guarantee" as to authenticity would add unnecessary out of pocket costs by fighting a claim. These C SS lids have been on thin ice for some time. I'm surprised that they were ever accepted by the various SS lid gurus. Doug B's new evidence should break that thin ice of support for all time.

I will add that the wording of that COA appears to be crafted by a buffoon. As one experienced with issuing professional opinions on various engineering matters, the language of that COA should have been crafted to anticipate new information or evidence contrary to what was known at that time. For his sake, I hope he has errors and omissions coverage.
 
Last edited:
M45 said:
hkp M42 SD SS Champagne with COA
Click to expand...

As part of the certificate, to prove its real, he cites himself as a source of his opinion. He wrote the three books that were cited. My limited time in the academic world cringes at that, self citation.

However I guess. He and his buyers were okay with it.
 
nirvana said:
As part of the certificate, to prove its real, he cites himself as a source of his opinion. He wrote the three books that were cited. My limited time in the academic world cringes at that, self citation.

However I guess. He and his buyers were okay with it.
Click to expand...

I noticed that as well. Although, he's just a co-author on one of his three cited sources. Cringe worthy indeed!

Perhaps there aren't many published sources that lavish praise on C SS lids.
 
M45 said:
Hambone, correct me if I'm wrong, but sellers could simply insist on the helmet's originality and refuse a refund. If buyers go to the Better Business Bureau with Doug B.s claims, BBB will just say it's a matter of 'he-said, she-said' and refuse to get involved. However, if an independent lab is hired to determine that C-SS are painted on and not a celluloid decal like known originals, this might be a game-changer.
Click to expand...

The BBB is pretty silly and of little value really, except for the value the BBB derives from its existence and fees. The facts and trajectory of this thing are strongly indicating that an independent lab won't be necessary. I know of no sane person who believes that the SS spray painted runes on their helmets with a template to look like decals. Litigation would be beneficial in possibly exposing the background of all of this, which is probably why we won't see litigation.

Depending on the controlling law and jurisdiction, attorney fees and costs may or may not be allowed. The assessment of the "COA" and guarantee is a legal matter, not an engineering matter. The Hicks COA is as it should be to be a valid COA. Indeed, only a buffoon would want a COA which provided any less and only a huckster would provide a COA with any less, viz., something lawyered into being meaningless. So, Hicks gets much credit for issuing substantive COAs which actually provide what a COA is supposed to provide. However, just like a check, promissory note, or any other guarantee, it's value lies in the person or entity backing it.
 
The silly thing about these lid COAs is that anyone would issue one based solely on a visual inspection with a lifetime guarantee. Hicks has indicated in the past that some fakes are indistinguishable from legit lids. That's why they needed the ray-gun for an added margin of confidence. If one fact is certain in my mind, it's that these SS lid gurus don't really know what's original. It's just opinion. M45 has indicated that upwards of 2/3s are fake. In my opinion, the only legit COAs are ones issued by the manufacturer and serial numbered to the product. You either have big balls or you're foolish to issue a lifetime guarantee as to the authenticity of an item at least five decades old and that has such a long history of being faked as much as SS items. They should at least change the wording to indicate opinion of authenticity, OOA, or certificate of opinion of authenticity, CoOoA.
 
As long as the COA has a photograph. A clear photograph of the helmet is essentially a serial number in the sense that each lid has unique scratches, dings and so on, like a fingerprint or DNA that can be matched to the actual piece that was authenticated.
 
tjg79 said:
The silly thing about these lid COAs is that anyone would issue one based solely on a visual inspection with a lifetime guarantee. Hicks has indicated in the past that some fakes are indistinguishable from legit lids. That's why they needed the ray-gun for an added margin of confidence. If one fact is certain in my mind, it's that these SS lid gurus don't really know what's original. It's just opinion. M45 has indicated that upwards of 2/3s are fake. In my opinion, the only legit COAs are ones issued by the manufacturer and serial numbered to the product. You either have big balls or you're foolish to issue a lifetime guarantee as to the authenticity of an item at least five decades old and that has such a long history of being faked as much as SS items. They should at least change the wording to indicate opinion of authenticity, OOA, or certificate of opinion of authenticity, CoOoA.
Click to expand...

You're essentially addressing all of the issues which we are discussing in your analysis above. The COA, a real one, is what drives the demand and price paid by those who do not know. They can go to sleep every night feeling warm and fuzzy after looking at their $5k Champagne decal knowing their SS lid guru blessed it in writing, with a picture too! The market is (was) driven upward by this small group of gurus and COAs which are the last word. XRFacts was merely an extension of the gurus' reach and expansion of their guru voodoo because it allowed them to institutionalize and formalize their blessings with ray gun "science". Their pronouncements were the XRFacts' "data baselines". The gurus are also why WAF fell in behind it and did not allow criticism of the "science" or their bigwig gurus. In fact, the WAFmods proclaimed it "savior of the hobby".

The SS Champagne decal derived artificial value as a result of the guru blessings and WAF maintained that mystique and the trafficking in these Champagne SS decal lids made some people much much money. Control and direct the information, formally or informally, directly or obliquely and you control the market. Who is going to contradict the COA of the guru under such circumstances? Who is the best expert to opine on the originality of the Champagne decal other than the guru who verified it? If there was no alternative website other than WAF where would this be discussed and where would the reveal take place? What is occurring here is the outlier that the bigwigs did not reckon would occur. What mere mortal would contest the guru? What venue would allow such an insolent mortal to express such an opinion?
 
Last edited:
M45 said:
As long as the COA has a photograph. A clear photograph of the helmet is essentially a serial number in the sense that each lid has unique scratches, dings and so on, like a fingerprint or DNA that can be matched to the actual piece that was authenticated.
Click to expand...

Well then, Hicks will likely have the best collection of C SS lids, once they start coming home.
 
Hambone said:
You're essentially addressing all of the issues which we are discussing in your analysis above. The COA, a real one, is what drives the demand and price paid by those who do not know. It's a lifetime blessing of authenticity by your SS lid dealer-guru. The market is driven upward by this small group of gurus and COAs which are the last word. XRFacts was merely an extension of the gurus' reach and expansion of their guru voodoo because it allowed them to institutionalize and formalize their blessings with ray gun "science". Their pronouncements were the XRFacts' "data baselines". The gurus are also why WAF fell in behind it and did not allow criticism of the "science" or their bigwig gurus. In fact, the WAFmods proclaimed it "savior of the hobby".

The SS Champagne decal derived artificial value as a result of the guru blessings and WAF maintained that mystique and the trafficking in these Champagne SS decal lids made some people much much money. Control and direct the information, formally or informally, directly or obliquely and you control the market. Who is going to contradict the COA of the guru under such circumstances? Who is the best expert to opine on the originality of the Champagne decal other than the guru who verified it? If there was no alternative website other than WAF where would this be discussed and where would the reveal take place? What is occurring here is the outlier that the bigwigs did not reckon would occur.
Click to expand...

Intellectually, I could never grasp a lid dealer COA. They are essentially making a guess based on their experience. That shouldn't be confused with a professional opinion where unknowns are detailed.
 
tjg79 said:
Well then, Hicks will likely have the best collection of C SS lids, once they start coming home.
Click to expand...

Beats Beanie Babies. Nobody re-enacts Beanie Babies and the components of a Beanie Baby are pretty worthless.
 
tjg79 said:
Intellectually, I could never grasp a lid dealer COA. They are essentially making a guess based on their experience. That shouldn't be confused with a professional opinion where unknowns are detailed.
Click to expand...

It's a marketing thing as you know. Most people will pay more for something guaranteed original by a COA. Most people will pay more for something from someone who knows or at least stands behind his wares. I have helmets with COAs, and it adds some to the value for me, for resale, though for me the COA is incidental (I would have bought it anyway). Most people can see when a COA is a bunch of hogwash versus one which is substantive. Hicks' COA is substantive. While this works great for getting high retail for a SS lid, there is also the potential to get bit, as seems to be happening here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top