Third Party Press

Personalized German Camo Helmet - opinions

bruce98k

Super Over the Top Moderator -1/2
Staff member
In a collection I looked at yesterday.
GI painted adler is interesting.
 

Attachments

  • 20250127_150330.jpg
    20250127_150330.jpg
    313 KB · Views: 97
  • 20250127_150341.jpg
    20250127_150341.jpg
    282.1 KB · Views: 96
  • 20250127_150352.jpg
    20250127_150352.jpg
    325.7 KB · Views: 92
  • 20250127_150404.jpg
    20250127_150404.jpg
    287.4 KB · Views: 84
  • 20250127_150410.jpg
    20250127_150410.jpg
    227.8 KB · Views: 87
  • 20250127_150431.jpg
    20250127_150431.jpg
    167.7 KB · Views: 89
  • 20250127_150457.jpg
    20250127_150457.jpg
    386 KB · Views: 94
  • Wow
Reactions: Jdt
Not sure what he means by 'early type heavy" unless he is just describing all helmets as heavy and just the M40 pattern as earlier. I would question a helmet getting picked up in Africa but being painted with 2 tone green and tan, then with a Normandy Campaign inscription painted on it. Not to mention the 29th Infantry division never deployed to Africa, only Europe. I have no comment on the paint itself but the liner drawstring looks replaced and the story sure doesn't add up.
 
Why are so many "camo" helmets also named? With such wonderful hand writing also.

GI hand writing sure is nice also. I'm not crazy about it.
 
The whole thing seems contrived. The 'provenance' tag misdirects on purpose. I also don't find a Chas. or Charles Kopel. Perhaps C is a middle initial is possible? Even if the name pops up I still wouldn't buy this as a legit 'bring back' item.
 
One I'd love to see in hand. there seems to be a large amount of 29th div. vet art helmets more than seems one would normally see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jdt
Why are so many "camo" helmets also named? With such wonderful hand writing also.

GI hand writing sure is nice also. I'm not crazy about it.
You are starting to ask some uncomfortable questions MD. That could get you some ME time standing in the corner wearing a dunce cap on some forums.

One thing I have contemplated about these is that based on the many original helmets I have seen over the decades, restorers often go 'overboard' during their 'restorations'. In other words, a quick overspray is often not enough. One must have exotic texture added (re: sand/woodchips) and mutil colors, and exotic patters, and net/wire ghosting or net wire added. Once all of this is done, the next logical thing to do is to add name/unit/post# information to top it all off.

Dealers often say things like "This one has it all !! " Damn ! I guess I had better shell out 10 Gs for it.
 
How about if someone takes a measured approach to expand on what's wrong with this helmet.
The tag is obviously wrong but I am guessing that the writer had no clue.

I am sure that many helmets were embellished but why not start from the base helmet and work out from there.

When we call out a bad gun we go through various indicators as to why.
 
As I said its definitely one I'd like to see in hand. If offered to me with just these photos Id need to see more and go from there. If I was forced to buy at a high cost Id pass out of cautiousness. If cheap enough and felt, I wasnt being baited I'd take the chance. More things I like about it than I don't. My comment about the 29th div vet art helmets is , there is a very lopsided amount of these based off other units. For a unit that's so scarce to even find an Ike jacket of this unit rare, Then seeing so many of these is throwing up red flags. This covers all of them not just this one. I have never seen one done in this manner though. This really means nothing. The whole why would a faker do this with the odd ball chicken ? There doesn't have to be a reason son.

Im typing this fast so I hope it makes sense to some with similar mental issues... :ROFLMAO: :cool: :sneaky:
 
How about if someone takes a measured approach to expand on what's wrong with this helmet.
The tag is obviously wrong but I am guessing that the writer had no clue.

I am sure that many helmets were embellished but why not start from the base helmet and work out from there.

When we call out a bad gun we go through various indicators as to why.
For one, there is absolutely no combat wear on this camo that I can see other than a bit of shelf wear. Look closely at the condition of the paint on the top of the crown. Pristine condition. That tells me that the helmet was camoed, aged, etc.. then after drying was 'Vet modified'.

Most camo helmets were front line helmets, seeing some of the most intense wear. Original examples have been seen with essentially all of the camo paint on the crown worn off from use (also period photos).

A scenario for this helmet, for example, would be the Nauzi trooper camoed his helmet and then after drying handed it to the Allied trooper who then modified it. Quite a stretch IMO.
 

Attachments

  • snow camo field wear.jpg
    snow camo field wear.jpg
    145.3 KB · Views: 11
There is a definite lack of wear to the paint. Especially commonly heavily worn on the dome. I don’t hate it, there are camos with little wear. Like Wayne said, would need a good in hand.

It’s different than a rifle.

The helmet shell is real, liner you can inspect the pins for original bending etc, and make sure liner and leather all jive and correct to shell. But seldom do we argue if a camo paint on a 98k is original, or a painted name. It’s just so different and sometime cannot me proven.
 
Mike is spot on...the collecting of legit helmets, even to a simple single decal Army is just stupid, driven by greed and profit.
It's just sad all the way around. To put the enormous amount of scrutiny trying to vet these is just insane.

But any aspect of our hobby that becomes expensive brings on opportunists, not just headgear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdt
The truth is fakers have ruined helmet collecting and this helmet (and the comments) illustrate that perfectly.
I'll never buy a German helmet, its just not worth it for the amount of scrutiny and knowledge needed, especially with how good painters have gotten. Id need all the years spent here on the forum learning K98's and years spent on field gear combined just to have a 50/50 chance of not getting shafted on a basic helmet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdt
A lot of good points here, but your pic shows a worn example and a pristine one. I would was to look at this one in hand. Pix are hard for me with camo because of the wide variation in lighting and photography skills.

For one, there is absolutely no combat wear on this camo that I can see other than a bit of shelf wear. Look closely at the condition of the paint on the top of the crown. Pristine condition. That tells me that the helmet was camoed, aged, etc.. then after drying was 'Vet modified'.

Most camo helmets were front line helmets, seeing some of the most intense wear. Original examples have been seen with essentially all of the camo paint on the crown worn off from use (also period photos).

A scenario for this helmet, for example, would be the Nauzi trooper camoed his helmet and then after drying handed it to the Allied trooper who then modified it. Quite a stretch IMO.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top