tjg79
Senior Member
That is almost inconceivable. Some of these lid collectors have more money than brains.
DougB exposes "Champagne Rune" SS Decal Fraud and Adds a Coffin Nail to XRFacts
- Thread starter Hambone
- Start date
That is almost inconceivable. Some of these lid collectors have more money than brains.
What a mess this helmet collecting is. Reading that thread just makes me mad. A guy exposes the truth and fellow members (who consider themselves experts!) execute him. What a bunch of idiots. I hope they are all stuck with fake $7500 SS helmets that they have to eat. What a crappy forum Wehrmacht-awards is. I'm just glad I got guys like Ham, Mrfarb, M45 and Dave Roberts here. Thank you for your hard work here. Keep it up.
Air brush overspray was said to be "scuff marks." Scuffs spray droplets of black paint? Asking why the swastika was off center is laughable. God....
Last edited:
M45
Well-known member
Walter B. is wise indeed. I'm almost surprised he was not banned for his strong opinions.
"What a shameful chapter in the history of our hobby, perhaps one of the largest and longest living frauds in our collecting history."
"I would personally advise every member of this forum to refrain from making any specific allegations or accusations against any person."
"What a shameful chapter in the history of our hobby, perhaps one of the largest and longest living frauds in our collecting history."
"I would personally advise every member of this forum to refrain from making any specific allegations or accusations against any person."
Attachments
tjg79
Senior Member
If they would have used XRF to match the paint, they would've known it was overspray and not "scuff marks," but the XRF would have told them it was original Nazi "overspray."
M45
Well-known member
It's interesting to go back and see how people reacted to C-SS. Here are some posts by Deathshead.
A C-SS M42 was posted and at first DH had suspicions.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194348&highlight=clean+ss
Then some big names are dropped and DH acquiesces.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194348&highlight=clean+ss&page=2
Now that C-SS is fully exposed, DH says he never believed in C-SS.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=834155
A C-SS M42 was posted and at first DH had suspicions.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194348&highlight=clean+ss
Then some big names are dropped and DH acquiesces.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194348&highlight=clean+ss&page=2
Now that C-SS is fully exposed, DH says he never believed in C-SS.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=834155
Attachments
Last edited:
tjg79
Senior Member
Walter B has many good posts questioning the legitimacy of the C SS lid. As I mentioned earlier, Doug B's dissertation effectively ties a number of reported observations together in one thread and adds some very good high magnification pics at 200x/400x with commentary explaining what the images represent. The effect is a very persuasive presentation that shows these C SS lids are post-war fabrications done with templates and painted with an air brush. The examples Doug B presents can be used as a guide to inspect other C SS lids. The C SS lid is dead as a high dollar collectable to those in the know unless someone can present an example that doesn't fit the description detailed by Doug B. I don't think such an example can be found, because Doug B uses a few examples that are reported to be the earliest known examples.
Last edited:
tjg79
Senior Member
I think the next big red clown shoe to drop will be the highly anticipated Hicks "lengthy essay" that proves these C SS lids are legit. Let us know when he starts his high dollar subscription to HamFacts: "Provenance through Magic."
tjg79
Senior Member
It appears from the following quote that Doug B was waftarded back then in March 2012.
DougB @WAF said:
The thread starter's C SS "spray job" example that Doug B is commenting on in the above quote as a legit example is used in his current dissertation to show that it's a fake example typical of a template "spray job." I think this shows a point in time of Doug B's evolution from C SS supporter to C SS doubter. We all have a learning curve. It's a good example of how bias can affect judgment and inspire rationalization.
Last edited:
tjg79
Senior Member
I think you are correct. In the thread quoted by Hambone, they, the waftarded crew, Doug B included, are looking at a C SS "spray job" and ridiculing the thread starter for questioning a "one looker" up for sale by a respected collector circa 2012. The full weight of the mounting evidence against the C SS lid hadn't been absorbed by all. Your lot number study was influencing the notion that these C SS lids are fakes just as some collectors were questioning them from the beginning. The C SS criticism hadn't coalesced yet, but non-dismissible evidence was mounting. I think the lot number study forced an unbiased reevaluation of these "controversial" lids.
Last edited:
Well that would mean a three legged clown, which makes perfect sense in WAFworld where an SS airbrushed art lid sells for $24k and people are publicly excoriated for asking intelligent questions and being right. Please note that HamFacts' Provenance through Magic and the all new Provenance Because I Say So will, for a much larger fee, re-legitimize Champagne Rune helmets. Think of it as a cross between money laundering and exorcism.
tjg79
Senior Member
What's interesting to think about is how the Hicks COAs would be implemented to exercise the bearer's lifetime guarantee. If Hicks sold a particular C SS lid with Hicks COA, and it subsequently changed hands multiple times, each with a significant increase in sale price, from say a $6k lid to a $24k lid, is Hicks liable for the last sale price of $24k or must the lid reverse it's ownership back down the chain of custody recovering each sale until it returns home to Hicks? What if Hicks didn't sell the lid with a COA, but only sold his authentication service and issued a COA based on a fee? If that's the case, his liabilities could skyrocket. You don't want to be that guy!
For all we know, Hicks could have lawyered up and with the advice of counsel, will remain silent until a Hicks COA bearer sends a demand letter or otherwise files a complaint in a particular jurisdiction. We don't know how many Hicks C SS lid COAs are active out there. If I were Hicks, I'd go underground, take down the website, put everything in my wife's name, and get an unlisted phone number and wait, for the rest of my life, for a Hicks COA bearer to file a complaint.
Last edited:
I think a couple pages back I addressed some of those issues. One would have to first start with the language of the COA, then the status of the claimant, i.e., are they the direct purchaser of the lid from Hicks, a remote purchaser of the lid in the chain of ownership who relied upon the COA, a direct purchaser of the COA only and not the lid, or a more remote purchaser of the lid who relied upon the Hicks' COA to make the purchase? The analysis to determine the legal rights of each, and Hicks' potential liabilities, could vary based upon the interpretation of the COA and the legal status of each claimant. Those determinations would vary based upon the jurisdiction (and thus the applicable law) where the claim is brought. There could be choices on that one for a claimant. That is, Hicks' home state, the state of the sale (e.g., Oklahoma if sold at the Tulsa show), or best case, the claimant's home state if jurisdiction can be found. I could write for pages on that so please don't ask 
However, in short these are only $5000+ claims. A good commercial lawyer, unless he's a buddy, is going to require about that up front to start. At $250+ an hour that gets eaten up quick. Best is for those having their COA claims denied combine together and share costs. As an aside, in your example, each seller for a single helmet would not be entitled to relief as presumably they received sale price value. The person left standing and holding one of these airbrushed honkers in the SS CR lid game of hot potato is the claimant. There are other dealers who issued COAs on these. If drafted by a decent lawyer, at a minimum they would have been limited to the original purchaser only. This is going to be interesting for sure.
However, in short these are only $5000+ claims. A good commercial lawyer, unless he's a buddy, is going to require about that up front to start. At $250+ an hour that gets eaten up quick. Best is for those having their COA claims denied combine together and share costs. As an aside, in your example, each seller for a single helmet would not be entitled to relief as presumably they received sale price value. The person left standing and holding one of these airbrushed honkers in the SS CR lid game of hot potato is the claimant. There are other dealers who issued COAs on these. If drafted by a decent lawyer, at a minimum they would have been limited to the original purchaser only. This is going to be interesting for sure.
Bugme
Well-known member
I just finished reading the thread that Hambone cited by Zam... that was painful to read. Someone stated that the helmet was "textbook". Hmmm, and what if the textbook was wrong? I walked away from TR helmet collecting years ago simply because of guys like the know-it-all's on WAF. On the U.S. side of this, we have a few self-proclaimed experts but, they usually fade away when confronted with facts. Several authors who were once tauted as the guru's of M-1's have become quiet as original documentation and photographic evidence has shown up. We also went through the lot number phase which was not initially embraced by collectors(including me) but, time has shown that the chart was correct. I remind the "experts" that there is no such thing as an expert, only students with differing levels of education.
Well said Bugme. The requirement here is that one back it up. Support your position and address the legitimate counter-arguments. The rule at WAF and now Gunboards is whatever the moderator decides. WAF and the waftarded crushed ZAM and a fraud was perpetuated for three more years. I wonder how the owner of that $24k airbrushed fake feels as a result of the guidance he received from the waftarded? That's about a $500 (tops) helmet now.
Worse than that, the moderator locked the discussion to stop the debate which might have lead to a conclusion. The same was just done by Vid the Gunboards moderator. IMHO, giving petty self-interested megalomaniacs authority will result in abuses and bad results. IMHO, such people in real life are not normally vested with authority over others because they lack the ability to manage or lead. A mod position gives such people the only outlet they have to boss people around and lord over them for their own purposes. Such people are a reason this site exists.
The worst abuse, in my opinion, was locking the thread to stop the debate, which had the potential of disrupting the waftard status quo. It also had the potential of disrupting a $24k sale and the lordships of a few SS lid demigods. ZAM would have been banned had he decided to fight in support of his position, which was proven correct. The same was true of Vid the Gunboard mod's abuses, censorship, thread locks and post deletions to protect his fellow SS dealer Hicks from scrutiny in conjunction with XRFacts. IMHO, we now apparently see why. The greater crime against the truth was the thread locking, not the attacks by the waftarded.
tjg79
Senior Member
I saw that.
The informational thread entitled Ground Breaking Research and Analysis is up on WAF, but may not be open very much longer due to some personal conflicts.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=834155
It's a very interesting read since we've been reading old WAF threads defending C SS lids.
M45
Well-known member
Coa
COA for C-SS M42:
"This certification is a lifetime guarantee of authenticity to the bearer"
I understand the above statement to read anyone holding a Hicks COA with matching helmet that is proven not to be 100% authentic is entitled to a full refund at any time, but only in the amount of the original sale.
I think a couple pages back I addressed some of those issues. One would have to first start with the language of the COA, then the status of the claimant, i.e., are they the direct purchaser of the lid from Hicks, a remote purchaser of the lid in the chain of ownership who relied upon the COA, a direct purchaser of the COA only and not the lid, or a more remote purchaser of the lid who relied upon the Hicks' COA to make the purchase? The analysis to determine the legal rights of each, and Hicks' potential liabilities, could vary based upon the interpretation of the COA and the legal status of each claimant. Those determinations would vary based upon the jurisdiction (and thus the applicable law) where the claim is brought. There could be choices on that one for a claimant. That is, Hicks' home state, the state of the sale (e.g., Oklahoma if sold at the Tulsa show), or best case, the claimant's home state if jurisdiction can be found. I could write for pages on that so please don't ask
However, in short these are only $5000+ claims. A good commercial lawyer, unless he's a buddy, is going to require about that up front to start. At $250+ an hour that gets eaten up quick. Best is for those having their COA claims denied combine together and share costs. As an aside, in your example, each seller for a single helmet would not be entitled to relief as presumably they received sale price value. The person left standing and holding one of these airbrushed honkers in the SS CR lid game of hot potato is the claimant. There are other dealers who issued COAs on these. If drafted by a decent lawyer, at a minimum they would have been limited to the original purchaser only. This is going to be interesting for sure.
COA for C-SS M42:
"This certification is a lifetime guarantee of authenticity to the bearer"
I understand the above statement to read anyone holding a Hicks COA with matching helmet that is proven not to be 100% authentic is entitled to a full refund at any time, but only in the amount of the original sale.
Attachments
Last edited: