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

[tjg79]

- It only takes a fellow like DougB to take one of his dodgy camo helmets to an art lab for a chemical paint test to be preformed on it and an even bigger A bomb will go off then the Champagne Decal hoax.
The labs are there, they can detect fake modern art (I have recently seen a BBC program about fake art, in which they tested art work that was made in the '70's on originality with the aid of a chemical paint test) so these labs will have absolutely no problem with detecting airbrush paint on a +70 year helmet and they also don't need "a data base of known originals".

You got it wrong Peter. It's a "database of blessed lids believed by the paragon of lid gurus to be originals." This was the standard by which all questionable lids would be compared to determine originality and make authentication pronouncements. This unusual "standard" by certified analytical laboratory practices, was pioneered by David May, XRFacts chief scientist, based on his high school education, Marine Corps basic training, Windows 98 software installer certification training, and work experience in the information technology field.

 

[Doug B]

Hi guys I just popped in and read oh I don't know, half (?) of the thread. I know the thread I created is only available on GHW2 for members and is a massive read, more like a small book than a normal thread so if anyone had questions I can answer them.

The article will be recreated on a website I plan on doing in the (hopefully near) future once I get some work out of the way and I have had offers for publication in a mainstream Militaria magazine and in 2 books that are being worked on by others, so it will be widely available on a number of platforms for those that do not want to join the forum.

I do want to apologize to the forum as in my original article I acknowledged Gunboards as the bulwark on which XRF crashed and as I am not a member of either that forum or normally post here and not a gun guy, I mixed the two up which I immediately corrected once I was told about it.

I also credit the lot number book of Brians in the article. I did use this in my research along with my own lot number research I've compiled on lot numbers specific to SS helmets and was valuable indeed.

I know I was a proponent of the CH "decals" at one time, under the spell of publication and personality. How could they be bad if the world's most foremost expert says they are good??? However experience is a valuable teacher and I could not ignore the mounting evidence against them despite what was written in books. There are many now who are saying the same thing, how can this be!? (Not here I know...) That said, COAs on bad helmets, XRF nonsense, and other published fakes told me the level of knowledge was not unassailable and....well, I will leave it at that. Let's just say I was asked to keep thing on the QT when I found some bad blessed helmets out there. It was just not ethically correct.

Then came ZAMs thread which was an eye opener for me along with an off the record conversation that occurred at an SOS a few years back with a respected collector. So it was then about 3-4 years ago I decided I simply needed to find out for myself if these were all real or all bad as I was told in this conversation. I wasn't going to take anyone's word but my own, as I did with XRF over time (which is unmitigated bullsh1t).

Buying Brians great lot number book was part of what I needed to move this forward but the most difficult part was getting collectors to send me their examples. Without them making a public case against them that was open and shut was impossible.

Anyway a bit of background as I've read a bit of speculation about this or that but as I've said I'm happy to answer any questions.

Doug

PS Brian I know you and I have crossed swords in the past which I attribute to a clash of personalities. I apologize for any transgressions of mine on the past, and hope we can consider it as water under the bridge. You've done some fine work and I freely admit I was wrong on a number of counts. Hope we can move on with respect.

 

[tjg79]

Hi Doug,

Your presentation on GHWII about this Champagne Rune topic was very impressive. Although it was announced several months ago, reading the actual work was better than I expected. You have advanced the level of knowledge in this hobby and made it safer. Best Regards to you.

I have read the KH article in defense of these lids, and the only point he makes that contradicts your conclusion, is that he reports seeing a Champagne Rune "decal" with a celluloid base. The actual existence of a Champagne Rune "decal" remains to be proven. Do you know if the lids you've examined included the lids KH refers to?

 

[Hambone]

Thank you Doug. You have our support. And thank you Brian, you know that you do as well. Both of you have made the biggest contributions / revelations for helmet collecting I've seen since I've been involved in the hobby since the 80s. I have been collecting helmets as long as I have K98ks. This has been a long time coming. WAF would have not allowed this discussion without such a clear and convincing case being made. It's hard to do that without a collaborative and open discussion which was previously stopped. Again, well done and thanks. We await the response and defense of the "Champagne rune" beyond an XRFacts pie chart and "it's original because I say so."

I have read the KH article in defense of these lids, and the only point he makes that contradicts your conclusion, is that he reports seeing a Champagne Rune "decal" with a celluloid base. The actual existence of a Champagne Rune "decal" remains to be proven. Do you know if the lids you've examined included the lids KH refers to?

That was the defense I suspected, "DougB may have examined some which were painted, but I know of some with celluloid bases." That's classic misdirection / "empty chair" defense. The problem is some with COAs were examined and found to be painted. It may come down to each helmet for which a COA bearer demands reimbursement or refund will be subject to testing for a court proceeding where the burden of proof is only "more likely than not."

 

[tjg79]

Yes, I agree. Brian and Doug have both advanced the level of knowledge in the lid collecting hobby and it's a lot safer to collect lids now than it was in the past, because of their work.

 

[Doug B]

Hi Doug,

Your presentation on GHWII about this Champagne Rune topic was very impressive. Although it was announced several months ago, reading the actual work was better than I expected. You have advanced the level of knowledge in this hobby and made it safer. Best Regards to you.

I have read the KH article in defense of these lids, and the only point he makes that contradicts your conclusion, is that he reports seeing a Champagne Rune "decal" with a celluloid base. The actual existence of a Champagne Rune "decal" remains to be proven. Do you know if the lids you've examined included the lids KH refers to?

Thank you. Kelly says he has seen "a" CH decal. I have not. Furthermore He has COAs out on a ton of helmets with no decals but painted images including nearly every one I examine and many of the decals I published. The one I took the blade to and proved it was all paint was a helmet from a decades old collection he himself verified and claimed to be a real decal. Therefore, I'm not sure he can speak with any authority on this subject matter anymore as he is so far off base and in some alternate reality on them.

I have also debunked the black M34 in his book which was a reported cottage industry pair of decals and was asked to keep that quiet. A mistake was made,ok fair enough. I did till I saw it at an auction house here in Canada. after this I was asked to keep my XRF findings quiet. I did not, and said publicly on WAF what the deal was when I made it clear to myself it was 100% off base despite my hope for it as a potential non-commercialized useful tool for collectors. Time proved it bad in my eyes. I was asked to keep my finding some of his bad COA's quiet on other fake helmets. Instead, There is a thread on it pinned on GHW2. And I was asked to keep this quiet.

Kelly has done much to advance the hobby. But much damage has been done with bad COA's, sole source authentication, a King of the hill expertise mentality on WAF, publication and verification of an entire family of bad helmets. Time for ego to be parked at the door for the entire hobby. Whats real is real because it is real and accepted and can be proven as such and not because any 1 person says so.

 

[Doug B]

Another note on XRF and maybe it's been said already in the thread - it "verified" bad decals, bad paint, and these painted images / CH "decals". I write more in the article debunking XRF. It's so nonsensical at this point any use of XRF as a defence of CH "decals" is comical at this point.

 

[tjg79]

I read the Hicks "lengthy essay" again that was indicated as a justification that these C SS lids are legit and period correct, but Hicks really doesn't make any argument that they are legit or period correct. It's more of an excuse that from Hicks' "viewpoint," that he thought they were legit. There's no indication of due diligence on his part other than he's seen them for years, he's bought them from "vets" with great stories at shows, he's included them in all of his books since his first in 1993, he's dismissed suggestions of fakery by his friends, he thinks there are legit and fake examples, and he believed in the XRF voodoo application, that he pioneered, that didn't out them as fakes. Contrary to an auction description announcing this Hicks' justification in support of the C SS lid, there is no evidence presented that they are period correct. Unfortunately for him, that's not the wording on his COAs.

It's a very feeble justification when compared to DB's dissertation that asserts and then proves with full explanation and high magnification digital images as evidence that they are all template-airbrushed paint job fakes. DB further challenges that he can show any C SS lid to be same.

I think the reality is that KH has painted himself into a corner with COAs, and to admit error would be financial suicide. So, it's not likely he will concede. I was very surprised to see that a significant portion of his "argument" relied on XRF. That was posted on our XRF thread, but remains to be fully debunked. You've set the standard for clarity, so it will take some thought before we proceed to disassemble the XRF side of the argument so that it's clear to the majority of lurkers that there is no XRF justification and there never has been.

Again, great work and the community should be grateful for your effort.

 

[tjg79]

Another note on XRF and maybe it's been said already in the thread - it "verified" bad decals, bad paint, and these painted images / CH "decals". I write more in the article debunking XRF. It's so nonsensical at this point any use of XRF as a defence of CH "decals" is comical at this point.

Hambone was quick to point that out.

 

[Doug B]

Hambone was quick to point that out.

Should have guessed

Thx for the kind words. I'll check in in a day or so to see if anyone had any questions. Cheers

 

[Hambone]

Should have guessed

Thx for the kind words. I'll check in in a day or so to see if anyone had any questions. Cheers

WAF censored and banned me and others for daring to express doubts about XRFacts voodoo they were calling the "savior of the hobby". Vid at Gunboards censored, deleted, and locked threads because we wanted to discuss the Hicks connection. My opinion was that censor conduct was outrageous and shameful. It was an uphill battle against mindless minions and censors. Thank you Doug. I think you'll find some of these funny......and scary ridiculous at the same time.....

 

[Hambone]

And Maui on XRFacts and Hicks......Looks like Maui/XRFacts uses Hicks as a reference for the validity of XRFacts and Hicks uses XRFacts as a reference for the validity of the Champagne rune lids.

 

[tjg79]

OK. I've read all 14 pages of this discussion. I fully accept the "CH decal" is fake. (No, I don't have one.)

Tell me, how could the "world's foremost expert" on SS helmets (KH), who has literally "written the book" - several in fact, been fooled by the most important element in SS helmets, i.e., the decal. And not just one decal, but an entire category.

Frankly, it makes me question a lot of the info that is in those, and other, books by "experts."

My hat (or helmet) is off to Doug B.

DTS

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=834155&page=14

Wake up time.

 

[deadeye18]

In the words of my long lost dad said at many an arms fair "please Lord save me from the experts"

 

[Hambone]

Wake up time.

More than a few of these guys, as shown by the ZAM/Champagne Rune is airbrushed thread of 2012 were not only single-authority lemmings, but were openly insulting and hostile to anyone indicating a contra-opinion. They knew if the mod wouldn't shut down the discussion all they needed to do was bait and insult and get the thread locked.

If you're a lucky owner of a Champagne rune hoax lid, which seem to have sold from $5000 to $20,000+, you can thank these folks for that. No one sell one of these as original. The are sub-$450 reenactor lids and curiosities now.

 

[CanadianAR]

I've just been monitoring the threads as I don't own one, never have. And was really too late to the game to be worried about SS stuff.

But Doug,

Do you know when these started to appear?

And who is/was making them?Have they stopped? Lol

 

[Doug B]

I've just been monitoring the threads as I don't own one, never have. And was really too late to the game to be worried about SS stuff.

But Doug,

Do you know when these started to appear?

And who is/was making them?Have they stopped? Lol

Hi it's all in the article but these started to appear in the 70s and appear to have stopped about 20 years or so later. No new ones have appeared for at least a decade roughly to my knowledge. I do not know who is making them other than it was one individual. More will be published in an upcoming book on that by someone else. For my part I just wanted to prove these were real or were not real, one way or the other.

 

[tjg79]

Doug, you mentioned that your work would be included in a couple of upcoming books. When do you think these books will be published and who are the authors?

Also, what about the camo problem? Is that too big of a mountain?

 

[Hambone]

Doug, you mentioned that your work would be included in a couple of upcoming books. When do you think these books will be published and who are the authors?

Also, what about the camo problem? Is that too big of a mountain?

The only way that the "camo problem" is going to be resolved objectively is through chemical testing of paints for binders and compounds not found in paint pre-1945. I feel like Ground Hog Day because Peter U and I have been saying this since 2005. Just like SS helmets, there are quite a few known "norms" in camo paints and patterns; those helmets which are well known as originals. Our issues were with the WAF termed "exotic freshies". The testing to check paint would be destructive, utilizing a pin head sized spec of paint, and it would be expensive. I'm not going to pay a lab $2000 or more to test my camo I paid $1400 for and feel perfectly comfortable with. A $10,000+ helmet which could go either way? Absolutely I'd consider testing then, but I'm not going to spend that on a camo, so......

The WAFperts and waftarded got all bent out of shape, attacked, ridiculed, censored and banned Peter and I for suggesting this needed to be done to some of these "exotic freshies". The whole concept of objective testing was attacked, e.g. "if you need an objective test you don't need to be collecting (Perry Floid)", with the same ad hominem idiocy as ZAM was subjected to when he suggested CR lids were airbrushed. But then some of these same people piled on board the XRFacts' magic bus medicine show and attacked, ridiculed, and banned us for questioning this form of "objective" testing. Open discussion and debate would have sorted all this out much earlier I think.

 

[Peter U]

Open discussion and debate would have sorted all this out much earlier I think.

Exactly!
If ZAM could have defended his case in 2012 on waf without being ridiculed, the Champagne decal would have been reckognized as a fake back then.




I remember that I was banned from Waf with one of my screennames because I had strong case against Maui and a Waffen SS helmet he had contected wrongly to a file he found in the Washington national archives.




Cheers,
Peter



PS, thanks Doug for taking the time to write that thread on GHW and posting on this forum