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

jhv 41 said:
Well, the code is cracked. Here is the faker of these helmets at work during the war. He is just plying his trade on other trinkets in this particular picture. (Picture from a Czech site).

Looks like the same type sprayer being used by the DAK soldat.....



View attachment 111435



View attachment 111436
Click to expand...

I think you just saved KH from financial disaster. That looks like conclusive proof of wartime C SS lid airbrush work. The price of a C SS lid will skyrocket. We were all wrong, XRFacts was correct, they're all legit.
 
tjg79 said:
I think you just saved KH from financial disaster. That looks like conclusive proof of wartime C SS lid airbrush work. The price of a C SS lid will skyrocket. We were all wrong, XRFacts was correct, they're all legit.
Click to expand...

Here is another angle he can use in court - a rouge Kelly's Heroes like group of devious GI's also operated in the later stages of the war in both the ETO and PTO. They collected surplus helmets from both sides and competed against Fritz, the Hun faker in the fake airbrush stenciling scheme.



Here is some secret footage of helmets being prepped for future faking:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...p_man-cleaning_helmets-of-soldiers-and-medics




Here is the definitive proof showing super duper double secret actual footage of the "fake stenciling" painted decal process being applied on allied helmets:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...-insignia_officer-addresses_replacement-group
 
Although the film is b/w, I can tell by the pixilation, which can be proved with XRF, that they are using "Champagne" hue paint to stencil those lids.
 
Kelly Hicks finally speaks:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=836378&page=8

The defense is as I thought: some "Champagne rune" helmets are real, some are fake, just as all other decals. However, some of the posters are pointing out that three which KH authenticated with COAs are airbrushed. The big question: will you honor your COAs on the airbrushed CRSS lids, at least three of them? Farb pointed out that an easy cross examination of KH would be, "if the airbrushed on runes are original, please show us in your book where you refer to the SS airbrush painting SS insignia on their helmets".
 

Attachments

  • KH reply 121515.jpg
    KH reply 121515.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 28
Man, that airbrush video makes a man cry. MP, 29th Infantry Division and Medic helmets getting a green coat.
 
I don't see where he explicitly states some C SS lids are real and some are fake in that post. He only indicates he's issue three bad COAs and he doesn't indicate that they were C SS lid COAs. Although, he does appear to be partially back-peddling on XRFacts, but not the XRF science.

EDIT: I see it all now. I didn't click on the thread link.
 
Last edited:
mrfarb said:
I thought my point was valid.
Click to expand...

No doubt. A few of them are in bizarro world. A most irritating human being is the one who pontificates as an expert on subjects he knows so little about that he doesn't know that he doesn't know. It's either that or an agenda.
 
tjg79 said:
I don't see where he explicitly states some C SS lids are real and some are fake in that post. He only indicates he's issue three bad COAs and he doesn't indicate that they were C SS lid COAs. Although, he does appear to be partially back-peddling on XRFacts, but not the XRF science.
Click to expand...

I think he clarifies it here. Some C-SS are real and some are fake, just like ET-SS, Q-SS, EF-SS, and Pocher-SS; copies of real decals. We've heard this all before - "good" champagnes vs. "fake" champagnes.

And as I see it, only certain people can actually know real from fake, certainly not the average collector. When us regular Joes start asking questions, we get the old "Who the hell are you?" response. You're an unknown, haven't written a book, so why should anyone listen to you?
 

Attachments

  • AAA SOME C-SS REAL SOME FAKE.jpg
    AAA SOME C-SS REAL SOME FAKE.jpg
    221.4 KB · Views: 31
  • Q64 S3428 M40 RM.jpg
    Q64 S3428 M40 RM.jpg
    314.1 KB · Views: 30
  • C-SS ALONE.jpg
    C-SS ALONE.jpg
    85.6 KB · Views: 27
  • C-SS 11.jpg
    C-SS 11.jpg
    300.9 KB · Views: 25
  • C-SS 12.jpg
    C-SS 12.jpg
    240.3 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
KH is not furthering his cause. He hasn't proven C SS lids are legit, because he hasn't produced an example that DB couldn't blow away. In fact, he's rambling with conflicting statements.
 
The Axis and Allies were perpetrating airbrush fakes in the latter stages of the war, as the WAF'sters are alluding to. The level of sophistication of the program was cutting edge for that time. :laugh:


TM9-2851PaintingInstructionsForFieldUse-3.jpg




TM9-2851PaintingInstructionsForFieldUse-1.jpg
 
We are now seeing the typical waftard logik starting: it's original because we have theories which you can't prove false, e.g., the secret SS helmet rune airbrushing program. Ironically, Peter U was the first to advance this theory as sarcastic humor ;)

So every FOH ("Friend Of Hicks") and person who owns or sold one of these things is going to eagerly and publicly embrace these various blitherings while ridiculing the opposition for being unable to refute them. Meanwhile, the moderator(s) will be looking for any reason to lock the thread.
 
Its bizarro world for us, where even the most insane theory proposed as a joke is attempting to become reality.

And how appropriate that the term "face down" is used as a theory. That's exactly the position you are in if you purchase a Champagne Rune decal helmet.
 
Hambone said:
We are now seeing the typical waftard logik starting: it's original because we have theories which you can't prove false, e.g., the secret SS helmet rune airbrushing program. Ironically, Peter U was the first to advance this theory as sarcastic humor ;)

So every FOH ("Friend Of Hicks") and person who owns or sold one of these things is going to eagerly and publicly embrace these various blitherings while ridiculing the opposition for being unable to refute them. Meanwhile, the moderator(s) will be looking for any reason to lock the thread.
Click to expand...

Let's say I walk up to someone and say "Hey, I have a Picasso painting for sale. Want to buy it?" And they reply "Maybe, Is it real?" What is the correct response on my part?

A-Its real. Here is legitimate testing done according to accepted scientific and industry practices. Here are the quantitative results. Would you like to have it reviewed by someone as well?
B-You can't prove that its fake. Therefore its real. If you don't like that, I don't care, because more people around here know me. I have a guy who's gut instinct said that it was correct.....He printed out a piece of paper saying as much after I paid him enough money to buy a few cases of Coors Light.

I guess the answer depends on what you collect.... In the real world, things must be proven as fact, NOT knocked down as fiction. If you make a statement or present an item for review, the burden is on you to make a case for it. Saying dumb shite like "Maybe its real, because maybe there was an airbrush program" doesn't work. If there was one, show proof. Pictures, manuals, general orders from the SS, interviews with people who did the paint, sample stencils used in the process. Don't throw out this bumblefuck trash theory and then wait for the Greek chorus to back you up.

I was reading through a thread the other day where the hive was vetting a Soldbuch. It had so many red flags. The picture looked replaced, as evidenced by the mismatched ink stamps on the front of it (Maybe it was wrinkled when they stamped it). There were stamps inside that didn't match up with others in the book (Maybe they altered the stamp in the field). The picture showed awards that the guy could not have had based on his branch of service (maybe he transferred from another unit). Some awards in the photo were penciled into the book so that the two matched (maybe it was written in a hurry) There was a post stamp in the book that clearly show a number, one that was not associated with the guy's unit (maybe he was part of a mixed unit that was put together from other broken units) Hell, one of the pages where an award should've been was BURNED AWAY, like someone had messed up writing a stamp in and then removed part of the page (I didn't see a good theory for this one....)

An object can have one (perhaps two in some cases) "maybes" and still be authentic. But if you have to conjure up stories for a laundry list of crap that looks wrong, the item is wrong. How likely is it that the guy's photo was wrinkled, stamped with weird stamps, transferred after he received an award, put into a mixed unto so that the book had the wrong RP number, had awards written in pencil, and then a page burned out? Most observers will come up with the same answer here. The item proves itself, the world doesn't prove it wrong.
 
nirvana said:
An object can have one (perhaps two in some cases) "maybes" and still be authentic. But if you have to conjure up stories for a laundry list of crap that looks wrong, the item is wrong. How likely is it that the guy's photo was wrinkled, stamped with weird stamps, transferred after he received an award, put into a mixed unto so that the book had the wrong RP number, had awards written in pencil, and then a page burned out? Most observers will come up with the same answer here. The item proves itself, the world doesn't prove it wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think those kool-aid clingers on to some desperate theories for these helmets can be summed up with:

thou doth protest too much, methinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top