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

[tjg79]

...You are going way out on a limb my friend, especially in light of the fact that Kelly made blatantly false statements about C-SS in his books (bronze pulver construction) effectively manufacturing authenticity for a sloppy forgery, produced loads of COAs guaranteeing HIS OWN manufactured "authenticity", and making lots of $$$ selling innumerable examples.

I think that the bolded portion above is a bogus statement. A "false statement" as used in the above quote is generally considered a willful act and a "blatantly false statement" implies a knowingly and willful intent to deceive.

It hasn't been established that Kelly Hicks knew the C-SS lids were fakes or that the C-SS insignia wasn't a decal insignia, but a post war spray painted insignia. I'm not defending Kelly Hicks. I just think that it's important to set aside all personal bias and clearly distinguish between facts, assumptions and evidence.

Hicks has explained his beliefs in the C-SS lids and based on that explanation, which appears reasonable and adequate, he was wrong, but still doesn't acknowledge that he was wrong.

If Kelly Hicks thought that the C-SS lid was legit, then you can't accuse him of making a knowingly and "blatantly false statement" by including C-SS lids in his lid picture books. He was just wrong which is an indication of research skills and lid expertise. As an author of reference books, I think Hicks failed to meet the minimum standards expected in reference works.

Without establishing that Kelly Hicks knew the C-SS lids were fakes, the entire theory of a tri-party conspiracy comprised of a creator, dealer/authenticator and promoter collapses. Additionally, all the known circumstances and evidence appear to support the notion that Kelly Hicks and Doug B were completely fooled by the C-SS spray job until Doug B conducted his C-SS investigation with findings of fakery.

M45, if that's your quote, it's a reckless quote.

 

[ebeeby]

This site stands out because of the willingness of The Powers That Be to have ALL points of view expressed, whether agreed with or not. To that I say, Bravo!

And I have to admit, those who have been banned on other sites are the ones I read the most closely here!

 

[M45]

I think that the bolded portion above is a bogus statement. A "false statement" as used in the above quote is generally considered a willful act and a "blatantly false statement" implies a knowingly and willful intent to deceive.

M45, if that's your quote, it's a reckless quote.

Tjg, it is a carefully worded statement. Notice that I did not outright accuse anyone of wrong doing or use the L-word. I merely stated the facts as I see them (nothing wrong with doing that, is there?).

I suppose it is a separate argument whether "bronze pulver" used to describe the painted C-SS is "flaky", false or blatantly false considering the magnification no doubt used by our "subjects". I personally consider it to be blatantly false because the viewing with or without magnification of a painted insignia could never equate to the viewer seeing something quite different than what is actually there; a layered, celluloid based TR period decal.

Technically, the declaration of a false statement being made by itself is not casting blame or innocence, it is simply a statement concerning facts as one sees them. But generally speaking, you are correct in that false statements should be avoided by upright citizens because the more of them that are made, the darker the cloud of suspicion becomes.

Are such statements of mine suggestive ? You're damn right they are. That is called building a case, or painting a picture using facts (statements, circumstances, situations, etc...)

Were the false statements by our subjects made due to ignorance, miscalculation, simple mistake or all three ? It appears that is what is being "suggested" by the PRO-biased camp.

The CON-camp is suggesting that the sheer volume of false statements made through the years by those touting themselves as "experts" in the field (who should have known better) is in itself alarming and merits further scrutiny and investigation into possible ulterior motives and hidden "agendas".

I suspect there was a "hidden agenda", what I call "The Grand Plan" for widespread C-SS acceptance.

 

[M45]

I think we can assume innocence until shown otherwise. I think the only way that is going to happen is through civil litigation, and/or criminal investigation and indictments. There is a cadre vociferously opposed to legal proceedings in this and I found their arguments to be, at best, fallacious and asinine. I note that DougB intervened a number of times to allow "Hobo" there to make the argument that legal action was appropriate. All he needed to do was allow the posts to stay deleted and the threads locked by other mods there. He is a proponent of legal action in the event refunds are not given and welcomes it. These are not my extrapolations and theories, this is what I know and have seen. A sane, culpable person of any intellect would not advocate such action, particularly when all they need do is remain silent.

What is interesting about the US Justice System is that there could be TWO trials; the criminal trial (determining criminal guilt) and the civil trial (determining responsibility).

Even if a judgement of innocence was passed down during a criminal trial - no criminal intent (like in the O.J. trial), a guilty verdict in a civil trial could determine that certain people were responsible for the C-SS fraud and be fined accordingly.

 

[tjg79]

What is interesting about the US Justice System is that there could be TWO trials; the criminal trial (determining criminal guilt) and the civil trial (determining responsibility).

Even if a judgement of innocence was passed down during a criminal trial - no criminal intent (like in the O.J. trial), a guilty verdict in a civil trial could determine that certain people were responsible for the C-SS fraud and be fined accordingly.

The same type of justice could be applied to Hicks. Although he didn't lie or deceive with his inclusion of C-SS lids in his reference books, he was negligent as an author in his research of the C-SS lid.

 

[Hambone]

What is interesting about the US Justice System is that there could be TWO trials; the criminal trial (determining criminal guilt) and the civil trial (determining responsibility).

Even if a judgement of innocence was passed down during a criminal trial - no criminal intent (like in the O.J. trial), a guilty verdict in a civil trial could determine that certain people were responsible for the C-SS fraud and be fined accordingly.

Well, not so much fined, as made to pay damages to those harmed by the intentional tort / fraud / gross negligence. Of course, with a COA, their intent is irrelevant. The helmet was guaranteed original for life by a COA, the purchaser relied upon the COA, the COA issuer was paid for the COA, the helmet is fake, the COA issuer must pay.

 

[M45]

Additionally, all the known circumstances and evidence appear to support the notion that Kelly Hicks and Doug B were completely fooled by the C-SS spray job until Doug B conducted his C-SS investigation with findings of fakery.

What you are saying here is simply not reasonable (remember "The Reasonable Man" of criminal justice?).

Over the last decade or so, DougB and Kelly established themselves as very experienced, very knowledgeable 'authorities' in the SS helmet collecting hobby. They proved their abilities by their highly detailed reference books, the unquestioned authenticity of their SS helmet collections (C-SS excepted), their accurate vettings and advice about SS helmets (C-SS excepted), and their detailed SS helmet decal studies (C-SS excepted).

What they probably never would have guessed was that their own high levels of proven expertise in the field would make it that much less believable that such experts could be fooled by a spray painted fake (UNDER MAGNIFICATION no less).

It can be explained that the average Joe collectors were fooled by C-SS because they lacked the knowledge and experience of owning and studying rare originals to indicate to them that C-SS was fake. They simply had not seen enough original SS decals under magnification (unlike Kelly and Dougb) to know what they were doing. In other words, the average Joe collector can be forgiven for his failures due to his lack of experience with the real thing.

Besides this, they were trusting that their 'expert' authors and 'authorities' had done their magnification studies and had seen without a doubt that C-SS had a similar if not the same construction as original Pocher SS decals have, and that C-SS had a 'clear period pulver and base construction', indicating that C-SS was a celluloid decal constructed just as TR period decals were (A COMPLETE FALLACY).

But wait a minute ! What about period photos ? Does C-SS appear in period photographs of SS helmets ? Absolutely ! Not only is there period photographic evidence that proves beyond a doubt that C-SS was period produced, there is PLENTY OF IT !!! (ANOTHER COMPLETE FALLACY)

The short of it all is that the incredible degree of expertise and knowledge of DougB and Kelly in regard to SS helmets in general including their excellent vetting skills (C-SS excepted) tells me that it is highly doubtful that such knowledgeable authorities could be fooled by a sloppy painted on forgery - not even a decal at all.

This high degree of expertise (very much UN-like the average Joe collector) is what, IMO, is making it that much less likely they could have been fooled.

 

[tjg79]

What you are saying here is simply not reasonable (remember "The Reasonable Man" of criminal justice?).

Over the last decade or so, DougB and Kelly established themselves as very experienced, very knowledgeable 'authorities' in the SS helmet collecting hobby. They proved their abilities by their highly detailed reference books, the unquestioned authenticity of their SS helmet collections (C-SS excepted), their accurate vettings and advice about SS helmets (C-SS excepted), and their detailed SS helmet decal studies (C-SS excepted).

What they probably never would have guessed was that their own high levels of proven expertise in the field would make it that much less believable that such experts could be fooled by a spray painted fake (UNDER MAGNIFICATION no less).

It can be explained that the average Joe collectors were fooled by C-SS because they lacked the knowledge and experience of owning and studying rare originals to indicate to them that C-SS was fake. They simply had not seen enough original SS decals under magnification (unlike Kelly and Dougb) to know what they were doing. In other words, the average Joe collector can be forgiven for his failures due to his lack of experience with the real thing.

Besides this, they were trusting that their 'expert' authors and 'authorities' had done their magnification studies and had seen without a doubt that C-SS had a similar if not the same construction as original Pocher SS decals have, and that C-SS had a 'clear period pulver and base construction', indicating that C-SS was a celluloid decal constructed just as TR period decals were (A COMPLETE FALLACY).

But wait a minute ! What about period photos ? Does C-SS appear in period photographs of SS helmets ? Absolutely ! Not only is there period photographic evidence that proves beyond a doubt that C-SS was period produced, there is PLENTY OF IT !!!

The short of it all is that the incredible degree of expertise and knowledge of DougB and Kelly in regard to SS helmets in general including their excellent vetting skills (C-SS excepted) tells me that it is highly doubtful that such knowledgeable authorities could be fooled by a sloppy painted on forgery - not even a decal at all.

This high degree of expertise (very much UN-like the average Joe collector) is what, IMO, is making it that much less likely they could have been fooled.

Yes, that theory works if you rely on circular reasoning, no supporting facts, ignore all the known facts, and allege Hicks and Doug B lied about everything.

 

[M45]

Listen tjg, I just gave you two major areas of concern of collectors regarding C-SS authenticity (C-SS construction and C-SS in period photographs). Collectors were fed COMPLETE FALLACIES both times.

Remember that collectors were NOT being told something like, "we have not yet confirmed any photographic evidence to support C-SS. We will post it if and when we find it".

Or; "We cannot verify the construction of C-SS. We see some odd things about it under magnification (USB, 400X, etc...)." Remember DougB saying something to the effect that fake SS decals CANNOT copy to the 400X magnification level ? HOW IN THE HELL DID C-SS FOOL THEM THEN ???

Collectors were being told, "REST ASSURED COLLECTORS! C-SS has a CLEAR, PERIOD pulver and base construction, and there is PLENTY of period photographic evidence to support it."

 

[tjg79]

Listen tjg, I just gave you two major areas of concern of collectors regarding C-SS authenticity (C-SS construction and C-SS in period photographs). Collectors were fed COMPLETE FALLACIES both times.

Are trying to say that lid forum discussions don't rely on complete fallacies on a regular basis?

 

[Hambone]

Are trying to say that lid forum discussions don't rely on complete fallacies on a regular basis?

Fallacies, lies and horse apples masquerading as information because there is no true vetting and open discussion. With competent, uncensored discussion the shampain ruin might have been revealed as a fraud over a decade ago.

 

[tjg79]

Fallacies, lies and horse apples masquerading as information because there is no true vetting and open discussion. With competent, uncensored discussion the shampain ruin might have been revealed as a fraud over a decade ago.

Yes, if the lid forums didn't rely on a daily load of horse manure dumped to feed the cheering masses, those forums would be ghost towns.

 

[M45]

Fallacies, lies and horse apples masquerading as information because there is no true vetting and open discussion. With competent, uncensored discussion the shampain ruin might have been revealed as a fraud over a decade ago.

Exactly. Fake SS decals cannot copy to 400X magnification as per DougB, meaning that 400X magnification will always reveal the faulty construction details of a fake SS decal/insignia. DougB was telling us that he was using high magnification on C-SS some years ago (2011 ?), and he was telling us that C-SS exhibited clear period pulver and base construction. He was telling us that C-SS was constructed almost exactly like original SS decals. We know now (thanks to lot# research forcing the revelation) that C-SS is a spray painted forgery, no clear period pulver and base construction as we were told by DougB.

Why did DougB see 'clear period pulver and base construction' when looking at C-SS under magnification when no such thing was there ? By his own statement, he said that fake SS decals (insignia) could not copy to the 400X magnification, thus he should have been able to CLEARLY SEE that C-SS was a spray painted fake years before the Mythbusting studies.

While DougB hoped to be a hero by a detailed revelation of what C-SS really was, what the Mythbusting studies really did was reveal that what DougB was telling us he saw years ago was something entirely different than what was actually there.

 

[tjg79]

Exactly. Fake SS decals cannot copy to 400X magnification as per DougB, meaning that 400X magnification will always reveal the faulty construction details of a fake SS decal/insignia. DougB was telling us that he was using high magnification on C-SS some years ago (2011 ?), and he was telling us that C-SS exhibited clear period pulver and base construction. He was telling us that C-SS was constructed almost exactly like original SS decals. We know now (thanks to lot# research forcing the revelation) that C-SS is a spray painted forgery, no clear period pulver and base construction as we were told by DougB.

Why did DougB see 'clear period pulver and base construction' when looking at C-SS under magnification when no such thing was there ? By his own statement, he said that fake SS decals (insignia) could not copy to the 400X magnification, thus he should have been able to CLEARLY SEE that C-SS was fake years before the Mythbusting studies.

While DougB hoped to be a hero by a detailed revelation of what C-SS really was, what the Mythbusting studies really did was reveal that what DougB was telling us he saw years ago was something entirely different than what was actually there.

I know something about microscopy, but I'm not a microscopist. Although Doug B was a strong proponent of the use of the USB microscope, I don't think that he had any formal training or that he could be considered a microscopist. I got the impression that he was self taught. So, I take all those types of Doug B comments as coming from someone with no formal training. It's sort of like picking up a handheld XRF with no formal science and chemistry background and starting a scientific testing business. Is Doug B a qualified microscopist? No, but I think he was good at analyzing lids with a USB microscope and a good airbrush artist can make a painted insignia visibly indistinguishable from a decal. However, if you do some destructive testing, the difference between a painted insignia and decal should be apparent. How many lid collectors would scrape off a decal to see if it was a real decal? I don't think very many, because I recall reading that they, the lid gurus, considered any type of destructive testing as a deal breaker when discussing scientific testing for authenticity.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't visual inspection that conclusively revealed the fraud, it was the destructive testing. So, once again, your summary in the above post is faulty.

M45, the way I see it, you've already got your conclusions and now you need to do your investigation that supports your final conclusion.

 

[Peter U]

Fallacies, lies and horse apples masquerading as information because there is no true vetting and open discussion. With competent, uncensored discussion the shampain ruin might have been revealed as a fraud over a decade ago.

If for example ZAM wasn't ridiculized, they would never have been stuck with a $24.000 "helmet of the year", that turned out to be actually "the fake of the decade".
How long would the faker of that helmet have been giggling about that? His creation voted helmet of the year.

 

[tjg79]

http://www.ghw2.com/topic/52045-the-champagne-rune-fraud/

The above GHW2 thread link, previously posted by M45, has a good candidate identified for the C-SS spray jobs.

The alleged C-SS humper, ED, is a known humper from Michigan with auto body repair (spray painting) skills, been active in militaria since at least the 70s, and it was mentioned that he was credited in the early versions of Kelly Hicks' lid books.

 

[Hambone]

If for example ZAM wasn't ridiculized, they would never have been stuck with a $24.000 "helmet of the year", that turned out to be actually "the fake of the decade".
How long would the faker of that helmet have been giggling about that? His creation voted helmet of the year.

That WAF ridiculed and silenced the guy who was right about the biggest fraud in German helmet collecting history and voted to declare that very airbrushed " Champagne Rune " humpjob as WAF's "Helmet of the Year" is why the term "waftarded" exists. It's hilarious but at the same time shockingly bad. For many years WAF was THE German helmet site and forum. IMHO, WAF is to German helmet collecting as the 0bama Regime is to the U.S.A. I wonder who owns the WAF Helmet o' The Year now?

 

[M45]

I know something about microscopy, but I'm not a microscopist. Although Doug B was a strong proponent of the use of the USB microscope, I don't think that he had any formal training or that he could be considered a microscopist. I got the impression that he was self taught. So, I take all those types of Doug B comments as coming from someone with no formal training. It's sort of like picking up a handheld XRF with no formal science and chemistry background and starting a scientific testing business. Is Doug B a qualified microscopist? No, but I think he was good at analyzing lids with a USB microscope and a good airbrush artist can make a painted insignia visibly indistinguishable from a decal. However, if you do some destructive testing, the difference between a painted insignia and decal should be apparent. How many lid collectors would scrape off a decal to see if it was a real decal? I don't think very many, because I recall reading that they, the lid gurus, considered any type of destructive testing as a deal breaker when discussing scientific testing for authenticity.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't visual inspection that conclusively revealed the fraud, it was the destructive testing. So, once again, your summary in the above post is faulty.

M45, the way I see it, you've already got your conclusions and now you need to do your investigation that supports your final conclusion.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't visual inspection that conclusively revealed the fraud, it was the destructive testing. So, once again, your summary in the above post is faulty.


I think it's a fallacy to think that destructive testing was the only thing that could have outed C-SS conclusively. Remember that there were the fuzzy lines on the lower runes where spray went UNDERNEATH templates, the inconsistent shield breaks and points showing custom template work, the inconsistent borders showing custom template work, flaking paint on shields and borders, insignia paint worn down to factory finish, and the suspicious repetitive pock marks and hack marks showing the fake wear. Destructive testing is not necessary to see any of this.

Maybe people want you to believe that destructive testing was the "clincher" that was necessary to out C-SS, but the SS decal experts and authorities should have been able to easily see all of this with much lower power magnification, let alone all of this fancy USB and 400X power B.S.

If collectors can be made to believe that destructive testing was the "clincher", something absolutely necessary to determine C-SS forgery, then the "experts" have a good excuse for being "fooled" by C-SS for so long - destructive testing had not yet been done.

 

[tjg79]

I think it's a fallacy to think that destructive testing was the only thing that could have outed C-SS conclusively. Remember that there were the fuzzy lines on the lower runes where spray went UNDERNEATH templates, the inconsistent shield breaks and points showing custom template work, the inconsistent borders showing custom template work, and the suspicious repetitive pock marks and hark marks showing the fake wear. Destructive testing is not necessary to see any of this.

Maybe people want you to believe that destructive testing was the "clincher" that was necessary to out C-SS, but the SS decal experts and authorities should have been able to easily see all of this with much low power magnification, let alone all of this fancy USB and 400X power B.S.

If collectors can be made to believe that destructive testing was the "clincher", something absolutely necessary to determine C-SS forgery, then the "experts" have a good excuse for being "fooled" by C-SS for so long.

There were a lot of clues and good evidence that the C-SS lid was a post war fabrication, but it was destructive testing that proved it wasn't a decal. Although there were observations of spray indications, no one was saying it wasn't a decal. Now that we know it's not a decal, hindsight is becomes very clear.

As for the "SS decal experts and authorities should have been able to easily see all of this," I say really? What is a hobby "expert and authority?" Just another hobbyist. Is Doug B the only lid collector with pockets deep enough to buy a USB microscope? Why attack Doug B for providing good information? Why not attack lid collectors in general for being lazy collectors?

 

[M45]

We've been through this before tjg, that DougB was no ordinary Joe collector, not just another "hobbyist" by any stretch of the imagination. He marketed himself as an authority in the SS helmet world by WOW-ing us with his MASSIVE SS helmet collection, his detailed SS decal studies that proved his expert abilities to spot fake vs. real, his prolific advice and vetting services, and the TRUST and respect he garnished on helmet forums.

Why attack SS lid collectors ? They were convinced by DougB that he knew what he was talking about. The believed him when he fed them bogus information concerning a 'clear period pulver and base' construction to describe a template spray painted fake. They believed him when he told them about PLENTY of period photographic evidence supporting C-SS as TR production when in reality C-SS was first created in the mid '70s, some 30 years AFTER the end of the Third Reich.

Yes, there were suspicions of C-SS having a sprayed-on look to it. And recall that serious C-SS doubters were handily "dealt-with" by DougB such as Walter B. (buried under a massive heap of B.S. and meaningless words), ZAM - vilified for his lack of faith in DougB's abilities with the idea that since he was not a prolific SS helmet collector and/or an SS helmet book author then who the hell was he to doubt C-SS ?

And of course, I have my own DougB vilification stories to tell. That was when our relationship began to "go south", when I started questioning the CKL M42 slate gray helmets with C-SS. I posted photos of such helmets both with and without C-SS, posted the Critical Past website that showed rail cars full of apparent CKL M42 ND helmets being captured and likley the base stock for many C-SS.

Was my research welcomed by DougB as a valuable contribution to the hobby ? Quite the contrary, I was angrily confronted, baited to discuss M45 (so he could have an excuse to lock the thread for being "off topic") and had my posts heavily censored to conform with DougB's own "beliefs" that C-SS was no less that what he had told us it was, a "TEXTBOOK" DECAL.

One of DougB's favorite tactics, BTW, was after heavily censoring someone's post, he would tell them to "Just start a new thread, that's all I ask", as if having your thread emasculated was not enough of a hint to knock it off.