Questionable Camos
- Thread starter M45
- Start date
Honestly Hambone the last few posts that were moved I think were all in good fun. I know I wasn't attacking anyone and I don't think anyone else was either. Yes they were off topic, but I think the comic break may have got this thread back on track.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
I don't think he removed our posts?
No just a few were moved.
As for your question to M45 if I am following correctly he said it was a M40 Heer Helmet but had the wrong decal but in fact it is the correct decal. Is that correct. Like I have said before I know nothing about German Helmet collecting but I am trying to learn.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?26975-Rock-em-Sock-em-Robot-Kamo-Thread
What you don't see is in the thread above. My movement of posts was largely just arbitrary and not focused on anyone in particular. I scanned through the last five pages and just tagged some that weren't more helmet focused. Much of the humor remained either in its original post or quoted as a reply. As much as it is smirk worthy, I don't need four Willy Wonka memes, one is good.
As for Stug, he was soon to get a ride on the bannedwagon as a result of a poll. I've limited his posting rights to maybe three forums and he must have notifications set up because he's like the first fly on a pile while it's still steaming.
So let me be clear about what is NOT happening here: guys who generously post their helmets for discussion such as RonR is not going to be smeared here, period. He's a nice fellow and he has a stunning collection. Anyone here who seriously collects camos who says that they do not own a single questionable helmet is not really a serious camo collector.
M45
Well-known member
I think you've unwittingly made a good point. Good clear digital photos are important for proper helmet critiquing. Poor photos can be misleading and should not be trusted. Most of the questionable camos posted here have good clear photos and reveal what is going on.
Dealers/ sellers will sometimes post poor photos of items on purpose to mislead prospective buyers. These photos will often be of poor quality, poor lighting, distant, and poor angles.
First you posted poor photos of your Heer M40. Poor lighting, poor detail, poor angles, distant. Then your link directs us to photos with good lighting, good angles, closeups, good detail.
Photos can make or break a helmet deal or critique IMO. ANYONE can be misled by poor photos, even experts.
I believe not just photos, but good clear digital photos, can reveal much about questionable camos. Not every one mind you, but many. A hands-on is sometimes necessary, but not always necessary to spot fakes.
Last edited:
In essence,yes.He Said it wasn't any of the know variants.Then goes onto say it's "suspicious" because it should be a no decal M40?
I think this really should put this all to rest now.
Still waiting for M45 to respond.
I expected him to ask for better shots?
So this really IMO sums this all up quite well.
1. It shows M45 has bad judgement giving such "detailed analysis" on 2 pics,none of the inside asked for by the way.
2. "assesses" the decal wrong.
3.Says shies no signs of being formerly decaled?( how could he possibly know this by not knowing what decal it was,or lt number or maker) remember,no inside shots were given in description of helmet type.
4. So as M45 and Niblet say " Hands on isn't nessacary" "pics are enough for them"
5. ^^^^^^^This was just proven false also.
6. How are we to believe anything they have to say about camos if he was SO wrong on So many levels about my Classic ET M40?
In closing M45 made a big mistake.He didn't know it was MY helmet.
Last edited:
One question..........
Why did you comment on it in such "detail" if you admit the pictures weren't up to snuff?( intentional btw)
^^^^^^^^^THIS is EXACTLY what you and Nibbles are doing to many fine camos here.
Does everyone understand our frustration now?
I think this pretty much settles a lot if what's been going on and what I and Player 11 were trying to convey.
With that being said I am all for CONSTUCTIVE CRITISIZM based in sound logic.
What I don't tolerate is 2 people who aren't proving their point calling lots of good helmets fake.
Anyone will tell you I take critisizm extremely well on GHW ,I'm not perfect and they have saved me more than once on various items,including a few camos.
M45
Well-known member
I stated what I saw with the poor photos available. It goes to show that poor photos can be misleading. But this is not the case with most of the camos posted in this thread.
This is a terrible example. Most of the questionable camos on GHW2 have excellent detailed photos; good lighting, outdoor shots, multiple views, good detail, good angles. zoom shots, large photos.
I am critiquing questionable camos based on excellent digital photos, not the two poor photos you posted.
What you're saying makes no sense. I don't have to critique GHW2 questionable camos on two poor photos alone. GHw2 is known for its excellent photos.
This is a terrible example. Most of the questionable camos on GHW2 have excellent detailed photos; good lighting, outdoor shots, multiple views, good detail, good angles. zoom shots, large photos.
I am critiquing questionable camos based on excellent digital photos, not the two poor photos you posted.
What you're saying makes no sense. I don't have to critique GHW2 questionable camos on two poor photos alone. GHw2 is known for its excellent photos.
That would be very helpful to this thread and appreciated.
Sure,my pleasure.
M45
Well-known member
Attachments
You still have not answered my questions.
1. Why are you giving all of the "analysis" you did if you agree the pics weren't good?( again intentionally done to see what you would do)
2. You should have said I need better pics,but no you go on to say the decal isn't a known decal.
3.How could you tell it should have been a no decal factory helmet?
Last edited:
Ok guys,
First off I want to make an apology.I have been a little lazy earlier in this thread about my reasoning for calling out M45 and Niblet.
I just assumed people would head over to GHW when I told them to check out my observations and collection.
As a peace offering this is why I am going to post my woodchip wire soon with highly detailed shots full,and macro and explain why I like it.(full disclosure some on GHW weren't sure about it either,but didn't totally dismiss it).
I think I have done a fairly effective job with my M40 ET Heer helmet and M45's subsequent dismissal of my helmet which obviously is 100% correct.
That back and forth precisely explains my frustration with him on many levels.
First off I want to make an apology.I have been a little lazy earlier in this thread about my reasoning for calling out M45 and Niblet.
I just assumed people would head over to GHW when I told them to check out my observations and collection.
As a peace offering this is why I am going to post my woodchip wire soon with highly detailed shots full,and macro and explain why I like it.(full disclosure some on GHW weren't sure about it either,but didn't totally dismiss it).
I think I have done a fairly effective job with my M40 ET Heer helmet and M45's subsequent dismissal of my helmet which obviously is 100% correct.
That back and forth precisely explains my frustration with him on many levels.
Is this helmet fake? Is anyone will to make the claim from the pictures? Or does it require a hands on to make that determination?
I mean, I keep hearing that every camo needs a hand on examination, you can't just call something bad from a photo. Does this need a hands on?
GunKraut
Senior Member
A classic one looker for most collectors, albeit a tough one!
Without hands-on inspection I can't tell with certainty if the experimental late war Luftwaffe chin strap was made in Tsing-Tao or Xiang-Hua-Dong.
More pictures will definitely help.
