Questionable Camos

[Player11]

View attachment 150588


View attachment 150589


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?

Yes, in this case is absolutely a fake, why?, Those winter camos are very rare, and this one shows mint condition, paint is not as old as to have 70 years old, even the inside seems to be painted.
Probably, in hands, this helmets may smell a lot to paint ( just painted).

When we speak about handling helmets, it must be to be done with helmets that offer more doubts, if you are not camo collector ( is very good you show it here to ask about your doubts) after wacthing many of them, there will be a moment taht you will answer to yourself why helmet like those is not good.

Hope to have help you

 

[nirvana]

It's a helmet from eBay being sold as a repro.

So based on your review of those pics, you acknowledge then that:

1- am unusual or rare camo pattern throws flags up right away
2- some camos are so bad as to be judged by Internet pictures alone
3- a hands on isn't needed for all camos.

Yes?

 

[Player11]

An M40 Heer helmet with unknown Heer decal. Not an ET, Q, HJ&K, Pocher or reissue that I know of, so a possible fake.

Factories and Heer decals as I understand it:

ET: ET decal (some Wilhelm Abels)
SE: ET decal
Q: Q big foot (some ET, Wilhelm Abels, Pochers)
NS: Pocher (some Wilhelm Abels, ET, HJ&K)
EF: Pocher, ET, HJ&K (some gray lined Heer)

What the hell???!!!!
MR Mcorioles,

Let me show you one of my fake helmets, i have noticed today its a fake. Notice how is an unknown decal, probably painted with a famous RAL, so possible fake

Notice how the fakers have managed to create the " crack" of the decal, this kind of decal that i thought was broken like this just in original helmets, and most of them in ET maker. But it seems i was wrong and both of us seems to have a fake.

Probaby this kind of fake came into a bubble gum box and a child post it there over a a good one without noticing it, or maybe was any kind of UFO who posted it there with X ray ???!!!now im very puzzled

 

[Player11]

It's a helmet from eBay being sold as a repro.

So based on your review of those pics, you acknowledge then that:

1- am unusual or rare camo pattern throws flags up right away In this case yes
2- some camos are so bad as to be judged by Internet pictures aloneIn this case yes
3- a hands on isn't needed for all camos.In this case no

Yes?

Yes

A hand inspection is requiered in more complicated helmets to judge, this one is not

 

[nirvana]

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.

I don't know man, I'm not willing to make a judgment on internet pictures alone. Also, I don't have enough helmets in my collection, you need to have a lot of them to make a good call. If I had 50, I could say that this is a fake, but since I don't, my opinion isn't worth much. I'll try to get more pics. I think it was probably captured while it was brand new and never used, that's why its pristine. It was probably stored in a museum grade time capsule box, that's why the paint looks so fresh.

 

[mcorioles]

View attachment 150588


View attachment 150589


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?

Of course it's fake.

It's not a absolute.

We are ONLY talking about camos that APPEAR good in pictures NEED A HANDS ON FOR CERTAINLY.

 

[nirvana]

But wait. I didn't think we could pass judgment based on Internet pictures. Am I missing something? You mean if a helmet is incredibly absurd looking we can just call it without a hands on examination? I have been hearing the opposite for 30 pages now.

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you guys agreeing with M45 now? If the helmet looks awful, in YOUR opinion, it doesn't need further review? It's opinion based?

 

[Player11]

But wait. I didn't think we could pass judgment based on Internet pictures. Am I missing something? You mean if a helmet is incredibly absurd looking we can just call it without a hands on examination? I have been hearing the opposite for 30 pages now.

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you guys agreeing with M45 now? If the helmet looks awful, in YOUR opinion, it doesn't need further review? It's opinion based?

Sorry, you are mixing points.
There are helmets very easy to judge as fake ( in this case yes) in the case like M45 does is not so easy, many of them need a hand inspection to see the wear on it and many other things.

Is like if i post here a pic of a car, wacthing it you will say if its a Ferrari or not, but if i place a Ford of 1985, for those who dont know about cars will need to see it in person to check little details or even look at the nr of the bastidor, etc, etc...


Take the example more or less like that

 

[nirvana]

It sounds like you two are saying the same thing then. His idea of bad and absurd is just higher than yours. What you think is a hard helmet, he thinks is an easy one. You two are taking the exact same position but with different levels of review. I'm not seeing any other difference here.

 

[capt14k]

Ok I get the sarcasm of the obviously fake repro from EBay, but are the last 2 Helmets posted by McOrioles and Player11 fake or real?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Player11]

It sounds like you two are saying the same thing then. His idea of bad and absurd is just higher than yours. What you think is a hard helmet, he thinks is an easy one. You two are taking the exact same position but with different levels of review. I'm not seeing any other difference here.

The difference is too big, he claims to judge all and every camo only watching pics, some of them are very easy, most of them in Ebay, there are others which are harder to judge by pics, is impossible to say by pics if its good or not and need a hand inspection.

The one you posted is that one very easy to say fake.

 

[Player11]

Ok I get the sarcasm of the obviously fake repro from EBay, but are the last 2 Helmets posted by McOrioles and Player11 fake or real?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Both of them are absolutely 100 % real and original

 

[nirvana]

I'm glad to get back to helmets. I had to scroll through ten pages to find helmet photos, since this thread stopped being about helmets a long time ago. It's just personal attacks now.

Decals aren't my thing, never have been, but based on my limited knowledge, I like the M-40.

I wouldn't touch the camo net. The underlying shell looks real, and the net looks like a fairly worn old net, but we can't say when they were put together. Was this done in 1945? 1965? 1995? Last week? It's just guessing and vibes, trying to figure out how much wear is enough, how much hook to helmet rust is needed. I can see reasons for it being good, it looks like a lovely helmet and I'm sure the owner is pleased, but net and bread bag strap helmets are guesses at best. It's up to the buyer to judge what he is happy with.

 

[M45]

Yes, in this case is absolutely a fake, why?, Those winter camos are very rare, and this one shows mint condition, paint is not as old as to have 70 years old, even the inside seems to be painted.
Probably, in hands, this helmets may smell a lot to paint ( just painted).

When we speak about handling helmets, it must be to be done with helmets that offer more doubts, if you are not camo collector ( is very good you show it here to ask about your doubts) after wacthing many of them, there will be a moment taht you will answer to yourself why helmet like those is not good.

Hope to have help you

But wait. I didn't think we could pass judgment based on Internet pictures. Am I missing something? You mean if a helmet is incredibly absurd looking we can just call it without a hands on examination? I have been hearing the opposite for 30 pages now.

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you guys agreeing with M45 now? If the helmet looks awful, in YOUR opinion, it doesn't need further review? It's opinion based?

It sounds like you two are saying the same thing then. His idea of bad and absurd is just higher than yours. What you think is a hard helmet, he thinks is an easy one. You two are taking the exact same position but with different levels of review. I'm not seeing any other difference here.

You're catching on Nirvana. It's basically a double standard, something that has plagued helmet forums for years. THEY make the determinations about which helmets can be shot down by digital photos and which cannot. You and I have not HANDLED enough camos to be able to do that. Although sleazy Ebay fakes can be shot down by photos, one notable Latvian fake was actually given serious consideration. So while you or I may have called it fake based on photos alone, a few members actually liked it and thought it could be a good one. So even obvious Ebay fakes are not a sure thing with them (needs a hands-on to confirm).

The questionable camos they and their friends own certainly need a hands-on to criticize because THEY have determined it. It doesn't matter what you or I can see or the experience we have or the reasonable explanations we give.

 

[Player11]

The questionable camos they and their friends own certainly need a hands-on to criticize because THEY have determined it. It doesn't matter what you or I can see or the experience we have or the reasonable explanations we give.

Exactly!!! your knowledge is less than 0, you have shown it with the M40 study if we are so bad you are worse.

 

[M45]

So how many camos do we need to HANDLE before we have enough experience to be 'legitimately' critiquing their works of art ? 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ? They never said exactly how many camos we need to handle. I guess they will let us know when the time comes; IF the time comes. Come to think of it, why would they EVER admit we have enough experience to be critiquing a camo like Ron R.'s Mediterranean turtle shell Luft for instance ?

 

[mcorioles]

But wait. I didn't think we could pass judgment based on Internet pictures. Am I missing something? You mean if a helmet is incredibly absurd looking we can just call it without a hands on examination? I have been hearing the opposite for 30 pages now.

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you guys agreeing with M45 now? If the helmet looks awful, in YOUR opinion, it doesn't need further review? It's opinion based?

LOL,M45 gets destroyed and the reclamation project is under way.


Are you for real?

This is a very weak attempt.


You take an extreme and try to make it the norm.

Even you know it was fake.

 

[M45]

Twin turtle.

 

[mcorioles]

It sounds like you two are saying the same thing then. His idea of bad and absurd is just higher than yours. What you think is a hard helmet, he thinks is an easy one. You two are taking the exact same position but with different levels of review. I'm not seeing any other difference here.

Then how come he totally got my ET M40 Heer soooo wrong.

He can't even judge one of the most common German combat helmets correctly and he knows more than us on camos?


Just when I thought we were getting on track...........

 

[mcorioles]

You're catching on Nirvana. It's basically a double standard, something that has plagued helmet forums for years. THEY make the determinations about which helmets can be shot down by digital photos and which cannot. You and I have not HANDLED enough camos to be able to do that. Although sleazy Ebay fakes can be shot down by photos, one notable Latvian fake was actually given serious consideration. So while you or I may have called it fake based on photos alone, a few members actually liked it and thought it could be a good one. So even obvious Ebay fakes are not a sure thing with them (needs a hands-on to confirm).

The questionable camos they and their friends own certainly need a hands-on to criticize because THEY have determined it. It doesn't matter what you or I can see or the experience we have or the reasonable explanations we give.

LOL,

Why haven't you answered my questions?