Questionable Camos

[nirvana]

Answer the question:


Is that 1950s blue helmet with a crappy fake decal a real WW2 trophy? The veteran said he brought it back. Yes, or no, is it real? It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

If you say "yes," I'm worried. If you say "no," then you've got to admit that "vet provenance" means crap. It's your call.

Fake or real?

 

[Nzef1940]

That helmet is fake

However judge each case on its own merits...

 

[nirvana]

That helmet is fake

However judge each case on its own merits...

I agree 100%, and I personally feel that a vet provenance plays only a minimal part in those merits. Stuff that randomly surfaces like the M-2 camo debacle on USMF is of course very suspect, but a full pedigreed source can only go so far.

 

[Peter U]

NZEF1940, take a look at the helmet in my avatar.
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?506-KIA-wire-camo-M35-from-May-1940&highlight=frick
It is a helmet with photographic provenance since May 1940; the helmet since the summer of 1940 has been kept in livingrooms till today, first in Germany, then in Belgium.
See how the paint shows age.
If you know that veteran and he is still alive you might ask him how he kept that paint fresh for +70 years.


Buy the object not the story!

 

[Bigdibbs88]

Why is there an overriding notion that all camos have to have paint with a ton of wear or age? Yet when minty non overpainted helmets show up nobody questions how they stayed so pristine? How do we still find K dates in 90% condition? My point is that camos can survive in excellent condition just as easily as any other, so to me that criticism, though it should raise caution (as it should on ANY helmet) does not disqualify a camo by any means and without compounding factors isn't even a legit criticism IMO.

Provenance I find frustrating. I find a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and 95 out of 100 times there is no capture paperwork, no pictures, no interviews and yet I know it to be true because I found it- I talked to the vet, or I talked to the kids etc. Is provenance pretty good in this case? Maybe. It's more than most helmets have. Watertight? Definitely not. But unlike guns with serial numbers and capture papers, and with the exceptions of unicorns like Peters example, watertight provenance on helmets is pretty scarce. That's what you have to accept and make a gut call on. (or constrain the circumstances under which you buy helmets).

Personally, I am uncomfortable with this helmet. Not because the paint is in good shape (though flags go up), but because they are non standard colors and application (which we all know happened and wasn't uncommon) and any non-RAL camo makes me uncomfortable.

Anyways...just my $0.02

 

[Nzef1940]

Not a helmet collector are you.....

QUOTE=Peter U;204533]NZEF1940, take a look at the helmet in my avatar.
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?506-KIA-wire-camo-M35-from-May-1940&highlight=frick
It is a helmet with photographic provenance since May 1940; the helmet since the summer of 1940 has been kept in livingrooms till today, first in Germany, then in Belgium.
See how the paint shows age.
If you know that veteran and he is still alive you might ask him how he kept that paint fresh for +70 years.


Buy the object not the story![/QUOTE]

 

[Nzef1940]

Well thought out, thanks for the post, though I disagree re colour issue.


QUOTE=Bigdibbs88;204535]Why is there an overriding notion that all camos have to have paint with a ton of wear or age? Yet when minty non overpainted helmets show up nobody questions how they stayed so pristine? How do we still find K dates in 90% condition? My point is that camos can survive in excellent condition just as easily as any other, so to me that criticism, though it should raise caution (as it should on ANY helmet) does not disqualify a camo by any means and without compounding factors isn't even a legit criticism IMO.

Provenance I find frustrating. I find a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and 95 out of 100 times there is no capture paperwork, no pictures, no interviews and yet I know it to be true because I found it- I talked to the vet, or I talked to the kids etc. Is provenance pretty good in this case? Maybe. It's more than most helmets have. Watertight? Definitely not. But unlike guns with serial numbers and capture papers, and with the exceptions of unicorns like Peters example, watertight provenance on helmets is pretty scarce. That's what you have to accept and make a gut call on. (or constrain the circumstances under which you buy helmets).

Personally, I am uncomfortable with this helmet. Not because the paint is in good shape (though flags go up), but because they are non standard colors and application (which we all know happened and wasn't uncommon) and any non-RAL camo makes me uncomfortable.

Anyways...just my $0.02[/QUOTE]

 

[Nzef1940]

Couple of close ups

Well thought out, thanks for the post, though I disagree re colour issue.


QUOTE=Bigdibbs88;204535]Why is there an overriding notion that all camos have to have paint with a ton of wear or age? Yet when minty non overpainted helmets show up nobody questions how they stayed so pristine? How do we still find K dates in 90% condition? My point is that camos can survive in excellent condition just as easily as any other, so to me that criticism, though it should raise caution (as it should on ANY helmet) does not disqualify a camo by any means and without compounding factors isn't even a legit criticism IMO.

Provenance I find frustrating. I find a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and 95 out of 100 times there is no capture paperwork, no pictures, no interviews and yet I know it to be true because I found it- I talked to the vet, or I talked to the kids etc. Is provenance pretty good in this case? Maybe. It's more than most helmets have. Watertight? Definitely not. But unlike guns with serial numbers and capture papers, and with the exceptions of unicorns like Peters example, watertight provenance on helmets is pretty scarce. That's what you have to accept and make a gut call on. (or constrain the circumstances under which you buy helmets).

Personally, I am uncomfortable with this helmet. Not because the paint is in good shape (though flags go up), but because they are non standard colors and application (which we all know happened and wasn't uncommon) and any non-RAL camo makes me uncomfortable.

Anyways...just my $0.02

[/QUOTE]

 

[ZF41 K98k]

I'll assume you bought it Nzef...? If so congrats.

Personally, I like it more than I don't - the helmet that is. The story/vet stuff adds little, if anything, to it for me. The fact that it is 'bigged' up so much is also maybe a contributor to some of the negativity too, for some of the reasons/examples given above. Like you (rightly) say though, this should be looked at on a case by case basis. Sweeping assumptions are a big problem in this hobby IMHO.

However, at the end of the day surely it's about what you think, because I believe trying to persuade many others will be nigh on impossible with this one, unfortunately.

Is it posted at GHW?

 

[Nzef1940]

Yes and I posted it for fun here, anticipating the response, as it was on page 1 of this thread back In 2013.

I love the lid so no worries.

 

[capt14k]

"Provenance I find frustrating. I find a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and 95 out of 100 times there is no capture paperwork, no pictures, no interviews and yet I know it to be true because I found it- I talked to the vet, or I talked to the kids"

That is one of the funnier quotes on this thread. Because we all know kids of vets and vets always tell the truth or know what the truth is. The heck with silly photographic evidence.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[nirvana]

Yes and I posted it for fun here, anticipating the response, as it was on page 1 of this thread back In 2013.

I love the lid so no worries.

Since you've asked for a legitimate analysis and discussion, I feel that its appropriate that I give my thoughts. They are of course just my thoughts, and that's all they are. But as to why I don't like this helmet:

The colors are very vivid, despite the original green showing age and oxidation from 70+ years of being around. This is especially true of the peach/tan color. The paint isn't of a type that is normally seen, and to be honest, sawdust camo is pretty rare by itself, which also throws up a flag or two. The camo paint job also shows an odd mix of precision and sloppiness. Whoever painted it made an effort to get 100% coverage, with fairly neat borders and none of the original green being visible. However, the camo was picked up and handled quite a bit while the paint was uncured, causing it to smudge and tear. The guy went from precision artist to sloppy ham-handed helmet grabber in the space of an hour or two? That seems odd to me, and unlike the previous work shown. The paint is heavily cracked, which some people may take as a sign of age. However, in this case, I don't. To me it looks like someone slopped layer over layer over layer of oil paint, and this paint cracked when it dried. I can't be certain from the photos, but it looks like some of the camo paint is on top of the heavily brown patinated rim. Of course the helmet could've been rusty before the paint was applied, but its another thing that grabs me.

Camo is ultimately a subjective thing. Either you like a helmet, or you don't. You voted with your dollars, I did not, and that's okay. Its important that I say this: When I don't like a helmet, I don't mean it as a personal attack on the owner, and I hope it isn't taken as such. If you are happy with the helmet, then that is what matters. I'm just a random internet dude with my own opinion, and there is nothing wrong with our thoughts differing.
respectfully,
Nirvana

 

[Peter U]

Not a helmet collector are you.....

QUOTE=Peter U;204533]NZEF1940, take a look at the helmet in my avatar.
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?506-KIA-wire-camo-M35-from-May-1940&highlight=frick
It is a helmet with photographic provenance since May 1940; the helmet since the summer of 1940 has been kept in livingrooms till today, first in Germany, then in Belgium.
See how the paint shows age.
If you know that veteran and he is still alive you might ask him how he kept that paint fresh for +70 years.


Buy the object not the story!

[/QUOTE]


No not really according to your standards I guess but I don't care about that.
If you only want applause because your "exotic freshy" comes with a picture of a veteran I think you are posting on the wrong forum here.
Sent a sample of the camo paint of that helmet to a lab like this one : http://www.brussels-art-labo.com/en/presentation/
When you get their rapport I am pretty sure you end up with a similar headache like those that bought champain rune waffen ss helmets from very reliable sources.
Success!

 

[Hambone]

Camo is ultimately a subjective thing. Either you like a helmet, or you don't. You voted with your dollars, I did not, and that's okay. Its important that I say this: When I don't like a helmet, I don't mean it as a personal attack on the owner, and I hope it isn't taken as such. If you are happy with the helmet, then that is what matters. I'm just a random internet dude with my own opinion, and there is nothing wrong with our thoughts differing.
respectfully,
Nirvana

Well said. I should put this as my signature.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

"Provenance I find frustrating. I find a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and 95 out of 100 times there is no capture paperwork, no pictures, no interviews and yet I know it to be true because I found it- I talked to the vet, or I talked to the kids"

That is one of the funnier quotes on this thread. Because we all know kids of vets and vets always tell the truth or know what the truth is. The heck with silly photographic evidence.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Why is that funny? After a while it's not hard to spot a bullshit artist. Do people lie? For sure. There's equally as many that tell the truth. I've beat the bushes a lot and do you find fake stuff sometimes? Yes, nothing is a guarantee. But there's generally other context clues when you're there first hand....I.e. Uniforms, other items brought home, photographs, and your own experience at spotting bullshit. The list goes on. Would I have purchased this helmet second hand? No way. Would it stay in my collection if I personally found it and was convinced based on examples listed above? Yup.

Can I ask how you collect? Based on your comments one can only assume that every single thing in your collection has photographic evidence and documentation for everywhere it's been since 1945. Either that or combed Europe on May 9th 1945 and picked all your stuff up.

I do agree with you 100% on camos being subjective. When you post a camo, be prepared for a slew of opinions.

 

[capt14k]

I don't collect helmets and I never buy a story. I was just referring to the 95 out of 100 finds are legit because of the story. If that was the case there would be a lot less fakes out there. My point being the odds of 95% of out of the woodwork camo helmets being real is astronomically low.

Kids saying Dad or Grandpa brought it back from the war without any other proof is meaningless. Maybe Dad or Grandpa bought a reproduction in the 1970s as a momento. I've heard more than once that something was a take home, but it was then proven to not be.

The way I see it the story is meaningless without photographic proof. So then you have to judge the item based on examples that have photographic proof.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Hambone]

The Nzef helmet on its own would give me pause. The photographs and provenance help it. I would want to see the helmet in hand.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I don't collect helmets and I never buy a story. I was just referring to the 95 out of 100 finds are legit because of the story. If that was the case there would be a lot less fakes out there. My point being the odds of 95% of out of the woodwork camo helmets being real is astronomically low.

Kids saying Dad or Grandpa brought it back from the war without any other proof is meaningless. Maybe Dad or Grandpa bought a reproduction in the 1970s as a momento. I've heard more than once that something was a take home, but it was then proven to not be.

The way I see it the story is meaningless without photographic proof. So then you have to judge the item based on examples that have photographic proof.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I'm with you 100%. Where I think you lost me is I don't buy other people's stories, but when I was there and lived it and know it to be true...well all you can trust is yourself and your own instinct. That's why I find it troubling, when I know something to be true but because of the state of affairs in the collecting world nobody else can/should put any credence behind it.

 

[capt14k]

I'm with you 100%. Where I think you lost me is I don't buy other people's stories, but when I was there and lived it and know it to be true...well all you can trust is yourself and your own instinct. That's why I find it troubling, when I know something to be true but because of the state of affairs in the collecting world nobody else can/should put any credence behind it.

I can understand that and it must be extremely frustrating. Problem is Helmet Collecting has some serious black marks. This was caused by those at the top. The only 100% answer seems to be expensive chemical analysis. Without it there will be less new Helmet Collectors and many existing collectors will assume fake until proven real or get out of collecting helmets all together. Then supply and demand economics kicks in and the values will plummet.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Peter U]

The Nzef helmet on its own would give me pause. The photographs and provenance help it. I would want to see the helmet in hand.

Hambone, for me this one is beyond an "in hand inspection", the paint colour is so unique that it can't be compared, the wear is minimal.
The picture of it on a table on top of a swastika flag with a veteran behind it doesn't confirm anything about its authenticity.
According to me the only way to confirm the date of the camo paint on this helmet is a scientific test done by a lab that specializes in art.
The lab in Brussels for example claims that they can date rather acruatly objects: http://www.brussels-art-labo.com/en/c14-dating-radiocarbon-wood-ivory-textile/
It is my believe that the results of a scientific test will not be favorable for this helmet.