WAF can be quite demeaning when you know too much, as can be GHW2 but they all serve a purpose. And som every interesting items. But dare not go against 'the establishment' unless you have the energy, time or tenacity.
Questionable Camos
- Thread starter M45
- Start date
M45
Well-known member
If dark rust patina is so easy to re-create, why are the fakers not doing it ?
My experience with questionable camos has revealed camo painters avoiding authentic rust patina in key spots, such as crowns and other areas, such as rims. The helmet's original rust patina is sometimes incorporated into the camo work of art.
Rims are usually avoided by modern camo painters since the rims already have a nice dark rust patina. Also, if fakers camo rims, they must then remove some of the paint in those areas to make believable wear. When they do, the paint is usually chipped with hard breaks (a red flag). The paint is NOT worn off of the rims due to long service life (smooth surface) as is found on originals.
Questionable camo crowns are often in fantastic condition (little to no actual service wear) or slightly gone over to knock a few chips of paint off. Bare steel is often pitted, a result of sitting undistubed in the elements for long periods.
If dark rust patina is so easy to re-create, why are the fakers not doing it ?
You've answered your own question....they are you just don't see it!
They're a lot better than you think and to know one you'd have to become one, all the hypothesis & speculation in the world is just that!
Rex should have told you that years ago.
You've answered your own question....they are you just don't see it!
They're a lot better than you think and to know one you'd have to become one, all the hypothesis & speculation in the world is just that!
Rex should have told you that years ago.
What you may have failed to grasp is that over 14 million Germans and forced foreign conscripts fought and out of them a good lower end percentage of that total had some artistic merit or were outright artists.......and young of mind!
I need not remind you how adapt the Germans were / are at designing, conceiving and manufacturing high end quality items and movements that fascinated the 20th century and beyond........Bauhaus, Expressionism & Porsche to name just a few.
Remembering too that there was recent astounding art movements throughout Europe prior to the war. That's not even considering those that were one way or another affiliated with or lived within the world of aesthetics / arts. ie architects, furniture designers, cartoonists, commercial artists etc. And all of these people would have fought.
Every clip or actual footage I've seen of the Germans fighting has contained at least one Camouflaged helmet and in a moment of captured time and very few fighters in the said footages that's a great percentage of painted helmets!
Evaluating paint per se is not exact science as paint cures & ages differently, depending on the paint, it's qualities, time & climate of application, whether it was lead based, binder, primed, what it was diluted with and more importantly how is was stored post war......and I won't even begin on natural pigments.
Your cynicism is warranted but as its been shown here you're not even au fait with your own expertise so how would one expect to believe your complete analysis on camouflage techniques, whence our own cynicism is warranted also in your writings!
My point is that you're wrong a great deal of the time and right up there with Goebbels and the propaganda you spill. You can 'talk the talk' but that's all it is.
Stick to ebay examples where we all know the great majority are fakes.
Oh and 'the too good to be true.....' mantra is another fallacy, it happens and a lot but then you couldn't know that!
I need not remind you how adapt the Germans were / are at designing, conceiving and manufacturing high end quality items and movements that fascinated the 20th century and beyond........Bauhaus, Expressionism & Porsche to name just a few.
Remembering too that there was recent astounding art movements throughout Europe prior to the war. That's not even considering those that were one way or another affiliated with or lived within the world of aesthetics / arts. ie architects, furniture designers, cartoonists, commercial artists etc. And all of these people would have fought.
Every clip or actual footage I've seen of the Germans fighting has contained at least one Camouflaged helmet and in a moment of captured time and very few fighters in the said footages that's a great percentage of painted helmets!
Evaluating paint per se is not exact science as paint cures & ages differently, depending on the paint, it's qualities, time & climate of application, whether it was lead based, binder, primed, what it was diluted with and more importantly how is was stored post war......and I won't even begin on natural pigments.
Your cynicism is warranted but as its been shown here you're not even au fait with your own expertise so how would one expect to believe your complete analysis on camouflage techniques, whence our own cynicism is warranted also in your writings!
My point is that you're wrong a great deal of the time and right up there with Goebbels and the propaganda you spill. You can 'talk the talk' but that's all it is.
Stick to ebay examples where we all know the great majority are fakes.
Oh and 'the too good to be true.....' mantra is another fallacy, it happens and a lot but then you couldn't know that!
So basically no one should buy any camo helmets because the fakers can re-create any aspect of an original? Man, even the so called experts on our one forum here can't agree on anything.
Who wants to pay for such an expensive item that requires 30 years experience and a microscope to authenticate? Camo helmets aren't a minefield. They're more like walking on a nuclear test site. It's not a matter of if you will get burned but merely how bad you will get burned.
Who wants to pay for such an expensive item that requires 30 years experience and a microscope to authenticate? Camo helmets aren't a minefield. They're more like walking on a nuclear test site. It's not a matter of if you will get burned but merely how bad you will get burned.
It's all about studying and unfortunately being bitten once or twice. Or at the very least bounce any potential buy off a one or two very experienced collectors who don't feel the need to beat their chest and are objective.......... And or find a known fraudster and pay him for his time.
The world of fine art forgeries outnumbers the amount of militaria forgeries tenfold and most consult a known expert for pre-buys! I don't see why spending thousands on a potential helmet should be any different.
Most people refer to this as a hobby, I disagree it's a passion and an integral part of what makes us human but what comes with being human sometimes is greed & criminality.
The world of fine art forgeries outnumbers the amount of militaria forgeries tenfold and most consult a known expert for pre-buys! I don't see why spending thousands on a potential helmet should be any different.
Most people refer to this as a hobby, I disagree it's a passion and an integral part of what makes us human but what comes with being human sometimes is greed & criminality.
Last edited:
I agree, with any purchase extra opinions is very important. Camo helmets are so cool looking, it just seems nearly impossible to authenticate. I want one but am not willing to the risk one.
Here is an example, this helmet is for sale from a well known and honest seller. It looks very convincing but I admit, I have no clue. I am curious what others think.
www.combat-relics.com
Here is an example, this helmet is for sale from a well known and honest seller. It looks very convincing but I admit, I have no clue. I am curious what others think.
GERMANY WWII HEADGEAR | Combat Relics
Original WWII German headgear to include helmets, caps, and accessories such as helmet chinstraps.
www.combat-relics.com
All dealers and I mean all dealers and not just in the world of militaria make mistakes knowingly or unknowingly, which is concerning in itself.
I tend to scrutinize looking for embellishments after I'm satisfied it is what it is.......and I'm not just talking about adding a chinstrap.
Personally if I was buying sight unseen online like that one I'd need to quantify a viewing timeline with a money back guarantee. I've done this exactly twice with some of the better dealers and had to return both items after some discrepancies. But overall I haven't had many unsavoury buys, most dealers have been good.
Google his business name and see what reports say about him, if any.
I tend to scrutinize looking for embellishments after I'm satisfied it is what it is.......and I'm not just talking about adding a chinstrap.
Personally if I was buying sight unseen online like that one I'd need to quantify a viewing timeline with a money back guarantee. I've done this exactly twice with some of the better dealers and had to return both items after some discrepancies. But overall I haven't had many unsavoury buys, most dealers have been good.
Google his business name and see what reports say about him, if any.
I actually took your advice long ago, albeit from my own self. I just bought a few fake camos for reenacting and the shelf, you get what you want and you don’t get burned. Hell, look at champagne runes - they are almost collectible as curiosities now, in 10 years they will be a subset.
Good self-advice. I did the same, sprayed it white and whilst it was wet went outside and threw it about 10 metres over 20 times to see how and where it would garner consistent knocks and scratches......I worked it out!
Yes I saw one for sale not long ago on WAF, it went for $2000 from memory but that's always been the way of the world with controversial items.
M45
Well-known member
My point is that you're wrong a great deal of the time and right up there with Goebbels and the propaganda you spill. You can 'talk the talk' but that's all it is.
I see you've just joined the forum. Let me welcome you to k98k.
That said, if you want to make a good first impression when joining a new forum, it may be best not to compare their longtime members to heinous lying Nazis.
If I were to compare myself to a WWII figure from the past, I would choose Sir Winston Churchill, who was attempting to warn the west of the dangers that lurked just ahead.
Your stance on camos generally seems to be similar to those who became collectors within the last 20 years or so, after about the year 2000. These collectors really have no concept of the hobby during the 70s-90s and before, re: the availability, conditions and types of camos available then.
These newer collectors accept out of hand the explosion in availability of vast numbers of exotic, highly detailed, fantastically conditioned camos.
I cannot actually prove that I'm right concerning the camo danger without paint testing.
But without paint testing, you cannot actually prove me wrong, either.
If you like the newfound exotics and want them to be authentic, then for you and your friends they are.
I'm really surprised you even mentioned REX-39. He's done more than anyone I know to show what is possible in camo replication. His work is excellent and believable.
I recall one fine member from another forum who said something like, "show me photos of you painting up camos like these and I'll believe you". REX-39 has already done that.
M45
Well-known member
It's all about studying
What are you studying ? What is the base point of original camos that you can compare others to ? Is Russ Hamilton's camo collection, for instance, the base point for originality ? Is it Ron R.'s camo collection ? Is it what your collector friends tell you is original ?
If all you are doing is comparing one group of questionable camos to another group of questionable camos, how will you ever get any closer to the truth of what original camos look like ?
How is comparing fakes to fakes going to show you what is an original ?
Take the recent Sham-pain-SS ruins scandal, for instance. The spray painted bogus SS fakes were touted in print and on forums as authentic. Collectors were reassured by trusted, well known SS helmet "gurus" and authorities. Some of these even had "unquestioned" vet provenance, were "researched" from 30 year collections. Even the "science" of XRFacts was brought in to "prove" the bogus painted SS bug was constructed "almost exactly" like original Pocher-SS decals.
Maybe it would behoove collectors to "study" the sham-pain-ruins scandal to see what lengths unscrupulous people will go to steal their hard earned $$$.
Last edited:
Thanks and I appreciate your welcome and I was speaking figuratively to make a point.
Winston Churchill was a pessimist by the way, he couldn't see the forest through the trees. If he had his way there wouldn't have been a Normandy. At least Goebbles got his point across!
Your stance on camos generally seems to be similar to those who became collectors within the last 20 years or so, after about the year 2000. These collectors really have no concept of the hobby during the 70s-90s and before, re: the availability, conditions and types of camos available then.
Incorrect! I've been doing this long before that, collecting that is and still work within the art world today.
These newer collectors accept out of hand the explosion in availability of vast numbers of exotic, highly detailed, fantastically conditioned camos.
And they exist albeit it's awash with fakes but it's no different from any other collectable market.
I cannot actually prove that I'm right concerning the camo danger without paint testing.
But without paint testing, you cannot actually prove me wrong, either.
You can't test paint, what exactly would you be testing it for?! Lead? Lead was only outlawed in the 70's. You could study it under a microscope but the results would be inconclusive. Natural pigments can be traced to origin if existing data is available but not for age. You'd be studying the interaction with the binder, lead and the surface and come up with probabilities, not conclusive at all & certainly not within the last 100 years!
I'm not out to prove anybody wrong but rather another view point and a far less cynical one.
I'm really surprised you even mentioned REX-39. He's done more than anyone I know to show what is possible in camo replication. His work is excellent and believable.
Either you didn't read it properly or didn't take the Rex comment within the context it was written.
Your above reply was my point, Rex exists as a quality replicator but he's about the only one who replicates and he's not the only one that has the 'velvet-touch', the rest commit fraud.
I know that with the amount of collectables I have I'd have the odd fake or two or even three but so long as I don't know and never work it out then I don't really care.
I know also I have possessions that may have have been repaired or embellished but again I don't care if I don't know.
Winston Churchill was a pessimist by the way, he couldn't see the forest through the trees. If he had his way there wouldn't have been a Normandy. At least Goebbles got his point across!
Your stance on camos generally seems to be similar to those who became collectors within the last 20 years or so, after about the year 2000. These collectors really have no concept of the hobby during the 70s-90s and before, re: the availability, conditions and types of camos available then.
Incorrect! I've been doing this long before that, collecting that is and still work within the art world today.
These newer collectors accept out of hand the explosion in availability of vast numbers of exotic, highly detailed, fantastically conditioned camos.
And they exist albeit it's awash with fakes but it's no different from any other collectable market.
I cannot actually prove that I'm right concerning the camo danger without paint testing.
But without paint testing, you cannot actually prove me wrong, either.
You can't test paint, what exactly would you be testing it for?! Lead? Lead was only outlawed in the 70's. You could study it under a microscope but the results would be inconclusive. Natural pigments can be traced to origin if existing data is available but not for age. You'd be studying the interaction with the binder, lead and the surface and come up with probabilities, not conclusive at all & certainly not within the last 100 years!
I'm not out to prove anybody wrong but rather another view point and a far less cynical one.
I'm really surprised you even mentioned REX-39. He's done more than anyone I know to show what is possible in camo replication. His work is excellent and believable.
Either you didn't read it properly or didn't take the Rex comment within the context it was written.
Your above reply was my point, Rex exists as a quality replicator but he's about the only one who replicates and he's not the only one that has the 'velvet-touch', the rest commit fraud.
I know that with the amount of collectables I have I'd have the odd fake or two or even three but so long as I don't know and never work it out then I don't really care.
I know also I have possessions that may have have been repaired or embellished but again I don't care if I don't know.
Last edited:
What are you studying ? What is the base point of original camos that you can compare others to ? Is Russ Hamilton's camo collection, for instance, the base point for originality ? Is it Ron R.'s camo collection ? Is it what your collector friends tell you is original ?
Studying is exactly that, studying. How paint interacts with what it's applied to, how different solvents interact with different pigments, how consistently paint will age or not, whether it's titanium white that was used......and that's just the painted surface!
You compare with others you trust, unequivocally and believe it or not there are people like that. And then you have your own experiences whether it be an accredited knowledge or not......or both. Mine is both, I'm an art conservator.
Take the recent Sham-pain-SS ruins scandal, for instance. The spray painted bogus SS fakes were touted in print and on forums as authentic. Collectors were reassured by trusted, well known SS helmet "gurus" and authorities. Some of these even had "unquestioned" vet provenance, were "researched" from 30 year collections. Even the "science" of XRFacts was brought in to "prove" the bogus painted SS bug was constructed "almost exactly" like original Pocher-SS decals.
And it took one to expose it all and with a loop, if it wasn't so serious it'd be funny.
I don't quite understand your statement about XRF?
Are you saying that XRF was a branch of the scam to authenticate the Champagne runes as authenticate SS decals or are you saying XRF was conceived to expose them as fraudulent?
Knowing David like I had, he was no saviour, he was as crooked as the rest of them.....more so as he was still scamming up until the day he passed......He tried his shite on with me over a camo or two but that another story for another day.
Studying is exactly that, studying. How paint interacts with what it's applied to, how different solvents interact with different pigments, how consistently paint will age or not, whether it's titanium white that was used......and that's just the painted surface!
You compare with others you trust, unequivocally and believe it or not there are people like that. And then you have your own experiences whether it be an accredited knowledge or not......or both. Mine is both, I'm an art conservator.
Take the recent Sham-pain-SS ruins scandal, for instance. The spray painted bogus SS fakes were touted in print and on forums as authentic. Collectors were reassured by trusted, well known SS helmet "gurus" and authorities. Some of these even had "unquestioned" vet provenance, were "researched" from 30 year collections. Even the "science" of XRFacts was brought in to "prove" the bogus painted SS bug was constructed "almost exactly" like original Pocher-SS decals.
And it took one to expose it all and with a loop, if it wasn't so serious it'd be funny.
I don't quite understand your statement about XRF?
Are you saying that XRF was a branch of the scam to authenticate the Champagne runes as authenticate SS decals or are you saying XRF was conceived to expose them as fraudulent?
Knowing David like I had, he was no saviour, he was as crooked as the rest of them.....more so as he was still scamming up until the day he passed......He tried his shite on with me over a camo or two but that another story for another day.
M45
Well-known member
Camo paint can be tested for modern compounds. If we set the cutoff date for original vs. fake German WWII camos at 8 May 1945, paint compounds that had not yet existed prior to this date should not be found in a camo test sample.
If modern compounds are found in such camo paint (believed to be authentic) then we could conclude that said camo(s) are postwar alterations.
Are you saying that XRF was a branch of the scam to authenticate the Champagne runes as authenticate SS decals
Yes. XRFacts was the "science" that "proved" that C-SS was constructed almost exactly like original Pocher-SS decals (entirely bogus). It was another aspect of the scam to convince prospective buyers that C-SS was 100% authentic.
Camo paint can be tested for modern compounds.
I'm unsure what part of 'impossible' that you don't understand. There has been no significant change to oil paint until the lead within oils was outlawed in the 70's. It's still primarily linseed oil base that suspends the pigment and hardens.....and any solvent/binder that was used. The other significant change was the color white but that has no real relevance within this topic.
That is unless of course the camo is painted in acrylic which is a relatively new medium although used within domestic painting from the 40's but more widely used by artists in the 60's. (I'll included an image of an M1 that was painted in acrylic but unbeknown to the owner).
Any of this information is easily researched so instead of saying what you think it would be beneficial for all if you supported your thoughts with actual facts.
XRF was good in theory but what exactly were they testing for! It's used today with more sophistication but primarily in a pre 20th century context as paint then was made fundamentally on a daily basis and when needed. It was a scam and exposed as such.
I'm unsure what part of 'impossible' that you don't understand. There has been no significant change to oil paint until the lead within oils was outlawed in the 70's. It's still primarily linseed oil base that suspends the pigment and hardens.....and any solvent/binder that was used. The other significant change was the color white but that has no real relevance within this topic.
That is unless of course the camo is painted in acrylic which is a relatively new medium although used within domestic painting from the 40's but more widely used by artists in the 60's. (I'll included an image of an M1 that was painted in acrylic but unbeknown to the owner).
Any of this information is easily researched so instead of saying what you think it would be beneficial for all if you supported your thoughts with actual facts.
XRF was good in theory but what exactly were they testing for! It's used today with more sophistication but primarily in a pre 20th century context as paint then was made fundamentally on a daily basis and when needed. It was a scam and exposed as such.
M45
Well-known member
ON HOLD (cl) Striking M35 Camo Helmet - SS-Steel
This is a very sharp Heer M35 camouflage helmet, bearing a scheme of 3 colors: ordinance tan, brick red and grass green. The helmet is an SE66, #4734. The liner band is 1940 dated, with early style square tipped chinstrap bales--a feature of using up remaining M35 parts. The strap is 1939. The...
www.ss-steel-inc.com
ON HOLD (cl) Striking M35 Camo Helmet - SS-Steel
This is a very sharp Heer M35 camouflage helmet, bearing a scheme of 3 colors: ordinance tan, brick red and grass green. The helmet is an SE66, #4734. The liner band is 1940 dated, with early style square tipped chinstrap bales--a feature of using up remaining M35 parts. The strap is 1939. The...
www.ss-steel-inc.com
ON HOLD (cl) Striking M35 Camo Helmet
SKU: Mhbwcam35$3,700.00
This is a very sharp Heer M35 camouflage helmet, bearing a scheme of 3 colors: ordinance tan, brick red and grass green. The helmet is an SE66, #4734. The liner band is 1940 dated, with early style square tipped chinstrap bales–a feature of using up remaining M35 parts. The strap is 1939. The helmet therefore is a very early 1940 production, when M35 shells were still being used up. A near twin to this helmet is featured in Paul Martin’s books on camouflage helmets. A fine addition to the advanced camo collection. COA accompanies.
Attachments
