This has nothing to do with the usual censorship rant and the complaints about other forums. When you artificially age something then it becomes a deception even if presented as a reproduction at first . After these fake helmets change hands a few times the paint mark will disappear and they will be sold as originals. Why age them to look like original 70 year old helmets in the first place? It will do nothing but erode buyer confidence and damage the market. Putting a good face on here it won't change the long term damage it could do. Fakes are Fakes!
Questionable Camos
- Thread starter M45
- Start date
This has nothing to do with the usual censorship rant and the complaints about other forums. When you artificially age something then it becomes a deception even if presented as a reproduction at first . After these fake helmets change hands a few times the paint mark will disappear and they will be sold as originals. Why age them to look like original 70 year old helmets in the first place? It will do nothing but erode buyer confidence and damage the market. Putting a good face on here it won't change the long term damage it could do. Fakes are Fakes!
GunKraut
Senior Member
acer, if a helmet has previously been owned, handled or appraised by Ken N, Donald T or Mickey D is totally immaterial to the process of establishing its authenticity. Kelly Hicks authenticated fakes with other fakes and even wrote worthless books about it, go figure. In areas of collecting where fraud is rampant, such as helmets, sniper rifles or SS related junk, it is prudent to immediately assume anything -everything- being a good fake until vetted thoroughly by the community of expert collectors, and proven otherwise.
I lost count of how often I've seen individuals proudly presenting their latest "catch", be it an SS rifle, SS dagger, sniper rifle, even ordinary K98 "all matching" rifles who soon had to learn they had been fooled by experts in the art of making shite up. Most of the time the buyers didn't share their "catch" with other collectors before paying big money for fear someone else would snatch it away from them, and afterwards started arguing with the experts that their all out fake sniper "catch" was actually a very rare and formerly unknown K98 variant.
Since you vehemently defend certain helmets, is it safe to assume you once owned, handled or authenticated them? That, or are you simply acting out because of an unexplained profound personal dislike of M45?
I lost count of how often I've seen individuals proudly presenting their latest "catch", be it an SS rifle, SS dagger, sniper rifle, even ordinary K98 "all matching" rifles who soon had to learn they had been fooled by experts in the art of making shite up. Most of the time the buyers didn't share their "catch" with other collectors before paying big money for fear someone else would snatch it away from them, and afterwards started arguing with the experts that their all out fake sniper "catch" was actually a very rare and formerly unknown K98 variant.
Since you vehemently defend certain helmets, is it safe to assume you once owned, handled or authenticated them? That, or are you simply acting out because of an unexplained profound personal dislike of M45?
I dont have anything personal against nobody, just dont like how he acts.
I have more and more the impression that this mean is hurt for having been banned from some forums and, maybe, for not selling the number of books that he expected.
Of cource i have handled the last helmet he critizices, and is a good one. He doent even know the maker and the size since he just copied it here, he said a NS66, and ih he ould have been just a little expert on helmets would have noticed that is not a NS due tothe shape of the rivets and would have notice to be an EF for the shape of the visor, but he didnt see it because he doesnt know it.
The helmet came from the SOS, this helmet was a huge part of a collection bought there, many collectors meets at the hotel rooms in a party after the SOS, where the helmets are discussed,the fakes are spot up for sure, but after that party, having benn in amny handles, just he, and only he, says is a fake. Of cource stealing the pics from another forum where he was not supposed to be for any reason i dont know, but can imagine.
I asked the other day a reference or a credit that he is a collector, showing first my collection, but it seems he doesnbt want to show his collection for two reasons, he doesnt have anything ( i can believe it) or he is not sure of having good pieces ( i also can believe it after wacthing his study of some camos).
Anyway, i dont care he post here what he wants, this is not a reference forum for helmets and doesnt apport anything to me since im not K98 collector.
Dont like how he hide in the dark when i speak about him and will come tomorrow, probably, speaking about another camos.
Its a waste of time trying to speak to somebody that doest want to hear. If he had a decent collection that makes him to fell proud im sure he would have post.
Not a reliable person to share a nice hobby
Why buy a real camo? No body seems to agree on what a original looks like. With Rex I know exactly what I am getting. A very nice repro (or fake as you love to call them), that is a fraction of the cost of a supposed "real" camo. And it will look just as good as a "real" camo. There is a market for these kinds of helmets. And it doesn't hurt the collecting community. By your same logic there should be no "fake" snipers made for the purpose of shooting.
If some one wants to fake a camo helmet with the intentions of selling it as original for big money, then the presence of Rex's helmets are not going to change that. The same person who will remove his name from a piece of his work (which is not easy to do) is the same type of person who will go to any measures to create a helmet to fool collectors.
Your comments are haughty yet peculiar and logically inconsistent at the same time. Why are you and your mutual back patting society so antagonized by Ruffin's posts? Are you so naïve and myopic as to believe that Ruffin is the only person painting camo helmets? So, in your opinion if he would just be silenced all would be good? Or, we are somehow encouraging humping by thanking him for showing us how it is done? Perhaps in your forum echo chamber you are right. But alas, such a censored GOB klub is what nurtured the Champagne Rune Fraud and tried to make pie charts from XRFacts mandatory.
Contrary to your opinion, the current decrepit moral and ethical state of affairs in helmet collecting has everything to do with censorship, which is why we point it out and don't do it here. We aren't going to hypocritically attack and censor Ruffin because he brings much information and value to us on how to spot reproductions. Who else does this? You and your back patting society? I believe that at some point the same thing is going to happen in camo collecting as the Champagne Rune. It will come about with the help of people like Ruffin. Your comments here are far more inane and useless than anything Ruffin has posted, yet you are generously allowed to make them. Don't sniff gift fish.
Last edited:
Ah, you're right and he's wrong because you went to a hotel room helmet party at the SOS? None of those guys would sell a fake, or bless their buddy's fake, nor make a mistake, right? I remember when I set up at the SOS, how some would joke and laugh over drinks in the hotel bar about high dollar humpers they sold.
I think you should address M45's comments substantively.
Your comments are haughty yet peculiar and logically inconsistent at the same time. Why are you and your mutual back patting society so antagonized by Ruffin's posts? Are you so naïve and myopic as to believe that Ruffin is the only person painting camo helmets? So, in your opinion if he would just be silenced all would be good? Or, we are somehow encouraging humping by thanking him for showing us how it is done? Perhaps in your forum echo chamber you are right. But alas, such a censored GOB klub is what nurtured the Champagne Rune Fraud and tried to make pie charts from XRFacts mandatory.
Contrary to your opinion, the current decrepit moral and ethical state of affairs in helmet collecting has everything to do with censorship, which is why we point it out and don't do it here. We aren't going to hypocritically attack and censor Ruffin because he brings much information and value to us on how to spot reproductions. Who else does this? You and your back patting society? I believe that at some point the same thing is going to happen in camo collecting as the Champagne Rune. It will come about with the help of people like Ruffin. Your comments here are far more inane and useless than anything Ruffin has posted, yet you are generously allowed to make them. Don't sniff gift fish.
If Ruffin is such a pillar of virtue as you proclaim why doesn't he heavily etch into the inside skirt ""REPRO" ? Could it be it would hurt sales by people who intend pass these off as fakes?
Because you can't respond in a manner that fits your agenda and argument to the very clear, literal words in my post, you must then invent your own words to attribute to me? My statements were very clear and should be taken literally.
I have no idea what the full range of "virtues" Ruffin possesses or does not possess. I do know that he is by far not the only person painting camos, but he is the only person who is gracious enough to post them here and show and explain what he does so we can better learn to distinguish repros from originals. Do you bash King and Country and At The Front for producing top quality reproductions? Do I wish that no one anywhere would ever camo up a German helmet to make it look period? Sure. But that is a bit unreasonable to put it mildly. So, the next best thing is Ruffin who is at least candid and cares enough to post this for us to learn. He doesn't have to do so. His courtesies are appreciated here.
My personal belief is that much of the angst directed at Ruffin could be a result of people being uncomfortable with his disclosures, that they themselves own humpjobs or have sold them and that this is made more obvious by Ruffin's disclosures.
I have a problem with any top quality repro not being labeled as such . I have no problem with Ruffin sharing his handiwork,that's fine. I have a problem because it's marked in a manner that can be easily removed. If you have no problem with fakes being indelibly marked as such, what can say?
I agree with everything you've said. He responded to that inquiry and suggestion. What can we do beyond that? He doesn't have to come here and post anything. He never did. He is candid and up front about this and is teaching us to spot his work. I appreciate that. Would it be better to die stamp some markings into the helmet shell or rim? Yes, that would seem to be a better way to mark them.
I think you guys are missing one obvious huge point.
When you guys link a real camo amongst all the obvious fakes it's a monetary thing possibly.
Some guys it's a ego thing,some stubbornness when it comes to the issue of fake vs real.
There are 2 real lids posted in the last several pages that were questioned.
I guess you can question any helmet really,just depends on who is doing it and what knowledge they have.
I have picked up 2 lids that I got refunded for thankfully.GHW helped with this and one was owned by a high end collector,didn't stop the guys there from calling it bad.Im MarkC over there.I have nothing to hide.
I'm all for calling out fakes.With that being said I think a couple of you are a little coarse about it.
When you guys link a real camo amongst all the obvious fakes it's a monetary thing possibly.
Some guys it's a ego thing,some stubbornness when it comes to the issue of fake vs real.
There are 2 real lids posted in the last several pages that were questioned.
I guess you can question any helmet really,just depends on who is doing it and what knowledge they have.
I have picked up 2 lids that I got refunded for thankfully.GHW helped with this and one was owned by a high end collector,didn't stop the guys there from calling it bad.Im MarkC over there.I have nothing to hide.
I'm all for calling out fakes.With that being said I think a couple of you are a little coarse about it.
First, I don't think that point was missed. Opinions vary and there will be varying opinions on whether a helmet is original or not. If we knew for a fact which were original and which weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That said, there are a certain range and type of camos which I feel almost 100% certain on their originality.
As for being "course" about it, well, since being on the internets and dealing with people and problems for a living, sometimes it's just best to get it all out there. What invariably happens on a helmet forum, such as WAF, is that the person with the contrary opinion can be as tactful as he wants, but he is going to be attacked by the buffoons relentlessly until he shuts up. The "coarseness" we see here is a result of more personal conflict than the actual issues.
As for GHW2, I support it and hope for the best. I think they at least allowed venues to discuss various aspects of the Shampain Ruin controversies which were censored and stopped elsewhere to protect GOBs.
I'm not much of a fan of WAF either.
I would like to know your criteria for "a range or type" of good camo is.
Rex is ok at fake lids,doesn't fool people that have been around awhile.The DAK and Luft camo posted recently are the real deal,the e bay fakes are all horrid.
I would like to know your criteria for "a range or type" of good camo is.
Rex is ok at fake lids,doesn't fool people that have been around awhile.The DAK and Luft camo posted recently are the real deal,the e bay fakes are all horrid.
For example:
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?11822-M-40-Lw-camo-twins-vet-mailing-label
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?187-Lw.-M.40-camo-helmet-green-brown-splotch
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?618-M.35-Lw.-Camo-KIA
I like these as well:
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?9783-German-green-tan-camos
You really need to slow down, take a breath and read Rex's posts. He gives a good explanation for why he paints his name in his helmets instead of "etching" them as you so desire. He explains that because of the paint he uses that it is more difficult to remove then a etching would be.
I'm afraid I don't buy that one . Paint can be removed or covered up. Also under the liner doesn't work for me either. Deeply engraved on the inside in a visible location like the back skirt would be far more acceptable. Any attempt to deface or fill the lettering would be more difficult.
Nice lids for sure.
Thank you. They are "safe bets". I've got a few that are not safe bets, and reasonable minds could differ on them, but that's the nature of this game. I don't get butthurt over legitimate criticism and questioning. I tend to get irritated by silly criticism, such as Perry Floid proclaiming that the two you see were probably bad because I had two of them, and another waftard claiming the mailing label was fake "because it doesn't have a zip code"
(seriously, a waftard posted this).The last, the green and tan lids, are interesting and used to be more controversial (e.g., claims that they were Norwegian camo). I've got two of them as well and I've amassed a large picture library of every one I could find. I think I have found two period photos of them.