M45
Well-known member
Some relevant WAF camo discussion: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=889276 (my emphasis)
Paris Gun: Frankly, the painted liner doesn't trouble me too much &/or isn't my centralized area of focus with respect to ascertaining the helmet's authenticity; certainly it affects the value, but there may have been a valid reason to do so (blood-soaked from a prior owner, to prevent one's scalp from itching, and/or perhaps pursuant to an order issued to void revealing info: these are just a sample of hypothetical scenarios I came up with on the fly). Of course a Post-War application seems the most logical, but if vet done, why was such care devoted to such?
What troubles me though is the heavily pitted area to the rim as shown in a detailed photo; the same photo seems to also show another area of the rim with "filler" of some sort (at least that's what my poor eyesight caught). Maybe it was hung from a rusty nail, which could explain the VERY LOCALIZED severe pitting at that particular point. HOWEVER...
If a helmet rim can rust and become so pitted to actually loose some of the rim itself, then why does the exterior finish AND camo not reflect similar aging throughout?
I would LOVE to own this helmet, BUT as a "filler" in lieu of a collectible investment piece (at least on account of the current photos, which provide little confidence for me personally).
I anxiously await further comments, and to the current owner, IF the helmet continues to get 'killed', then LMK if you would consider a reconfigured sale price based upon the discussion results offered hereinafter!
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I hope for your sake it is declared an unaltered/ unrestored original!
Walter B.: My explanation here is made with all due respect, and it is only given because I was asked. I don't take any satisfaction in shooting down someone's helmet or giving good people bad news.
Having said the above, in my personal opinion, the wear exhibited by this helmet is artificial and contrived. The camo in this helmet is one dimensional and not consistent with the effect of authentic wear or naturally occurring damage. By "one dimensional", I mean that if you look at virtually all the wear on this helmet, it is all chips of the same degree of force. Compare it to a real worn camo and you will notice in the original wear that the wear and chips are the result of various differing amounts of force/contact. Some of the authentic wear/damage only affects the top layer of camo, some affects up to the second layer of camo, some other wear/damage affects up to the original finish of the helmet and yet some other wear/damage goes all the way to the base metal. It makes sense, really, because not all natural wear or damage is ever the result of the same degree of force. Looking at the helmet posted, virtually all of the wear/damage is the same (one-dimensional). Look at the pictures of this camo with the above in mind. The crown of the helmet is particularly telling with respect to this deficiency.
In addition, there is no real graduation in the wear. By that I mean that naturally occurring wear has the effect of gradual "erosion". There is no gradual erosion with this helmet, but rather blunt gouges or chips in the paint. Again, not consistent with naturally occurring wear, in my honest opinion.
I could go on dissecting this helmet (not having addressed other camo features and the painted liner), but I believe that the above may properly explain the more salient issues with respect to this camo. Again, I do not revel in giving people bad news, in particular when involving a high-priced item such as this one.
Paris Gun: Frankly, the painted liner doesn't trouble me too much &/or isn't my centralized area of focus with respect to ascertaining the helmet's authenticity; certainly it affects the value, but there may have been a valid reason to do so (blood-soaked from a prior owner, to prevent one's scalp from itching, and/or perhaps pursuant to an order issued to void revealing info: these are just a sample of hypothetical scenarios I came up with on the fly). Of course a Post-War application seems the most logical, but if vet done, why was such care devoted to such?
What troubles me though is the heavily pitted area to the rim as shown in a detailed photo; the same photo seems to also show another area of the rim with "filler" of some sort (at least that's what my poor eyesight caught). Maybe it was hung from a rusty nail, which could explain the VERY LOCALIZED severe pitting at that particular point. HOWEVER...
If a helmet rim can rust and become so pitted to actually loose some of the rim itself, then why does the exterior finish AND camo not reflect similar aging throughout?
I would LOVE to own this helmet, BUT as a "filler" in lieu of a collectible investment piece (at least on account of the current photos, which provide little confidence for me personally).
I anxiously await further comments, and to the current owner, IF the helmet continues to get 'killed', then LMK if you would consider a reconfigured sale price based upon the discussion results offered hereinafter!
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I hope for your sake it is declared an unaltered/ unrestored original!
Walter B.: My explanation here is made with all due respect, and it is only given because I was asked. I don't take any satisfaction in shooting down someone's helmet or giving good people bad news.
Having said the above, in my personal opinion, the wear exhibited by this helmet is artificial and contrived. The camo in this helmet is one dimensional and not consistent with the effect of authentic wear or naturally occurring damage. By "one dimensional", I mean that if you look at virtually all the wear on this helmet, it is all chips of the same degree of force. Compare it to a real worn camo and you will notice in the original wear that the wear and chips are the result of various differing amounts of force/contact. Some of the authentic wear/damage only affects the top layer of camo, some affects up to the second layer of camo, some other wear/damage affects up to the original finish of the helmet and yet some other wear/damage goes all the way to the base metal. It makes sense, really, because not all natural wear or damage is ever the result of the same degree of force. Looking at the helmet posted, virtually all of the wear/damage is the same (one-dimensional). Look at the pictures of this camo with the above in mind. The crown of the helmet is particularly telling with respect to this deficiency.
In addition, there is no real graduation in the wear. By that I mean that naturally occurring wear has the effect of gradual "erosion". There is no gradual erosion with this helmet, but rather blunt gouges or chips in the paint. Again, not consistent with naturally occurring wear, in my honest opinion.
I could go on dissecting this helmet (not having addressed other camo features and the painted liner), but I believe that the above may properly explain the more salient issues with respect to this camo. Again, I do not revel in giving people bad news, in particular when involving a high-priced item such as this one.