Questionable Camos

[iron bender]

The funny thing is the sling on it is Finn, not German.

 

[M45]

M1940 Heer Over-Paint German Helmet

M1940 Heer Over-Paint German Helmet

This is a fantastic looking authentic M1940 Heer Single Decal German helmet. This WWII German helmet retains 90%+ of the original rough texture thick field applied over-paint. The paint has sand mixed in and just looks terrific. The split pin rivets are fully intact and are original to the helmet. This German helmet has the correct and original M1931 steel banded liner. The liner is size 55. The liner leather is in good solid overall condition with the original drawstring present. The helmet is an ET62 indicating manufacture by the Eisenhuttenwerke firm in Thale, Germany. The lot number is 865. As with all our WWII German helmets, this M1940 Heer German helmet comes with our Lifetime Guarantee and Certificate of Authenticity.

$1,400.00 Item #2946


Something that has been emerging into the collector's realm recently are these 'overpaints'. Overpaints or 'reissues' have been historically associated with depots, places that refurbished helmets for reissue, often with a spray or brush application of an official color; green/gray, slate gray, or luft blue/gray. This paint may or may not have had texture added, but when added it was usually of a similar grit as helmet factories used, not the very heavy sand style seen on field modified helmets (camos).

This example IMO compares with the two woodchips above; the luft blue/gray and slate gray, reissue colors used in conjunction with an elaborate anti-glare element (woodchips, heavy sand) does not make sense. The depot reissues I've seen were not elaborately done as some field modified camos were, a simple overspray or brush application of official colors with or without a fine grit. Artistry was not a characteristic with reissues as it was with some camos. Artistry is something that fakers use to draw in camo collectors.

Pristine conditioned material with near 100% coverage with a few prominent dings for good measure (rear photo).

 

[M45]

M35 sd heer 'reissue'

M35 SD HEER 'reissue'

This helmet started life as a DD Heer with a non-reinforced aluminum band that has broken (which is typical) from use. The liner shows a helmet with substantial wear.

Then at some point something happened, it had received a grayish colored textured overpaint, after which time it had apparently saw no action

This camo/overepaint should scare the begesus out of all of us, especially camo collectors. During the years of the obviously bad camos, I asked myself 'why don't they just hire a professional, like a movie prop artist ?'.

A professional could make this stuff look bang-on authentic, like they do when painting up their movie props (re: painting up plywood props to look like steel or stone etc...).

This helmet tells me that they finally did hire the professional. No doubt by using original camos/overapaints for the subject, the artist was able to fashion a highly believable recreation using an original SD helmet.

While many collectors might swear originality for this one, the unnatural wear gives it away as a recent replica.


Starting with an original M35 Heer helmet, the overpaint was applied and very carefully aged (I love the red crayon mark - a nice touch) with remnants of what appears to be a mud camo. We have a heavily worn rim with paint knocked off high points to bare metal (rivets/vents) with a few random dings elsewhere for good measure, paint popped off with hard breaks amidst pristine conditioned paint otherwise with near 100% coverage despite a well worn liner (disparity of wear).

What we DON'T see is the wide variety of combat wear that is typically seen on known originals, like scratches, rub marks, paint WORN off, the smooth dark rust patina and the texture worn down smooth to factory finish especially on the crown, etc...etc

 

[mauser99]

the two last helmets are typical of what we call re-issue of field repaint. Some times these lines get blurred IMHO. There are many levels to these and my fingers would fall off typing all the differences. I will just make my comments of the top two helmets..

Top helmet : On dealers site has been post war re-painted IMHO.

Bottom helmet is 100% period. You can see the top helmet is missing large amounts of paint like the lower but , Has be touched up. The grey color is off IMHO and is industrial grey in a can..

Sometimes the $$$ signs get in the way of these guys eyes so you must use your own when judging helmets on any site or show...

 

[M45]

-Bottom helmet is 100% period. You can see the top helmet is missing large amounts of paint like the lower but , Has be touched up. The grey color is off IMHO and is industrial grey in a can.


I'm not sure I follow you. Both helmets have large areas of paint popped off with hard breaks. The top helmet has that area touched up, while the bottom helmet does not, so the bottom one is 100% authentic ?

I think you're missing my point. Paint popped off with hard breaks amidst large areas of pristine conditioned paint with no other types of wear spells trouble, IMO. I would not be fooled into thinking that helm #2 is OK because the damaged area is not touched up like helm #1.

Helm #2 in addition to the 3 color Normandy just above are both first class restorations IMO. It is certainly no surprise that they are fooling large numbers of collectors, just like C-SS did for years.

 

[mauser99]

you are missing my point I guess as well.. Both are period depot or rough field overpaints. Paint is brittle and will break when there is a heavy impact.
Why would a helmet have a heavy impact in spot like that for no reason ?????? Remember the photos I posted before ??

Ever notice stacking rings on helmets ??

Ever see impact damage that doesn't make sense..

What's the issue with rough concrete re-issues and rough overpaints ?? Maybe I am missing your point ?

 

[ZF41 K98k]

The paranoia is getting real with this one. I don't have much of a liking for the top field repaint, but the bottom one is 110%.

If you were to drop that helmet in a certain way (today), the paint would flake off in the same way. Such a finish, as rightly described by Mauser99, is very brittle! The nature of the paint/finish would also bring off the underlying factory paint in the event of it coming away, hence the bare metal...

M45, this so called "unnatural wear" you mention is what exactly? Can any wear pattern to any helmet be classed as 'natural' (you seem to be alluding to a 'textbook' standard of wear here, that ALL helmets must adhere to, which IMHO could not be further from the truth) - they all saw their own individual conditions in which they were used.

 

[mauser99]

The paranoia is getting real with this one. I don't have much of a liking for the top field repaint, but the bottom one is 110%.

If you were to drop that helmet in a certain way (today), the paint would flake off in the same way. Such a finish, as rightly described by Mauser99, is very brittle! The nature of the paint/finish would also bring off the underlying factory paint in the event of it coming away, hence the bare metal...

M45, this so called "unnatural wear" you mention is what exactly? Can any wear pattern to any helmet be classed as 'natural' (you seem to be alluding to a 'textbook' standard of wear here, that ALL helmets must adhere to, which IMHO could not be further from the truth) - they all saw their own individual conditions in which they were used.

Also; Most helmets weren't taken in the heat of battle. There was NO time and why would you want to carry anything extra with you ?? Most were taken after action from the ground or taken from these large piles or stacks IMHO.

 

[M45]

The paranoia is getting real with this one. I don't have much of a liking for the top field repaint, but the bottom one is 110%.

If you were to drop that helmet in a certain way (today), the paint would flake off in the same way. Such a finish, as rightly described by Mauser99, is very brittle! The nature of the paint/finish would also bring off the underlying factory paint in the event of it coming away, hence the bare metal...

M45, this so called "unnatural wear" you mention is what exactly? Can any wear pattern to any helmet be classed as 'natural' (you seem to be alluding to a 'textbook' standard of wear here, that ALL helmets must adhere to, which IMHO could not be further from the truth) - they all saw their own individual conditions in which they were used.

'Unnatural wear' is that which is typically NOT seen on standard issue combat worn helmets. Take one of your factory issue SD helmets that shows obvious wear (sweat stained liners, etc) and take your loup/magnifying glass and look carefully over the outside surface of the helmet and note what you see going on with the paint. You will no doubt see a wide variety of marks on the paint caused by years of combat use, scratches, rub marks, dings, paint worn to a dark rust patina, maybe some rust bleed through, and so on. Any once bare metal has long since achieved a smooth dark rust patina.

This type of wear typically seen on known original worn factory finishes is NOT what I see on these helmets. If original, they must have been painted up in the field, left to dry, and before troopers had time to even put them on they were captured. The helmets were then carefully placed inside of a time machine, but in the process, the helmets were bumped against the portal that knocked some paint off of high points (vents/rivets) and some dome hits.

The helmets emerged from the time machine just recently (wood-work finds, mind you) with paint in pristine condition minus the chips. But strangely, the paint itself had aged during the journey.

So we have, in effect, paint finishes that are well-aged but NOT well worn.

Since I don't actually believe in time machines, I will give you a practical scenario of how these camos came to be;

Original helmets were recently professionally camoed (with texture). The helmets then had their new finishes aged by a variety of means. Finally, the 'unnatural wear' was applied, paint removed from rims and high points (rivets/vents) to bare metal with a few additional random hits for good measure, paint popped off with something like a rubber hose or mallet that removed paint without damaging the helmet itself. The appearance of BARE SHINY STEEL is invariably a very bad sign in addition to recent oxidation. It shows that the damage had occurred RECENTLY.

Naturally, you do NOT see the wide variety of wear found on worn factory helmets because these helmets had never seen combat after the treatments. That is what I see here.

Camo collectors have become snake-fascinated with modern art, just as SS helmet collectors had with C-SS. The days of trusting first impressions, gut feelings and instincts in regard to helmet collecting are OVER. C-SS had been so well accepted because collectors did not bother to think beyond what they saw. It's like going to a magic show - what you see is not reality; your eyes are lying to you.

 

[M45]

This is an M42 ckl66 helmet I have for sale on ebay. Zoom in on some of these shots and see what all is going on on the surface; dings, scratches, some rust bleed-through, some whitewash remnants, spurious marks, damaged paint to rust patina, etc...

Then compare what you see on this helmet with the two camos.

 

[M45]

you are missing my point I guess as well.. Both are period depot or rough field overpaints. Paint is brittle and will break when there is a heavy impact.
Why would a helmet have a heavy impact in spot like that for no reason ?????? Remember the photos I posted before ??

Ever notice stacking rings on helmets ??

Ever see impact damage that doesn't make sense..

What's the issue with rough concrete re-issues and rough overpaints ?? Maybe I am missing your point ?

I suppose my point is that these so-called 'reissues' (as opposed to factory finishes or field camos) are being replicated as others have been.

The primary mistake that the 'artists' are making IMO is that the reissue colors (green/gray, slate gray, and luft blue/gray) applied by reissue depots were used either with no texture or with texture not dissimilar to factory texture (as per surviving examples). The 'reissues' below, while using reissue colors, show heavy anti-glare elements (woodchips, concrete, etc...) seen on field modified helmets, not depot reissues. So while the heavy anti-glare elements in the paint fit a field modified scenario, the reissue colors do not. My understanding is that depot reissue paint and factory paint was generally not available to soldiers in the field.

Those are just the 'theoretical' problems I have with the helmets listed. Practical problems exist with unnatural wear.

 

[mauser99]

This is an M42 ckl66 helmet I have for sale on ebay. Zoom in on some of these shots and see what all is going on on the surface; dings, scratches, some rust bleed-through, some whitewash remnants, spurious marks, damaged paint to rust patina, etc...

Then compare what you see on this helmet with the two camos.

I know where you are going with this and why you are doing it and I respect that. But, you are comparing apples to oranges. These late helmets have very thin coats of paint especially these late ckl types with no grit. They tend to show rust bleed as there is no thickness to the paint. They also scratch very easy. This helmet shows little to know use.

The one re-issue is a m35 circa 1937 it's been worn and around a long time. I don't see rough paint re-issues as being a big money maker. THey often cover what's underneath being a Apple Green M35dd that would be worth 2 to 3x the over painted helmet.

I own a lot of re-issues mostly because of the variations and the low cost.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

The paranoia is getting real with this one. I don't have much of a liking for the top field repaint, but the bottom one is 110%.

If you were to drop that helmet in a certain way (today), the paint would flake off in the same way. Such a finish, as rightly described by Mauser99, is very brittle! The nature of the paint/finish would also bring off the underlying factory paint in the event of it coming away, hence the bare metal...

M45, this so called "unnatural wear" you mention is what exactly? Can any wear pattern to any helmet be classed as 'natural' (you seem to be alluding to a 'textbook' standard of wear here, that ALL helmets must adhere to, which IMHO could not be further from the truth) - they all saw their own individual conditions in which they were used.

I have been over this with him in a previous thread. To answer your questions:

1. Yes, he does believe every camo helmet must show the exact same "natural" wear pattern and must always show hard use. I can only assume the same rule must hold true for overpaints.
2. No, there is no consideration for differences in use, paint preparation, paint thinning, application, or post war storage conditions.
3. I dont think he's ever defined "natural wear" beyond just his opinion.
4. I agree, that second helmet is 100% original
5. In my opinion, the things Wayne mentioned are never taken into consideration. Helmet piles, storage, someone dropping a helmet 50 years after the war but still 25 years ago now etc. Also, anyone who has ever scraped old paint knows how brittle it can become and how easily it can flake off particularly with little preparation.

Not an attack on M45 by any means, certainly camos warrant caution and M45 knows helmets and in general knows more about helmets than myself. Just the problems I have found in his opinions on camos.

 

[ZF41 K98k]

I have been over this with him in a previous thread. To answer your questions:

1. Yes, he does believe every camo helmet must show the exact same "natural" wear pattern and must always show hard use. I can only assume the same rule must hold true for overpaints.
2. No, there is no consideration for differences in use, paint preparation, paint thinning, application, or post war storage conditions.
3. I dont think he's ever defined "natural wear" beyond just his opinion.
4. I agree, that second helmet is 100% original
5. In my opinion, the things Wayne mentioned are never taken into consideration. Helmet piles, storage, someone dropping a helmet 50 years after the war but still 25 years ago now etc. Also, anyone who has ever scraped old paint knows how brittle it can become and how easily it can flake off particularly with little preparation.

Not an attack on M45 by any means, certainly camos warrant caution and M45 knows helmets and in general knows more about helmets than myself. Just the problems I have found in his opinions on camos.

Finally some sense has been spoken! Initially, I wasn't going to get into any arguments about these, nor indulge in a reply. However, there is no let-up or leeway in the opinions presented (often as fact) by M45, and it is getting a little tiresome. That being said, I do also agree that there needs to be vetting of camos, and that this thread 'in general' makes a step towards that - that I like - but feel that personal vendettas and such are getting in the way of it being a more objective discussion. Which is a shame.

 

[M45]

I have been over this with him in a previous thread. To answer your questions:

1. Yes, he does believe every camo helmet must show the exact same "natural" wear pattern and must always show hard use. I can only assume the same rule must hold true for overpaints.
2. No, there is no consideration for differences in use, paint preparation, paint thinning, application, or post war storage conditions.
3. I dont think he's ever defined "natural wear" beyond just his opinion.
4. I agree, that second helmet is 100% original
5. In my opinion, the things Wayne mentioned are never taken into consideration. Helmet piles, storage, someone dropping a helmet 50 years after the war but still 25 years ago now etc. Also, anyone who has ever scraped old paint knows how brittle it can become and how easily it can flake off particularly with little preparation.

Not an attack on M45 by any means, certainly camos warrant caution and M45 knows helmets and in general knows more about helmets than myself. Just the problems I have found in his opinions on camos.

I think you are moving into very dangerous territory my friend, justifying all of this paint popped off to bare steel on many of these exotic freshie camos and 'reissues' as having been dropped within the last 25 years ??

You just don't drop expensive helmets like that; most collectors would instinctively know that, even 25 years ago. And there are so MANY like this.

 

[ZF41 K98k]

I think you are moving into very dangerous territory my friend, justifying all of this paint popped off to bare steel on many of these exotic freshie camos and 'reissues' as having been dropped within the last 25 years ??

You just don't drop expensive helmets like that; most collectors would instinctively know that, even 25 years ago. And there are so MANY like this.

Where does he state that it DEFINITELY did happen? And who are you to say it DEFINITELY didn't? And now we hear that "you just don't drop expensive helmets like that", yes because we only ever drop/accidentally damage the things we don't care about...

This, essentially summarises the root cause of the problem here; where you can bend the rules to suit your own hypotheses, but others can't...

Dropped recently or decades ago, OR never at all - regardless, you like to tar all helmets with the same brush (pardon the pun) which is the largest flaw here. It's becoming laughable.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I think you are moving into very dangerous territory my friend, justifying all of this paint popped off to bare steel on many of these exotic freshie camos and 'reissues' as having been dropped within the last 25 years ??

You just don't drop expensive helmets like that; most collectors would instinctively know that, even 25 years ago. And there are so MANY like this.

Once again, your inability to see a larger situation. Dropping a helmet was just used as an example of any 10,000 things that could happen to a helmet during the war or in the 75 years after. And yes if you've ever bought something from the vets family or any non collector really many times people don't care or have any clue what something is worth. Not to mention until comparatively recently this stuff was a dime a dozen. Particularly camos etc without a pretty decal.

 

[M45]

I know where you are going with this and why you are doing it and I respect that. But, you are comparing apples to oranges. These late helmets have very thin coats of paint especially these late ckl types with no grit. They tend to show rust bleed as there is no thickness to the paint. They also scratch very easy. This helmet shows little to know use.

The one re-issue is a m35 circa 1937 it's been worn and around a long time. I don't see rough paint re-issues as being a big money maker. THey often cover what's underneath being a Apple Green M35dd that would be worth 2 to 3x the over painted helmet.

I own a lot of re-issues mostly because of the variations and the low cost.

-But, you are comparing apples to oranges.

We are comparing German combat helmets to German combat helmets. Helmets with factory finishes and helmets with depot reissue finishes typically show similar types of combat wear. And while reissues CAN show more flaking paint due to the reissue paint not being baked on like a factory finish, you will still typically see much varied wear on these just like factory helmets. I do not see this varied wear on the 'questionable reissues'. I see essentially ONE type of damage, paint popped off with hard breaks, in many cases to bare steel and with recent oxidation.



-These late helmets have very thin coats of paint especially these late ckl types with no grit. They tend to show rust bleed as there is no thickness to the paint. They also scratch very easy. This helmet shows little to know use.

I think you're on a tangent here. Factory helmet paint was baked on, cured for hardness. If anything it will scratch less easily than paint not baked on like reissues. My M42 shows little HEAVY use, but it shows much moderate use.



-The one re-issue is a m35 circa 1937 it's been worn and around a long time.

I don't doubt that. I just doubt whether it had that reissue finish for nearly as long a time.



-I don't see rough paint re-issues as being a big money maker. THey often cover what's underneath being a Apple Green M35dd that would be worth 2 to 3x the over painted helmet.

Mauser, we see ALL TYPES of German helmets faked in this hobby; factory helmets, camos plain and exotic, rare foreign legion decals, civic helmets with factory guard decals, and yes we even see 'reissues' being faked. Artists upgrade helmets to increase their value. And since these questionable overapaints usually have near 100% coverage with little if any exposure of original exterior paint, we really do not know what was originally underneath the overpaint condition-wise. It probably was not a DD Heer in bang on condition as that would already have good value. Many restored helmets originally had condition issues of one sort or another that made them lower dollar helmets, and thus prime targets for upgrades.

 

[M45]

1. Yes, he does believe every camo helmet must show the exact same "natural" wear pattern and must always show hard use. I can only assume the same rule must hold true for overpaints.

Gee-wiz Big-dibs, these were COMBAT HELMETS, not gold plated inscribed commemorative bowls fit for a china cabinet! Many were front line helmets, camos especially but reissues as well. Always hard use ? I would be happy with some moderate use beyond the few paint chips.



2. No, there is no consideration for differences in use, paint preparation, paint thinning, application, or post war storage conditions.

While these issues have merit, they are too often used to justify modern art. Yes, there are '10,000 reasons' why each of those reissues show near 100% coverage and essentially no wear beyond a few paint chips.



3 . I dont think he's ever defined "natural wear" beyond just his opinion.

That sounds ridiculous. Of course my definition of 'natural wear' is going to be my own opinion.



4. agree, that second helmet is 100% original

Why do you think that SD Heer SE66 overpaint is original? What makes the overapaint authentic ? Can you explain why beyond just your opinion ? What makes it so authentic it could not have been replicated by a trained artist ?



5. In my opinion, the things Wayne mentioned are never taken into consideration. Helmet piles, storage, someone dropping a helmet 50 years after the war but still 25 years ago now etc. Also, anyone who has ever scraped old paint knows how brittle it can become and how easily it can flake off particularly with little preparation.

What we are seeing in the helmet collecting community is modern art taking on an authenticity all of its own, helmet forums and dealers playing a large part in making this happen. With C-SS in mind, just because a helmet's camo/overapaint may appear authentic, it does not mean it actually is authentic. Many skilled artists are working overtime to take collector's hard earned money. And they are succeeding.

NOTE: the last four helmets are IMO authentic and show a variety of wear. Quite a contrast to these near mint conditioned finishes masquerading as authentic.

 

[M45]

GHW2 KM wire camo. This one was an amateur attempt often seen earlier in the hobby.

These recent ones 'self-replicating out of the wood-work' (to quote another member) were IMO professionally done.

The same concept though, taking original helmets (some with original components/decals) and upgrading them to increase their value. Respect for history was never a consideration. It was only about $$$.