Questionable Camos
- Thread starter M45
- Start date
M45
Well-known member
NEW! Item 929 M40 single decal army chicken-wire helmet
http://www.germanhelmetsinc.com/helmetssale.htm
I know what you're thinking; "Who can guarantee that this, or any chicken-wire helmet is authentic? Even if Ken Niewiarowicz says it is?" The answer to that is "Nobody". None of us was there when these things were made. We can only judge the helmet by what the helmet shows us. Some of us happen to be a bit better at this than others. And there will always be dis-believers of any example. So with that said, I will tell you why I have faith in this example as being authentic. First; back in the day (and even in modern times) fakers tended to be helmet enthusiasts themselves. They rarely wasted a quality helmet on a hump-job. Generally they chose ratty SD helmets or No-decal types which were cheap "canvas" for them to create their artwork. This happens to be a very nice helmet even if the wire were not there... Second; look at the rim of any helmet; right where it comes into contact with the flat surface upon which it has been sitting and/or jostled around for the past 70 years. There is always significant rim wear. No paint at all in most cases. Picture a helmet that has had it's rim suspended just a hair above that flat surface for all these years. There would consequently be little or no rim damage other than what was done to the helmet pre-1945. Look at the rim of this helmet. I believe the bands have been bent around the rim for all these years and it has been suspended just a hair up from that flat surface that has worn the rims of other helmets. Third: this helmet is in pretty good shape. It has not aged much where rust and corrosion will form in order to give us comfortable signs to show us that it is real. The wire is actually not closely attached to the shell in order for the years to have provided "interaction" between wire and helmet surface. But; where there is connection, such as the points at which the bands meet the rim, there is interaction aplenty. Long story short; I believe this helmet is an original chicken-wire camouflage example. Can I guarantee it? I can only guarantee that I believe it. I cannot guarantee that all other collectors, forum members or your mail man will believe it. If you believe it, you may want to consider buying it. If you do not believe it, then do not consider it. That's my salesman's pitch. The helmet itself is a lovely ET64 M40 single decal army helmet with a textbook ET style Heer eagle decal which remains 97% intact. The paint rates at 95%. The liner shows moderate wear but is well balanced in all aspects. The chinstrap has suffered great tragedy at the hands of the former owner; being broken cleanly in two.
When you need 12 lines to justify a wire helmet, maybe I should pass on wire helmets. IMO the wire itself appears recent, like a modern zinc electro-plating job. It looks too clean, too smooth, too new. I would have expected to see a heavier, more corroded wire with more odd dents and scratches to it reflecting all of the action it had seen. No price ??
http://www.germanhelmetsinc.com/helmetssale.htm
I know what you're thinking; "Who can guarantee that this, or any chicken-wire helmet is authentic? Even if Ken Niewiarowicz says it is?" The answer to that is "Nobody". None of us was there when these things were made. We can only judge the helmet by what the helmet shows us. Some of us happen to be a bit better at this than others. And there will always be dis-believers of any example. So with that said, I will tell you why I have faith in this example as being authentic. First; back in the day (and even in modern times) fakers tended to be helmet enthusiasts themselves. They rarely wasted a quality helmet on a hump-job. Generally they chose ratty SD helmets or No-decal types which were cheap "canvas" for them to create their artwork. This happens to be a very nice helmet even if the wire were not there... Second; look at the rim of any helmet; right where it comes into contact with the flat surface upon which it has been sitting and/or jostled around for the past 70 years. There is always significant rim wear. No paint at all in most cases. Picture a helmet that has had it's rim suspended just a hair above that flat surface for all these years. There would consequently be little or no rim damage other than what was done to the helmet pre-1945. Look at the rim of this helmet. I believe the bands have been bent around the rim for all these years and it has been suspended just a hair up from that flat surface that has worn the rims of other helmets. Third: this helmet is in pretty good shape. It has not aged much where rust and corrosion will form in order to give us comfortable signs to show us that it is real. The wire is actually not closely attached to the shell in order for the years to have provided "interaction" between wire and helmet surface. But; where there is connection, such as the points at which the bands meet the rim, there is interaction aplenty. Long story short; I believe this helmet is an original chicken-wire camouflage example. Can I guarantee it? I can only guarantee that I believe it. I cannot guarantee that all other collectors, forum members or your mail man will believe it. If you believe it, you may want to consider buying it. If you do not believe it, then do not consider it. That's my salesman's pitch. The helmet itself is a lovely ET64 M40 single decal army helmet with a textbook ET style Heer eagle decal which remains 97% intact. The paint rates at 95%. The liner shows moderate wear but is well balanced in all aspects. The chinstrap has suffered great tragedy at the hands of the former owner; being broken cleanly in two.
When you need 12 lines to justify a wire helmet, maybe I should pass on wire helmets. IMO the wire itself appears recent, like a modern zinc electro-plating job. It looks too clean, too smooth, too new. I would have expected to see a heavier, more corroded wire with more odd dents and scratches to it reflecting all of the action it had seen. No price ??
Attachments
Last edited:
Eurofighter
Well-known member
mauser99
Senior Member
the photos are the best but, I'm leaning towards I like it. Looks like it was camo'd multiple times as well.
Sorry, looks like an aging chemical wash and artificial oxidation / aging on the inside liner band area. Same with the liner. I'd have to have it in hand. I'm basing my opinion on the pics provided, from an iPhone, and I'll look at them bigger later but at this point I'm solid at that.
M45
Well-known member
EF, I would recommend many camo collectors step back from the hobby for a time to get their bearings on authenticity versus forgery. Knowing what's what in camo collecting has become increasingly difficult as time goes on, and from what I've seen on various forums, many collectors are having the wool pulled over their eyes. And I'm just referring to questionable camos here. When you add in the increasing numbers of high-end fakes, I see a hobby completely vulnerable to fraud.
One place camo collectors could begin a serious study is right here on this thread. Here are posted dozens of questionable camos, a number of high end fakes and authentic camos to examine.
You can't fly by the seat of your pants in this hobby and expect to succeed; it doesn't work that way anymore. Ask a pilot if anyone can just climb into an airplane and start flying. They will have the thing upside-down and into the ground before they know what's happened. They need to learn how to read the instruments and disregard what their senses tell them.
This is what camo collectors need to do; disregard their emotions and gut feelings and learn to read the characteristics on these things that will tell them what is going on.
Eurofighter,
I looked at it on my office PC. I like it far better than the smaller iphone pics. There are things about it I don't like, as previously noted, but I'd give it a shot and would want an in hand inspect.
Regards,
HB
mauser99
Senior Member
photos.
I saw this lid posted on another forum. These two photos taken of the same helmet in different light ? I assume. Colors look totally off.
I find my camera does the same thing and when selling a helmet , rifle anything for that matter day light photos are a must. Ral colors looking off can just be a case of lighting or digital photography. IN HAND is a must and basing judgment off photos alone is a fools game.
I saw this lid posted on another forum. These two photos taken of the same helmet in different light ? I assume. Colors look totally off.
I find my camera does the same thing and when selling a helmet , rifle anything for that matter day light photos are a must. Ral colors looking off can just be a case of lighting or digital photography. IN HAND is a must and basing judgment off photos alone is a fools game.
Attachments
M45
Well-known member
I will agree that some camos need a hands-on, but to think that EVERY camo needs a hands-on to determine likely authenticity is I think a bit extreme. Many of these exotic freshie Normandys posted here have RAL so far off that lighting alone cannot account for it. That, in addition to other problem factors with these helmets, gives me the info I need to make a determination I can feel secure with.
I don't care for that lid; too many extreme gouge marks for one, lack of age another.
I don't care for that lid; too many extreme gouge marks for one, lack of age another.
Eurofighter
Well-known member
I take your point, I view constantly both here and on GHW. I often post questions or helmets to start a debate, to get people with more experience to offer their views, so that I can learn from them.
I don't have many camo helmets pass through my hands to learn from, that makes it difficult.
I know that you M45 have strict guidelines that you stick to. Dull colours, heavy dome wear with non-regular damage marks, that is good guideline and information. But there is also a 'Grey zone' - not ALL camo helmets fall under this criteria. Not ALL camo helmets were camo'd up at the start of the war and endured the rigors of 5 years combat. Some may have been camo'd to go into theatre and the soldier was killed early on with little wear to the helmet. In-field bases where helmets were sprayed up and stored may have been over-run and undamaged helmets taken as trophy's by the Allied soldier. It is this 'Grey zone' that I am trying to understand more.
This forum is good for its critical analysis of the camo helmet. The examples of faked helmets and the comments about them, very interesting. The camo work from 'Ruffin' exceptional and very difficult to differentiate from the 'real deal'.
This helmet I posted today. The Camo looks to me ok. What I am uncertain about is the liner and band. As 'Hambone' mentioned, liner band looks dark, as if treated and there is some red rust near to it. The lot number on this SE64 is #23774 very late in production, almost near to the M40 start point, if I have understood your book correctly. I see steel chinstrap bales, but can't decide if that is a Zinc plated steel liner or a NRAB. This helmet was produced well into the RAB or Zinc plated steel zone.
I do step back to regain my bearings, I am viewing and trying to gain more experience, but this camo helmet field is constantly evolving and becoming more difficult to find an original period piece.
EF .
Just added the # Lot 23774 with the rust spots.
Attachments
Last edited:
M45
Well-known member
EF, take a look at this GHW2 woodchip camo with traces of whitewash and wire remnants with clear painted name (quite a mouthful and quite a bit to have on a single helmet). Do you think it has a chance ?
Attachments
-
post-25761-0-08984000-1489008127.jpg -
post-25761-0-10583200-1489008121.jpg -
post-25761-0-11216000-1489008133.jpg -
post-25761-0-13777400-1489008112.jpg -
post-25761-0-18980600-1489008124.jpg -
post-25761-0-31047200-1489008116.jpg -
post-25761-0-61508300-1489008131.jpg -
post-25761-0-94784600-1489008129.jpg -
post-25761-0-87558500-1489008119.jpg
Last edited:
M45
Well-known member
That M42 Luft has textured camo, multi colors, a nice dot style camo scheme, a nice inscription AND evidence of wire, all on top of a well worn (shot) decal.
Ever notice how many of these have multiple good qualities about them, which is normally very unusual to have so many on one helmet, but lately these camos coming out of the wood work loaded down with features;
-heavily textured paint
-in excellent condition
-near 100% coverage
-multiple color schemes often exotic
-wire, or evidence thereof
-nice painted names or penciled inscriptions
-nice touches like a bit of garage overspray, a fingerprint, some camo paint on the liner/liner band, some camo paint on the chinstrap
they have nearly everything we want to see in nice camo helmets.
Ever notice how many of these have multiple good qualities about them, which is normally very unusual to have so many on one helmet, but lately these camos coming out of the wood work loaded down with features;
-heavily textured paint
-in excellent condition
-near 100% coverage
-multiple color schemes often exotic
-wire, or evidence thereof
-nice painted names or penciled inscriptions
-nice touches like a bit of garage overspray, a fingerprint, some camo paint on the liner/liner band, some camo paint on the chinstrap
they have nearly everything we want to see in nice camo helmets.
Last edited:
Not to put words into his mouth, but a helmet in bad shape with a worn decal is more ripe for altering than one in good shape. A faker may be less willing to invest in a top shelf helmet, but a $300 one is workable for their purposes.
My question is if collectors can not agree on what is real and what is fake why would anyone spend $3-4k? Won't the amount of fakes in the hobby eventually drive collectors away or at the minimum make it so new collectors don't want to enter? At that point it becomes supply and demand. If there are not enough buyers the helmets will drop in price. Both the real and the fake ones because it seems the line is being blurred by too many collectors not wanting to believe a fake is a fake, and maybe even some being too cynical. However I would err on the side of caution. If an expert like M45 says it is fake, even if it maybe real, it wouldn't earn my money.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Be very weary of so called experts.
I am certain my helmet is fine and probably the other helmet to Barth on this thread page.
Really sick of seeing good helmets dismissed on this thread.
Sure there are a lot of obvious bad ones but running a supposed know all criteria to pick good from bad is very dangerous.
WAF, GHW are one end of a pendulum and this thread seems to be the other.
Shame there is nothing in the middle.
I am certain my helmet is fine and probably the other helmet to Barth on this thread page.
Really sick of seeing good helmets dismissed on this thread.
Sure there are a lot of obvious bad ones but running a supposed know all criteria to pick good from bad is very dangerous.
WAF, GHW are one end of a pendulum and this thread seems to be the other.
Shame there is nothing in the middle.