Questionable Camos

[M45]

Very similar to this wire camo. This one has wire and also a bad interior, but the textured reissue finish is very similar in regard to texture and wear. This one was well liked and in the helmets section, but the above was relegated to the 'authentication' section. IMO these two could have very well been produced by the same person within the last several years (maybe even the last several months).

The forger has it down to near perfection - if he can just stop swapping liners and repainting interiors. He needs to use as his base helmets with original untouched interiors. When he does that, his work will be essentially flawless. Then his work will be praised to kingdom come.

This is the new reality for camo collectors, exotic freshies 'self-replicating out of the wood-work' with no rock solid provenance, high-end fakes 'taking on an authenticity all of their own', shoddy vet acquisition stories with shoddy paperwork, camos with that 'used but not abused look - just the way we like to see them'....

Congratulations guys, we have finally arrived - to the point where camo fakes/replicas are so professionally done they cannot be distinguished from originals by the majority of collectors.

 

[mauser99]

You know, I hadn't thought about it. I wasn't planning to describe myself that way, but it actually fits!

ZAM was a nut for daring to defy DougB's C-SS claims until he was proven correct. Now ZAM is a hero. Strange this hobby, from their insane asylums come their heroes.



An apparent GHW2 reissue. Found in the authentication thread where it certainly belongs, to their credit it has been outed; but not due to the exterior finish but due to the interior finish.

I'm all for a top to bottom examination of a helmet, and any way you can out this stuff is certainly a good thing. But I think the forum missed a massive lesson here.

What if the interior paint had been original; would the helmet have been accepted with this exterior finish ? No one as yet has seriously scrutinized or questioned this exterior finish. And IMO the exterior finish is what desperately needs scrutinizing.

What zoomed over GHW's head was that the exterior finish is a high-end replica, the forger just neglected to acquire a helmet with an original interior.

The exterior appears at first glance to be 100% period (good color selection, good texture selection, proper application) just the way these were period done (could have been aged a bit more like the helmet below). But it is not period done, it is a high end forgery. Other than a few dings to high points and worn rim, the condition of the finish is pristine. Essentially no believable combat wear whatsoever. This is what has been seen before.

Not sure the game you are playing but, you are losing all your credibility as you are twisting the truth.
This was put on the discussion forum as a ? was asked as far as originality and it was struck down immediately.
So, we are not as dumb as you are making yourself look..
The exterior is flat and new looking the interior is flat new looking a really bad combo.

Please don't try to dumb down GHW and give yourself so high status here... It's not working. Best to stick with the lot list something your good at and it's actually a positive thing. This witch hunt your on is over as you have lost all credibility with most.

 

[mcorioles]

Very similar to this wire camo. This one has wire and also a bad interior, but the textured reissue finish is very similar in regard to texture and wear. This one was well liked and in the helmets section, but the above was relegated to the 'authentication' section. IMO these two could have very well been produced by the same person within the last several years (maybe even the last several months).

The forger has it down to near perfection - if he can just stop swapping liners and repainting interiors. He needs to use as his base helmets with original untouched interiors. When he does that, his work will be essentially flawless. Then his work will be praised to kingdom come.

This is the new reality for camo collectors, exotic freshies 'self-replicating out of the wood-work' with no rock solid provenance, high-end fakes 'taking on an authenticity all of their own', shoddy vet acquisition stories with shoddy paperwork, camos with that 'used but not abused look - just the way we like to see them'....

Congratulations guys, we have finally arrived - to the point where camo fakes/replicas are so professionally done they cannot be distinguished from originals by the majority of collectors.

How is the interior bad,no evidence of it.

Except mine is good and has combat wear,you just refuse to see it.You constantly contradict yourself and ignore questions.

1. Your bright vivid Camo theory was shot to shite with the same ex CW Camo just listed
2. How can you own no camos but claim expertise? Those things are not mutually exclusive.
3. You call out more than obvious fakes(no expertise needed). And claim many excellent camos are bad.

 

[M45]

The bright/vivid characteristic is just one of many re: questionable camos/reissues.

I believe I CAN see the similarities between these two finishes. Someone has mastered the art of high-end replication, plain and simple. (Both of these are dark green based)

The one finish appears as it would have freshly emerged from a refurbishing depot during the war - near new with little attempt to age the finish. This example has the shoddy interior finish which 'gave it away'. If the forger had used a helmet with authentic interior with matching condition, it would have been a near flawless replica.

The wire camo has a very similar textured reissue finish but was subjected to the 'ageing treatment' to dirty it up. Add an old rusty wire and voila! you have yourself a rare original.

The only problem is, there is very little of what could be called actual combat wear on these two. A few dings to the high points (rivets/vents) and a stint outside (rust pitting to bare steel) does not cut it, I'm afraid.

So if I get this straight, GHW2's verdict is that the newer finish is bad because of the repainted interior, but the aged finish is authentic because it has an original interior ??

Such logic is quite skewed, IMO.

 

[Player11]

Its allways funny to see how you act when you are cornered, trying to kkep like nothing is happening, but you know it´s happening. If we stop playing with you here, your followers would be 1/2 but just until the moment they know you as we are beginning to know you. More than judging helmets is a revente against all what can appear in GHW, because you stayed there one time, like in many forums and from all of them you were banned, because your knowledge doesnt care to nobody.

probably, this wont be anything for sure, im happy for you, but dont pretend that nobody who knows you ( and im sure many of your followers are doing it) will accept your "arguements" as a wiser advice to play with camos.

Let me give you an advice, get a life, look for a girl ( or a man, i dont know yet what to think) and enjoy the life, camos are not all in this life

Dont pretend to be a Guru of this hoby, because you wont ever be even if you can reincarnate in 2/3 lifes

 

[GunKraut]

Every time someone exposes fakery, certain individuals put up extreme resistance to the findings and resort to attacking the messenger. Maybe because they own one of the examples shown, or a similar one, or because they simply dislike the messenger's personality. It is OK to question any findings or claims but taking a simplistic "Show me" or "Prove it to me" stance is childish at best. It's a typical millenial's reaction, expecting an app to help them navigating through real life. For a while, XRF looked like the app they had been waiting for. Personally, I'm regarding in-depth knowledge as something akin to a trade secret that I certain wouldn't share with some anonymous guy on the interwebs.

Experience is something learned over the course of years or decades. We had the same discussions in the field of fake sniper scopes, scope mounts, scope cans. Fakers are following these discussions, waiting for the "Show me" and "Prove it to me" fools to trigger those who discovered fakery into divulging how they distinguish a genuine from a fake item. And in their next production run, the fakers will incorporate all the knowledge they picked up for free from watching the fools prodding the experts, and the next round of fakes will be even closer and harder to distinguish from genuine articles.

Rex showed us what is doable these days in the business of faking combat helmets. Study his pictures and learn, learn, learn. Come back and ask value-added questions, not "Show me". Instead of ripping on the experts, the fools should start contributing to these threads in a positive way. Otherwise go back to the app store and patiently wait for the camo helmet app to be rolled out. Maybe it comes with a discount coupon for XRF.

 

[Player11]

Experts???!!!, where???!!!

 

[GunKraut]

Experts???!!!, where???!!!

Maybe you? Your opportunity to contribute has arrived. Step up to the plate.

 

[Hambone]

Experts???!!!, where???!!!

I'm no "expert" but I've been collecting "camo" helmets since the mid 1980s, have plenty of them, and have seen plenty more, documented originals as well as excellent fakes. Since 2005 I have seen enough WAFperts who have held themselves out as being knowledgeable spreading some of the most ridiculous misinformation I have ever seen, and doing much harm to the knowledge base in the process. These were people who were either trying to help sell something or didn't know what they didn't know. But a few examples of what these folks perpetuated were the Champagne Rune and XRFacts. That they were able to flourish and continue sowing such hogwash was due to censorship of those who disagreed with them. That is why I do not censor here.

You have an opportunity to make your points and your argument here, regardless of your position, which is far more than WAF ever afforded. People will either believe M45 based upon his points, or not believe him based upon yours. I can assure you that as a result of the openness and transparency here, there are no lemmings or people afraid of disagreeing with moderators or "bigshots" on this site. They do so regularly. You must, however, stand on your own feet and knowledge here, and make your case. No one is going to step in and censor for you or anyone else to help you make a point. You're on your own there and the guys here are smart enough to sift through the arguments and come to their own conclusions.

Cheers,
HB

 

[Player11]

Thanks, but not really interested in becoming " another" Brian Ice in the collecting community, and not known for his knowledge.
Said this, i leave your expertise to keep playing with camos, and judging What he doesnt know.

 

[Hambone]

Thanks, but not really interested in becoming " another" Brian Ice in the collecting community, and not known for his knowledge.
Said this, i leave your expertise to keep playing with camos, and judging What he doesnt know.

Well, the problem is we don't know what you know. He's produced a very significant and updated treatise and study on German helmets and lot numbers. It's one of the most valuable references I own. You have simply produced criticism, personal attacks, and insults directed at him and our members. If you wish to be deemed credible, you are going to have to do better.

 

[Frank F.]

I painted that one a year or two back, look at the contrived wear etc?

LOL

Heh. I know for a fact Giorgio did it, not you! Heard he has a whole shelf full of aging potions and "old-helmet-smell" deodorants.

What really gets to me is that this lid has probably traveled more than I have...

F.

 

[M45]

Not sure the game you are playing but, you are losing all your credibility as you are twisting the truth.
This was put on the discussion forum as a ? was asked as far as originality and it was struck down immediately.
So, we are not as dumb as you are making yourself look..
The exterior is flat and new looking the interior is flat new looking a really bad combo.

Please don't try to dumb down GHW and give yourself so high status here... It's not working. Best to stick with the lot list something your good at and it's actually a positive thing. This witch hunt your on is over as you have lost all credibility with most.

Not sure what game I'm playing ? How about 'Rooting out Fakery in the German Helmet Collecting Hobby' ? My "credibility" was lost long ago back on WAF when I dared to question that rust-wash M38 camo that was highly praised by several dozen members who were not even regular visitors of the helmet forum. (Their M38 gurus who usually chimed right in with M38s were quiet as a church mouse) Their game was apparently, "Let's pretend that this recent fake rust-wash camo is original". I love the hobby too much to play that game.

I'm not sure what all of this commotion is about. I'm just sharing some contradictory opinions, that's all. With all of the squealing you'd think I just shot somebody's razor-back hog.

I'm trying to get a sense of GHW2's standards of what constitutes original camos and what constitutes fake ones, and how they come to their conclusions.


I included some shots of that Latvian fake camo that generated some interesting discussion. The liner gave it away immediately, but the camo itself was generally well liked. Some even said it would be 'scary good looking' with an original liner. One member even said that the camo might actually be original despite the fake liner.

I also included shots of the dark green reissue with the bad interior. You say it was shot down immediately, but how do you know the exterior is really fake ? Maybe someone just repainted the inside and swapped liners ? The exterior on that thing is bang-on IMO, basically a flawless re-creation of what reissues looked like fresh from the depot.

My question: why was that obvious Latvian fake camo with classic postwar Latvian interior given so much consideration as possibly being authentic, but the dark green reissue with a far more believable finish was 'struck down immediately' ??

Also, if the dark green reissue is bad, then what about the wire camo ? They both started out as dark green reissues, both have only rudimentary damage (rims/vents/rivets) the one getting "dusted" with wire added.

 

[Player11]

I dont need to be credible as someone other need it, i dont need to probe who im or What i know. I have simply be quiet, reading What the one, who is supposed to "know" a lot,has written here.
Simply, his knowledge is very fragile, i just want to warn to others new collectors to follow to somebody, who thinks he is the top.

If i tell you the truth, dont care if he keeps doing What he does, because, finally, he is cornered to where he deserves to be with a few followers.
I dont need to be credibility, i dont need to show What i know, just an advice to new collectors, that this is not the way, and thats not the man.

 

[capt14k]

Let me see if I understand what Player11 wrote.

Player11 doesn't need to be credible. That's a shame.

Player 11 says M45 knows nothing, but Player11 wont tell anyone what he knows.

My novice conclusion is one of the helmets M45 dissected as a fake is Player11's Helmet.

The correct response instead of attacking M45 personally would be to prove M45 wrong and show why the helmet in question is in fact authentic.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Player11]

I respet your conclusión and you cant think What you want.
No one of my helmets have been posted in this thread, because i dont show them in any forums, my knowledge is mine, learnt about years and years of travelling when even Internet didnt exist.
I came to this forum because i wanted to know to Brian Ice' s experience, as i said before, he is Well known in the collecting community and not by his knowledge,so i wanted to see it. Now, i can speak about him in my not internet community. Thanks!
Seen it, there is not much to say that take care with those falses "guru".
Your thoughts are free, mine too.

 

[mauser99]

Not sure what game I'm playing ? How about 'Rooting out Fakery in the German Helmet Collecting Hobby' ? My "credibility" was lost long ago back on WAF when I dared to question that rust-wash M38 camo that was highly praised by several dozen members who were not even regular visitors of the helmet forum. (Their M38 gurus who usually chimed right in with M38s were quiet as a church mouse) Their game was apparently, "Let's pretend that this recent fake rust-wash camo is original". I love the hobby too much to play that game.

I'm not sure what all of this commotion is about. I'm just sharing some contradictory opinions, that's all. With all of the squealing you'd think I just shot somebody's razor-back hog.

I'm trying to get a sense of GHW2's standards of what constitutes original camos and what constitutes fake ones, and how they come to their conclusions.


I included some shots of that Latvian fake camo that generated some interesting discussion. The liner gave it away immediately, but the camo itself was generally well liked. Some even said it would be 'scary good looking' with an original liner. One member even said that the camo might actually be original despite the fake liner.

I also included shots of the dark green reissue with the bad interior. You say it was shot down immediately, but how do you know the exterior is really fake ? Maybe someone just repainted the inside and swapped liners ? The exterior on that thing is bang-on IMO, basically a flawless re-creation of what reissues looked like fresh from the depot.

My question: why was that obvious Latvian fake camo with classic postwar Latvian interior given so much consideration as possibly being authentic, but the dark green reissue with a far more believable finish was 'struck down immediately' ??

Also, if the dark green reissue is bad, then what about the wire camo ? They both started out as dark green reissues, both have only rudimentary damage (rims/vents/rivets) the one getting "dusted" with wire added.

I meant on the particular helmet you were "outing" for us here as fake as it had already be condemned on GHW ! Like GHW isn't competent to properly tell it was a modern forgery. There are many here who do frequent both forums. Im not sure why you cant realize that. I like both forums for different reasons.

They don't allow members to bash you there. That's pretty clear so why not be the same way ? Its pretty clear you have an axe to grind with that forum.
Better yet, Start your own helmet forum !!!!!! GHW has more info on it for budding collectors than all 150 pages of this pointless dribble.

 

[Hambone]

GWH does a very good job keeping it together while allowing differing opinions. We are a K98k/firearms site with militaria discussion as a sideline. I refer to GHW for in depth helmet discussion. The authentication of K98ks and firearms is far more objective than camo helmets, which are highly subjective, thus the fighting. It sucks to get your prize helmet negatively reviewed. There are many variables in camo helmet authentication, including the variable of in hand inspection vs. internets photography. Not so many variables exist with IDing jumped numbers and stampings on a firearm.

 

[M45]

While certain forums insist on having nice and tidy discussions re: no criticisms, no 'offending' others etc... this over-policing only hinders any real leaning that might have taken place.

That's like telling workmen (carpenters, steel fabricators, etc...) to keep their workshops completely clean with no mess (sawdust/slag) whatsoever. Anyone who has done garage projects know that making a mess is part of progress. Over-policing is only going to hinder that progress, re: if you had to stop and sweep up every little bit of sawdust from every cut to keep the shop completely clean.

That's also like starting a thread to get to the bottom of the C-SS debacle but forbidding any criticisms of any of the major players. (I guess they didn't get too far)

Of course you've got to have some order or you'll have an uncontrollable fracas. But on the flip side this over-policing tends to shape forum thought over time. By making clear what is expected, all members tend to think alike. Those fish swimming in the other direction are chastised as a lesson to the others.

Now you have situations on forums where members tend to forgo criticisms of other member's "treasures" for fear of creating controversy.

What that does re: camos is that standards of originality tend to be lowered to "keep the peace". (we don't want to offend anyone) And while that kind of moderating may create a loving place for everyone to share their "treasures" in a criticism-free environment, it shoots any serious camo critique all to hell. Any serious progress or learning about fake camos essentially grinds to a halt.

So now the forum, which was supposed to help collectors identify and root out fakes, becomes a vetting-station that approves of a wide range of member's "treasures".

 

[Mauser71]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder