Questionable Camos

[Gunrunner]

Lets bring this back down to earth..... The helmet was posted in the authentication section.

The person posting helmets they are from a collection of a decease friend . They have all been bad so far I said I wanted to like it but, due to the other coming from the same collection I would tread very lightly on this one as well and would want it "in hand" before I made a decision one way or another.

The poster is also is a member here. I wonder why he didn't post the helmets here for a fair evaluation ?????? Im sure he thought he wouldn't get one.

There is some visible wear to the dome if you take the time to look. Im not sure if the poster is liquidating the collection or is looking to purchase it ?

Either way he deserves as serious and well thought out response.

Of course two of the camo whores jumped on it and loved it ! LOL nuff said. Im a very cautious appraiser and evaluator of camo's. Part of me wanted to like it and the other part didn't. If offered to me Id want a hands on to be 100%.. Those who think its good or bad based off those photos is WAAAAY to smart for me...

I'm the one posting this and other helmets on GHW for my friends estate to get an evaluation of his headgear collection, he had 20 helmets with the majority of them minty camos, I had my doubts on several of his helmets so the family wants me to get everything evaluated so they can decided what they want to do with everything.

Chuck

 

[M45]

I'm the one posting this and other helmets on GHW for my friends estate to get an evaluation of his headgear collection, he had 20 helmets with the majority of them minty camos, I had my doubts on several of his helmets so the family wants me to get everything evaluated so they can decided what they want to do with everything.

Chuck

That pretty much says it right there (minty camos). A contradictory term, IMO. Camos were field modified for front line combat/static defense. They were used in the field. Originals will reflect this hard usage. A camo that is minty was never used in such situations and so it is probably not original. These high-end replicas/fakes (which I believe this one is) were created in controlled environments (studios/garages) with careful attention to detail before being presented on forums or 'found in the woodwork' etc... They are often well planned and well executed works of art; stunning to say the least.

It sounds like your friend bought a collection of the lastest grade of reproductions; the high-end fake.

Tell the family they have a collection of well made movie props. Price: not more that $500 each.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

That pretty much says it right there (minty camos). A contradictory term, IMO. Camos were field modified for front line combat/static defense. They were used in the field. Originals will reflect this hard usage. A camo that is minty was never used in such situations and so it is probably not original. These high-end replicas/fakes (which I believe this one is) were created in controlled environments (studios/garages) with careful attention to detail before being presented on forums or 'found in the woodwork' etc... They are often well planned and well executed works of art; stunning to say the least.

It sounds like your friend bought a collection of the lastest grade of reproductions; the high-end fake.

Tell the family they have a collection of well made movie props. Price: not more that $500 each.

On the whole i agree with you. What I have a problem with is your broad sweeping rule that EVERY camo MUST show heavy use. Please explain why the below camo (mine) is fake (though i think the vast majority of collectors would agree that it is a one-look original). It shows no heavy use, it also has chipped top layer paint which you routinely point out as signs of fakery and "tool marks". And please don't bring up exceptions like the fact that ts from ww1 not ww2, because your stance on camos and wear leaves no room for exceptions.

 

[mauser99]

Tell the family they have a collection of well made movie props. Price: not more that $500 each.[/QUOTE]"""""""


Great advise write off the whole collection due to some of the helmets being bad. You are a great resource for collectors.

So far he has post 4 I think and yes, they were all bad. Doesn't mean they all will be. It's best to have them evaluated in a neutral environment like a forum so the owners can see the results. This way there is no second guessing and GHW is the place to do it.
If there were weapons this would be the place to post them. Didn't want to drag Chuck into this personally but, I thought was important to mention the caf48 @ GHW was also a member here keeping his name out of it.

Going through and sorting out someone else's life time collection is one of the hardest things you will do. I have done it and it's a chore.

Chuck is doing a service for a family and it should be taken seriously as the owner Im sure bought all the helmets as real weather they are Now finding out he's been scammed so far by whoever sold him the helmets. A sad tale.

This netted painted helmet seems to be liked by a few so when the time comes to sell they can recoup some cash.

 

[mauser99]

On the whole i agree with you. What I have a problem with is your broad sweeping rule that EVERY camo MUST show heavy use. Please explain why the below camo (mine) is fake (though i think the vast majority of collectors would agree that it is a one-look original). It shows no heavy use, it also has chipped top layer paint which you routinely point out as signs of fakery and "tool marks". And please don't bring up exceptions like the fact that ts from ww1 not ww2, because your stance on camos and wear leaves no room for exceptions.

WW1 camo's don't apply to ww2 camo rules set by M45.... static trench warfare was easy on camos...

 

[Warrior1354]

I actually like that helmet that Rob owns I buy it off him if the price was right! But as I'm seeing right now from M45 is that every camouflaged helmet is bad. That's like me saying that every k98k sniper is bad because there's ten times more fakes than real ones. But if you're skilled and you know how to identify something you can find the real stuff mixed in with the fakes.

 

[mcorioles]

gHOSTED NET CAMO DETAILS.

The net braiding has made impressions in the tacky paint. So the helmet was painted, then the net applied prior to paint setting, and then net removed at some point leaving braid impressions.

No shite, nothing like stating the obvious

 

[mcorioles]

I see no difference between my post nor yours,,purely conjecture on both parts,,,,I cannot really know what the German army was thinking in Norway as I wasnt there,,and neither were you,,,,

So, does anyone know if there were any rules/regs for camo'ing? or was it strictly up to the individual?

The more you and M45 talk the more you hang yourself.

Read YOUR quoted text above.

This is EXACTLY what M45 does, and my main complaint.

You are right to an extent, you,I nor M45 knows what the German Army was doing or thinking.

Yet most of his" proof" is EXACTLY what M45 does that you said above.

 

[deadeye18]

On the whole i agree with you. What I have a problem with is your broad sweeping rule that EVERY camo MUST show heavy use. Please explain why the below camo (mine) is fake (though i think the vast majority of collectors would agree that it is a one-look original). It shows no heavy use, it also has chipped top layer paint which you routinely point out as signs of fakery and "tool marks". And please don't bring up exceptions like the fact that ts from ww1 not ww2, because your stance on camos and wear leaves no room for exceptions.

I like this helmet, I posted one with similar wear last year under the title ww1 camo if anyone want to have a look.

 

[Luft1]

Just an aside. I collect Luft items including their helmets. In the 80s we deployed a reserve squadron to Germany to relieve an active duty A-10 squadron for 90 days as the active duty planes needed a hardware upgrade and refit. During the deployment I got to know the German wing commander and the exec, who both were very young officers at the end of the war. I was invited over several times to hear their war stories and got to see the small number of items they retained from their wartime service, among them 2 helmets. They both told me that as junior officers they had extra duties that required them to wear metal helmets and that the Luft airman who had such often cammo'd them just because they could and literally only did it because they, as they said, "thought it was cool." These were camo'd by them just to pass the time, and just stuck into a corner and essentially hardly used. That being said, both were in squadrons that maintained flight status until the end of the war or until they were surrendered, neither were involved with field divisions. So I would expect that some Luft camos could still be found in freshie condition as opposed to straight Heer helmets.

So at least here, the never say never condition prohibition could possibly not apply. Just a thought based on a very limited personal observation

 

[M45]

GHW2 reissue. A Ron R. helmet, this one has extreme wear disparity. Heavy wear to rim and vents with several areas of paint popped off. Otherwise paint condition appears pristine. Shot liner (a good choice for 'restoration').

If this reissue is authentic, why was the shot liner not changed out when the reissue finish was applied ? Reissue depots replaced worn/damaged components to restore the helmet to serviceable condition.

If the liner became heavily worn AFTER reissue, why does the reissue finish not show general heavy wear as well ?

A nice, bright painted name - a nice touch that collectors like to see.

Decal area looks almost as if it was deliberately left partially exposed (kind of a shoddy job even for a reissue depot).

An increasingly more common type of postwar upgrade, IMO - the "reissue". Add this to factory ND helmets receiving decals, low grade helmets receiving camo paint/wire/netting.

 

[mauser99]

even though there are many versions of re-issues there is no real way to be sure on this one.
Could be a typical heavy overpaint without being re-worked at a depot. It shows no upgrades.. even though not all do.
This type of paint tends to be very thick and hard. I scratched at it purposely to see how dense the paint is..

 

[M45]

there is no real way to be sure on this one


Until that high-tech paint analyzer gets developed, I go by probabilities, not absolutes.

I see numerous red flags, enough for me to stay away.

 

[mcorioles]

GHW2 reissue. A Ron R. helmet, this one has extreme wear disparity. Heavy wear to rim and vents with several areas of paint popped off. Otherwise paint condition appears pristine. Shot liner (a good choice for 'restoration').

If this reissue is authentic, why was the shot liner not changed out when the reissue finish was applied ? Reissue depots replaced worn/damaged components to restore the helmet to serviceable condition.

If the liner became heavily worn AFTER reissue, why does the reissue finish not show general heavy wear as well ?

A nice, bright painted name - a nice touch that collectors like to see.

Decal area looks almost as if it was deliberately left partially exposed (kind of a shoddy job even for a reissue depot).

An increasingly more common type of postwar upgrade, IMO - the "reissue". Add this to factory ND helmets receiving decals, low grade helmets receiving camo paint/wire/netting.

Easy,leather is way more subsestible to damage than a re issue paint job,as Mauser said,very hard paint.

 

[M45]

Easy,leather is way more subsestible to damage than a re issue paint job,as Mauser said,very hard paint.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Factory paint was cured and baked on. It should be harder than reissue paint, but worn factory finishes show a wide variety of wear; rub marks, scratches, chips, worn down to steel, dings, etc...

RE: the leather, I think you are referring to postwar storage like in a hot attic. Over the decades leather can dry out and crack. However, this leather shows heavy sweat staining indicating heavy period use. I just don't see that heavy period use on most of the exterior finish.

I suspect that a well-beat M35 with heavily worn components (a low $$$ helmet) was "upgraded" postwar with a "reissue" finish purposely leaving parts of the decal exposed (one of those nice collector touches). Also a nice painted name was added (collectors like helmets with bright, clear painted names). Remove rim paint, add a few noticeable dings to bare steel, bugger up the rivets and vents, let it cook outside for a few weeks and you're done.

So then, voila !; a low $$$ well beat helmet becomes a nice 'reissue' with painted name and increased value to the uninitiated.

Every fake doesn't have to be an exotic chicken wire/woodchip/innertubeband/3 color Normandy/tiger stripe camo. A simple decal applied postwar to a no-decal helmet can increase value from $400 to $1,400 for instance. A no-decal beat $300 helmet can have a piece of old wire added to increase the value to $3,300.

Well beat helmets can become camos or reissues. It all translates into increased profit$.

Get a load of that crown shot. It almost looks like it came fresh out of a reissue depot.

You will see much pristine condition paint and then suddenly, this massive unsightly ding with hard breaks to bare steel will be entirely out of place. A red flag.

Rivets without matching paint, reissue finish BEHIND rivets - the liner was out when this was painted. You guessed it; another red flag.

 

[M45]

GHW2 camo. While there are suspicions with this one, they are for the wrong reasons, IMO. I saw this as a forgery because of the strong, distinct patters. These striking distinct patterns are a red flag, IMO. While they seem to be something that draws camo collectors, originals are characterized by a much less distinct drab flatness.

Also the rust pitting to bare steel is a terrible sign. Are these guys leaving their priceless camo treasures out in the weather again ??

 

[Player11]

GHW2 camo. While there are suspicions with this one, they are for the wrong reasons, IMO. I saw this as a forgery because of the strong, distinct patters. These striking distinct patterns are a red flag, IMO. While they seem to be something that draws camo collectors, originals are characterized by a much less distinct drab flatness.

Also the rust pitting to bare steel is a terrible sign. Are these guys leaving their priceless camo treasures out in the weather again ??

Hhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha, i didnt know you were a comedian So, in a forum they say that helmet is not good, and instead agree with them, you say they are wrong for the reasons they give and you have to show the veritables one???!!!! .


could you, please, show us those wrong replies for those who arent in GHW?



The " Big Bang Theory" is missing an great actor

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I saw this as a forgery because of the strong, distinct patters. These striking distinct patterns are a red flag, IMO.

not a legitimate criticism. plenty of period photos of these in use.

 

[M45]

On the whole i agree with you. What I have a problem with is your broad sweeping rule that EVERY camo MUST show heavy use. Please explain why the below camo (mine) is fake (though i think the vast majority of collectors would agree that it is a one-look original). It shows no heavy use, it also has chipped top layer paint which you routinely point out as signs of fakery and "tool marks". And please don't bring up exceptions like the fact that ts from ww1 not ww2, because your stance on camos and wear leaves no room for exceptions.

The 99% coverage issue is just one of many to consider when judging camos. That factor by itself is certainly not the kiss of death for a camo IMO. Of course there are original camos that have survived with 99% finish remaining (your M16 has very nice age patina).


What I have a problem with is your broad sweeping rule that EVERY camo MUST show heavy use.



You should have a problem with broad sweeping rules like this. The thing is, it's not my rule. It is one of many factors to consider.

The 99% issue surfaces often because many questionable camos do indeed have this feature. It is a characteristic to recognize and note with other characteristics.

Prior to the internet era, camos were rather uncommon. You just didn't see them very often compared with overall numbers of German helmets in circulation. And when you did see them, they often showed signs of field use. While 99% conditioned camos were out there, they were considered rare.

Today 99% condition camos are popping up left and right out of the woodwork. They are flooding helmet forums. Collections largely comprised of 'minty camos' are springing up.

This recent influx of minty camos does not make you suspicious because you have a nice M16 camo ? Because your M16 camo is in great condition, does that make you more accepting of the influx of 99% camos ?

Is this your "broad sweeping rule" that since original 99% camos exist we can be more accepting and tolerant of all of these 'woodwork finds' flooding forums ?

Because period photos (70+ years ago) feature 99% condition exotic camos does that mean that masses of them exist today in that condition ?


Here is one of my favorite 99%ers. While the camo has near 99% coverage there is plenty of varied wear and age to this finish, something usually NOT seen on questionable camos.
Contrast it with two tropicals that I consider to be questionable.

 

[M45]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/German-helm...0f8a663&pid=100005&rk=1&rkt=6&sd=232308050120

Ebay snow camo from Hungary. Starting bid $122.50.

You see bigdibbs, if you look around you can get a collection of nice movie prop German helmets very reasonably. No its not authentic, but it's a lot cheaper than most of the junk circulating around helmet forums today being promoted as authentic.

It sure looks a lot better than those GHW2 Norwegian snow camos, doesn't it ?