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.
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.
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 ?
the problem is, the unbending rule that EVERY camo must show excessive wear really is just your rule.
as wayne mentioned, prior to the internet era you only saw what was in your little bubble. the internet has changed your perspective, not (necessarily) the number of camos. I dont know where you live, but you have to remember that some places in the U.S. are also much more target rich than others (i.e. east coast and midwest vs south and west coast). I do agree with you on this point....for someone like myself who has only ever bought one german helmet off the internet i rarely find camos. maybe 1 a year, many times none, and 2 if im lucky for a multitude of other helmets.
In reply to your questions on what i think:
1.
"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 ?"
Firstly, I dont accept 99% of camo's are real. I harbor no illusions that there are a huge amount of fakes out there ranging from terrible to excellent. And you've twisted this...I'm not the one applying my rules of authenticating with unbending power. My rules leave room for (very real) variables in period application, storage, time, use etc. My one helmet doesnt make me accept 99% of nice condition camos, it was displayed as an original helmet the defies the points you generally bring up as fakery and rules that YOU use to invalidate 99% of camos. Do I question excellent condition camos a lot harder? You bet i do. Is every last one fake? Probably not.
But back to the original point, I'm still waiting for an explanation on how this obviously original camo, which breaks every one of your unbending rules, can exist.
2.
"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 ?"
Answered above, and again, my rules are not broad sweeping and unflexing like yours. In fact, I dont believe I've ever argued with you about the mass of fake, sometimes minty, camos. I'm with you there. I've only ever argued that they can and do exist.
3.
"Because period photos (70+ years ago) feature 99% condition exotic camos does that mean that masses of them exist today in that condition ?"
Not at all, in fact you are the one who says every camo today must exist exactly as it did 75 years ago sans exception. As I've brought up before, you leave no leeway for differences in storage, different climates, post war use by kids etc (or lack-there-of) just for a few examples. And again, you twist my point. I was not referring to the helmet condition, I was pointing out that your statement of "I saw this as a forgery because of the strong, distinct patters" is entirely invalidated by one period picture.
