Questionable Camos

[M45]

Shooting in the dark ???

An uber-rare one-of-a-kind field modified helmet just appears in a dealer's hands, a dealer known for featuring many questionable camos, no provenance whatsoever, the condition of the camo and star are fantastic - near 100% despite a well worn liner, a helmet that re: the tan camo we are supposed to believe saw action in Afrika/mid east but with no dark sweat staining of the liner typical of tropical German helmets worn in hot areas ???

 

[M45]

GHW2 camo with Ed Strache decal shot down. Was the fact that it has such a decal the reason why it was shot down re: the heavy suspicion of postwar applied Strache decals, or did they actually see the camo is bad ?

If this helmet had the factory ET Heer decal would it have been vetted ?

Well-blended paint (micro-spatter) forced wear. Rich, bright paint with no depth or age.

If anything it shows helmet forums what is possible re: camos. REX-39's work did the same, but despite these examples, forums STILL tend to vet questionable camos.

 

[Player11]

GHW2 camo with Ed Strache decal shot down. Was the fact that it has such a decal the reason why it was shot down re: the heavy suspicion of postwar applied Strache decals, or did they actually see the camo is bad ?

If this helmet had the factory ET Heer decal would it have been vetted ?

Well-blended paint (micro-spatter) forced wear. Rich, bright paint with no depth or age.

If anything it shows helmet forums what is possible re: camos. REX-39's work did the same, but despite these examples, forums STILL tend to vet questionable camos.

Replied in GHW and before than you

- This helmet has some red flags as your guessing.

It supposed to be a reissue, if looking at the decal and the steel liner band. but it isn't.

The wear is very suspicious, and back in the 80's camos were already faked.

-

It is a suspicious one and the top wear does not convince me but the Ed Strache decal is the reason why would not want this helmet. For sure someone has upgraded this helmet. The helmet was never mint imo , it makes no sense in upgrading a mint helmet.


As you can see you are not the only who see those red problems. boring!

 

[mauser99]

GHW2 camo with Ed Strache decal shot down. Was the fact that it has such a decal the reason why it was shot down re: the heavy suspicion of postwar applied Strache decals, or did they actually see the camo is bad ?

If this helmet had the factory ET Heer decal would it have been vetted ?

Well-blended paint (micro-spatter) forced wear. Rich, bright paint with no depth or age.

If anything it shows helmet forums what is possible re: camos. REX-39's work did the same, but despite these examples, forums STILL tend to vet questionable camos.

My comment was the same @ GHW as Im the same guy there not hiding the fact I post and like both forums. Take the decal out of the equation and the heavy tool marks and focus on the paint color, technique, Application and it looks vary similar to many "good" or conceived good camos posted there or anywhere. I was never a big fan of spray camo's that don't adhere to my strict color pallet. This is a good example of a Bad camo that would surly pass as good if some mistakes weren't made IMHO.

 

[M45]

My comment was the same @ GHW as Im the same guy there not hiding the fact I post and like both forums. Take the decal out of the equation and the heavy tool marks and focus on the paint color, technique, Application and it looks vary similar to many "good" or conceived good camos posted there or anywhere. I was never a big fan of spray camo's that don't adhere to my strict color pallet. This is a good example of a Bad camo that would surly pass as good if some mistakes weren't made IMHO.

Corrected mistakes like a factory ET Heer decal in place of the Ed Strache, very little wear in place of contrived wear ?

I think you're right, this camo could have easily passed as good otherwise. That's really the big problem with forum vetted camos, lots of spray micro-spatter, bright new appearing paint with no depth or age, no realistic combat wear/patina.

It appears that most modern camo collectors are actually novices who depend on others to tell them what is original. To see obvious Latvian Fakes receive serious consideration pretty much clinched it for me.

 

[mauser99]

Corrected mistakes like a factory ET Heer decal in place of the Ed Strache, very little wear in place of contrived wear ?

I think you're right, this camo could have easily passed as good otherwise. That's really the big problem with forum vetted camos, lots of spray micro-spatter, bright new appearing paint with no depth or age, no realistic combat wear/patina.

It appears that most modern camo collectors are actually novices who depend on others to tell them what is original. To see obvious Latvian Fakes receive serious consideration pretty much clinched it for me.

I disagree this spray job has no micro spatter typical to some.. Paint is laid on very well. Colors are typical of other "Normandy" types I have seen posted. And NO grainy look like a REX job. I think this helmet was done Long ago as it shows good age and done before the lot # and true decal research was done. Another old fake that was aged out of the game.

 

[M45]

GHW2 M40 Luft tropical.

You can't say that forums don't know what original camos look like as their excuse for vetting so many questionable ones.

See any difference in these others ?

 

[Niblet]

Yes, but how to help when there is somebody who is blind in judging all the camos that appears on the net, many times without knowledge.
Or when you are trying to explain something about KC and another member with less knowledge than the first one comes and what can say " Is this a joke, isnt it"?
I gave proof of how detect a fake KC and was taken as a joker, do this person deserve to share my knowledge with him, od he doesnt deserve a minute of my attention with him?

your method of proving or detecting a fake KC which you illustrated to us is one a collector in his first month of collecting would utilize
so I am sorry but if you havent even read the opeing chapter on Dietrich Maers book,,then please,,go do 30 mins worth of research and report back

I seriously hope your more learned in helmets than KC's which I was only trying to show an an example of an item YOU DONT NEED IN HAND
to verify authenticity

 

[Niblet]

My comment was the same @ GHW as Im the same guy there not hiding the fact I post and like both forums. Take the decal out of the equation and the heavy tool marks and focus on the paint color, technique, Application and it looks vary similar to many "good" or conceived good camos posted there or anywhere. I was never a big fan of spray camo's that don't adhere to my strict color pallet. This is a good example of a Bad camo that would surly pass as good if some mistakes weren't made IMHO.

Where do I find this color pallet?

 

[Player11]

your method of proving or detecting a fake KC which you illustrated to us is one a collector in his first month of collecting would utilize
so I am sorry but if you havent even read the opeing chapter on Dietrich Maers book,,then please,,go do 30 mins worth of research and report back

I seriously hope your more learned in helmets than KC's which I was only trying to show an an example of an item YOU DONT NEED IN HAND
to verify authenticity

Yes, sure!. Do you know you were put in ridiculous again in FB after replying in the early LW DD called " common fake" by you?. The helmet was a perfect early good one. Your reply is there like a joke, you may read everybody's reply.
You may better study before opening your mouth ;-)

 

[mauser99]

Where do I find this color pallet?

On an original Normandy camo.. If you have ever handled a real one you would'nt need to ask. I clearly think you haven't.. All you really come off as is M45's sock puppet.

Back to the discussion at hand.. Just the Germans in Norway would never camo their helmets as there was never any combat there as if they knew...

 

[mauser99]

GHW2 M40 Luft tropical.

You can't say that forums don't know what original camos look like as their excuse for vetting so many questionable ones.

See any difference in these others ?

Not quite sure why you keep going back to wear as a sign of a helmet being orig. or not ????

Orig. Color photo Life magazine tropical helmet pile. Of the three domes I can see NONE exhibit the wear you are telling us we MUST see to base a helmet as Orig.

If you didn't push so hard at us in the wrong direction we wouldn't be so inclined to push back. Not sure how many foolish points you continue to make ?????

 

[nirvana]

Those are some really worn camos. I see some missing 40% of their paint or so. I see crown wear as well. Which ones are you talking about in the photo?

 

[Niblet]

Yes, sure!. Do you know you were put in ridiculous again in FB after replying in the early LW DD called " common fake" by you?. The helmet was a perfect early good one. Your reply is there like a joke, you may read everybody's reply.
You may better study before opening your mouth ;-)

the helmet you are referring to was humped up at best,,I think it is you who needs glasses

 

[M45]

Not quite sure why you keep going back to wear as a sign of a helmet being orig. or not ????

Orig. Color photo Life magazine tropical helmet pile. Of the three domes I can see NONE exhibit the wear you are telling us we MUST see to base a helmet as Orig.

If you didn't push so hard at us in the wrong direction would wouldn't be so inclined to push back. Not sure how many foolish points you continue to make ?????

https://www.weitze.com/militaria/64/Wehrmacht_Heer_Stahlhelm_M40_mit_Tarnanstrich__280764.html

You like those heavily worn camos, don't you. They do look nice, and original.

 

[M45]

https://www.weitze.com/militaria/12...lschirmjaeger_mit_Tarnlackierung__271612.html

A nice comparison shot. I don't care for this M38 3 color Normandy/woodchip/ghosted wire. Way too much going on there for one, nothing really in the way of combat wear for another (no heavily worn crown with dark rust patina to match the heavily worn components), heavily worn components despite near 100% of camo remaining for a third (disparity of wear).

A well beat M38 with heavily worn components (probably not much of a decal left either - maybe a $2500 value) was a good choice for an upgrade - now 6800 Euro.

Can you understand why this is happening, how the word is out about gullible camo collectors ???

I've said this before: if you cannot distinguish between original camos and postwar replicas, you are in the wrong hobby.



Why don't fakers heavily distress their work to make it more believable ?

A very few do, but the more wear they put on them the more of a chance they are taking that the wear will look contrived.

Actually, they don't really need to heavily distress their works of art because camo collectors like their camos in nice condition with near 100% of camo remaining. They like to see them with that 'used but not abused look'. So camo collectors have been "trained" to know what "real camos" look like. And besides, the heavily worn original examples like the Quist M40 Normandy above look ugly - too much damage and rust patina.

 

[Frank F.]

https://www.weitze.com/militaria/12...lschirmjaeger_mit_Tarnlackierung__271612.html

A nice comparison shot. I don't care for this M38 3 color Normandy/woodchip/ghosted wire. Way too much going on there for one, nothing really in the way of combat wear for another (no heavily worn crown with dark rust patina to match the heavily worn components), heavily worn components despite near 100% of camo remaining for a third (disparity of wear).

A well beat M38 with heavily worn components (probably not much of a decal left either - maybe a $2500 value) was a good choice for an upgrade - now 6800 Euro.

Can you understand why this is happening, how the word is out about gullible camo collectors ???

I've said this before: if you cannot distinguish between original camos and postwar replicas, you are in the wrong hobby.



Why don't fakers heavily distress their work to make it more believable ?

A very few do, but the more wear they put on them the more of a chance they are taking that the wear will look contrived.

Actually, they don't really need to heavily distress their works of art because camo collectors like their camos in nice condition with near 100% of camo remaining. They like to see them with that 'used but not abused look'. So camo collectors have been "trained" to know what "real camos" look like. And besides, the heavily worn original examples like the Quist M40 Normandy above look ugly - too much damage and rust patina.

Weitze is a cesspool.

F.

 

[Player11]

the helmet you are referring to was humped up at best,,I think it is you who needs glasses

Hhahahahahahhahaha

https://www.weitze.com/militaria/64/Wehrmacht_Heer_Stahlhelm_M40_mit_Tarnanstrich__280764.html

You like those heavily worn camos, don't you. They do look nice, and original.

Any medium level collector knows that Weitze is a site to avoid, if you think they look nice and original is because you havent handled anything at all

 

[Bigdibbs88]

Orig. Color photo Life magazine tropical helmet pile. Of the three domes I can see NONE exhibit the wear you are telling us we MUST see to base a helmet as Orig.

Oh Wayne, there you go again showing period photographic evidence so that it can be entirely ignored. Dont you know by now that all camos must show excessive wear, whether or not you have period evidence showing otherwise?

 

[Player11]

All you really come off as is M45's sock puppet.

What else?