Questionable Camos

[M45]

Weitze is a cesspool.

F.

Hhahahahahahhahaha



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

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?

And another excellent point goes right over their heads. That's right, attack the dealer this time. They needed a little break from attacking the messenger and attacking anyone who agrees with the messenger.

 

[Player11]

And another excellent point goes right over their heads. That's right, attack the dealer this time. They needed a little break from attacking the messenger and attacking anyone who agrees with the messenger.

You allways have to be in the center of the world

 

[Hambone]

It seems pretty much common sense that there are three obvious facts: 1) Obviously there were camo helmets which were used/worn very little, either because they were hanging on bunker wall hooks, or camoed soon before capture. These helmets brought home as souvenirs would have little wear, but would show 70+ years of paint and steel oxidation, even under the best storage circumstances. 2) Obviously, there were camo helmets which were well used and worn prior to being souvenired. They would show that wear and 70+ years of oxidation. 3) Obviously, camo helmets are heavily faked.

Recognizing the facts, supra, there are then the subjectives which involve each individual buyer of camo helmets. I personally am more comfortable with a helmet which shows original field wear and use, over a period of time, such as a year(s), in addition to 70+ years of paint and steel oxidation. Those are, obviously, harder to fake than a high percentage paint camo. Some guys get lucky and get an original high percentage paint camo. More get burned on such helmets and "exotic" freshies.

Perhaps the problems here are the same as those which the leftarded "news" media and the career politico hucksters have done to divide us: focus on what we disagree upon and intensify that division instead of focusing on what we agree upon and building upon that. Is what I posted above genuinely disputed by anyone? It seems axiomatic, self-evident to me. However, you are free to disagree with moderators here without fear of censorship or banning. IMHO, too many years of megalomaniacal censoring klowns (people who don't know what they don't know and infatuated with moderator controls) directing helmet forums has put us where we are today.

 

[Niblet]

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...

so this "color pallet" is something that is in your head,,,your "opinion" and therefore "subjective"

 

[Frank F.]

And another excellent point goes right over their heads. That's right, attack the dealer this time. They needed a little break from attacking the messenger and attacking anyone who agrees with the messenger.

Hey, now. What have I ever done to you to deserve that snark?

But since we are talking about dealers now: I do not think naming names is bad. There are three things that have to come together: the artist, the person authenticating the art, and the seller.

It seems you have a hard-on for a few of those yourself.

F.

 

[iron bender]

193 pages of questionable opinions? I think this says it for camo helmets. You guys arguing this are the ones driving future collectors away from the hobby….just sayin. I think I'll go buy some champagne runes now...

 

[Niblet]

It seems pretty much common sense that there are three obvious facts: 1) Obviously there were camo helmets which were used/worn very little, either because they were hanging on bunker wall hooks, or camoed soon before capture. These helmets brought home as souvenirs would have little wear, but would show 70+ years of paint and steel oxidation, even under the best storage circumstances. 2) Obviously, there were camo helmets which were well used and worn prior to being souvenired. They would show that wear and 70+ years of oxidation. 3) Obviously, camo helmets are heavily faked.

Recognizing the facts, supra, there are then the subjectives which involve each individual buyer of camo helmets. I personally am more comfortable with a helmet which shows original field wear and use, over a period of time, such as a year(s), in addition to 70+ years of paint and steel oxidation. Those are, obviously, harder to fake than a high percentage paint camo. Some guys get lucky and get an original high percentage paint camo. More get burned on such helmets and "exotic" freshies.

Perhaps the problems here are the same as those which the leftarded "news" media and the career politico hucksters have done to divide us: focus on what we disagree upon and intensify that division instead of focusing on what we agree upon and building upon that. Is what I posted above genuinely disputed by anyone? It seems axiomatic, self-evident to me. However, you are free to disagree with moderators here without fear of censorship or banning. IMHO, too many years of megalomaniacal censoring klowns (people who don't know what they don't know and infatuated with moderator controls) directing helmet forums has put us where we are today.

I think this is a reasonable summary,

 

[Niblet]

You allways have to be in the center of the world

Not really,,I think it is you who needs to be in the center,,,however again, its you who offer nothing but bloviations
and personal attacks,,,nothing of any substance,,nothing but subjective personal opinion and have offered no explanation
as to why you oppose EVERYTHING written here in regards to the questionable camos being posted

 

[Bigdibbs88]

so this "color pallet" is something that is in your head,,,your "opinion" and therefore "subjective"

literally every time you post you reveal your ignorance. I'm sure wayne is referring to RAL colors, which are well known and accepted and listed in period documentation from the war (not to mention pictured and discussed at length multiple times in this thread). Not sure how that is subjective?

Furthermore, I guess from that statement you're arguing that things should be subjective and not subject to rigid unbending rules? If thats the case you're arguing against your master, M45.

 

[Player11]

Not really,,I think it is you who needs to be in the center,,,however again, its you who offer nothing but bloviations
and personal attacks,,,nothing of any substance,,nothing but subjective personal opinion and have offered no explanation
as to why you oppose EVERYTHING written here in regards to the questionable camos being posted

Lol!!!! i was very happy following this thread, but when M45, speaks ( like you), in things that are bad said i have to reply, somebody who thinks to be an expert cant say the things he says.

Of cource, i have apport a lot of things discutting the camos he is trying to destroy ( let me remind you, that you "are" able of see a fake KC only for pics, still waitng your reasons of that, you only said " because i can" , reaching to this point not sure if i may laugh or cry.

the one who less offer anything is you, because aprt of being ridiculous in FB i dont see any apportation on the helmets, only what you master says you follows saying yes!.

The final result is that most of EVERYTHING being questioned here is not true. Only fair Ebay camo helmets and some others that shoulnt be in a thread called "Questionable camos", they should be in an " Obviously fakes camos" thread is what M45 has reason. In the other points not

 

[Player11]

literally every time you post you reveal your ignorance. I'm sure wayne is referring to RAL colors, which are well known and accepted and listed in period documentation from the war (not to mention pictured and discussed at length multiple times in this thread). Not sure how that is subjective?

Furthermore, I guess from that statement you're arguing that things should be subjective and not subject to rigid unbending rules? If thats the case you're arguing against your master, M45.

I agree, a very nice early Lw drop tail helmet was posted in FB, many people agreed that was good. This man came and said " no good", the owner asked to elaborate his reason. The only reply was " common fake"

 

[Niblet]

literally every time you post you reveal your ignorance. I'm sure wayne is referring to RAL colors, which are well known and accepted and listed in period documentation from the war (not to mention pictured and discussed at length multiple times in this thread). Not sure how that is subjective?

Furthermore, I guess from that statement you're arguing that things should be subjective and not subject to rigid unbending rules? If thats the case you're arguing against your master, M45.

And yet another who refuses to understand what is being taught here,
"I'm sure wayne is referring to RAL colors" really? are you sure? or are you just guessing? did you consult with him prior to this statement?
if he was referring to "RAL colors" why didnt he just say so? He was very vague actually, and I believe that he was basically saying that
you need to handle and view original camo helmets, then and only then would you know what this mysterious color pallet is,,
and its already been stated that the colors cant be posted because digital images cannot be relied upon,,therefore an in hand inspection is always necessary,
something I disagree with

 

[Niblet]

I agree, a very nice early Lw drop tail helmet was posted in FB, many people agreed that was good. This man came and said " no good", the owner asked to elaborate his reason. The only reply was " common fake"

hmmmmm "many people agreed it was good" heh heh has anyone besides your self actually read various FB posts by "people"?
the facebook community is the biggest modern joke there is, and forums like WAF are a close second,,,no sorry I'm not a sheep,,it doesnt matter what the unwashed masses
say or do,,i do my own research and am comfortable with my collection and how I view items,,,I feel sorry for folks like you, I really do

Perhaps Player11 would reveal his true identity to me so we can establish a dialogue like men instead of hiding behind various screen names and taking potshots
he knows who I am, so whats the secret?

 

[ZF41 K98k]

therefore an in hand inspection is always necessary, something I disagree with

Yeah we've heard it all before, because as you've said many times - medals can be determined by a textbook, so surely camo helmets can too?! Well, unfortunately I'm afraid it doesn't work like that in this game. Once you've handled original camo items, and again NOT just helmets (!) but also equipment etc etc - only then will YOU know what we mean,,,

 

[Niblet]

And when you will put on your reading glasses and read what I'm trying to impart to you and not what you believe or think I am,,maybe you will realize
that what I am saying is: I don't discount an In hand inspection, but there are helmets that don't need an in hand inspection to see they are questionable or straight out humped up
artistic creations,,,,to say EVERY camo helmet needs an in hand inspection to verify authenticity is foolish and inaccurate. With proper high quality pictures
most helmets can be verified, and from the helmets posted in this thread it is proof,,,most show immediate red flags with proper high res pics

 

[mcorioles]

Guys,you're wasting your time.

The only thing you need to know about those two are...
1. They think hands on is not necessary.
2. Neither own camos

Therefore everything they say should be held to the same scrutiny they use for "questioning " camos.

Textbook knowledge is great.

Doesnt mean I can read a bunch of books on astronauts and be one with no real world experience.

Educated beyond their intelligence.

 

[Niblet]

Guys,you're wasting your time.

The only thing you need to know about those two are...
1. They think hands on is not necessary.
2. Neither own camos

Therefore everything they say should be held to the same scrutiny they use for "questioning " camos.

Textbook knowledge is great.

Doesnt mean I can read a bunch of books on astronauts and be one with no real world experience.

Educated beyond their intelligence.

Another ignorant post, more rubbish,,,from a guy who owns a bunch of bogus camos

 

[mcorioles]

Another ignorant post, more rubbish,,,from a guy who owns a bunch of bogus camos

LOL.

The truth hurts.
Coming from you it's a guarantee of authenticity.

 

[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 we wouldn't be so inclined to push back. Not sure how many foolish points you continue to make ?????

I'm sorry. I didn't mean for you to feel like you were being pushed around, but important points are going right over your heads.

Take the last helmets I posted, for example, on posts 1915 & 1916. Those were meant for discussion. I stated my opinions of them, now what are yours ? If my opinions are wrong, how ? in what way ?

These two camos were meant to showcase what an original camo looks like and what a humped up postwar camo looks like (my opinion of course). The focus here is not the dealer, the focus is the camos.

There are characteristics of these two that often define the two classes (original and fake). These camos are great examples of what's wrong with the camo collecting hobby.


I am seeing the emergence of new "collector Myths" about camos:

Myth #1. EVERY camo needs a hands-on inspection for confirmation. FALSE. Clear digital photos can show key aspects of a camo in many cases rendering a hands-on inspection unnecessary. After all, Kelly Hicks used to offer a COA via digital photos, remember ? If he can authenticate via digital photos, why can't anyone ?

Myth #2. There are loads of MINTY camos out there just waiting to be found, popping up out of the woodwork left and right. FALSE. Camos were uncommon during the period. For every period photo of a camo there are probably 100 period photos of helmets with NO camo - just factory finish. Posting period photos of minty exotic camos doesn't quite convince me either. A period photo is a snapshot in time some 70 years ago. It shows what existed back then, not necessarily what has survived to today, or survived in the same condition as that portrayed long ago.

Period photos of ranks of 1000's of troopers wearing black SS helmets during the pre-war days is an excellent example. Where ARE all of those SS blackies today ? Most of them didn't stay black for long but were reissued to green for the upcoming war. And as approximately 85% of German forces were expended on the Eastern Front (a front from which very few German helmets have ever returned in original condition) most of those reissued helmets were lost on the Eastern Front, never to return. A very few SS blackies do exist in collections today as well as a few that were reissued back to green. They are certainly not popping up out of the woodwork left and right.

This same idea holds true for camos and exotic camos in particular, IMO.

 

[Hambone]

Another ignorant post, more rubbish,,,from a guy who owns a bunch of bogus camos

Actually, Mcorioles owns some camo helmets I like and I consider his opinions to be valuable. But then again that's just my opinion