Demanding period photographic evidence/documentation for rare Third Reich militaria/memorabilia/regalia to be accepted as genuine is like asking for the Moon. It would be VERY unlikely to find such things on the spur of the moment with no prior research.
And IF such evidence exists in print, it could take years to find it even with a concerted effort.
If such evidence is NOT in print (in archives, in a drawer somewhere, for example) it could take decades to find it.
What I find a bit unfair is that only certain people are asked to produce such evidence. This is in contrast to EVERYONE who posts items being asked to produce period evidence to conclusively prove that their items "exist".
I disagree with the above (I bolded the first part). I believe you are starting with the improper presumption that these are "rare Third Reich militaria/memorabilia/regalia" to being with. The sole evidence supporting originality is your story about a story told to you by the seller at point of sale, a 1977 swap meet, to wit:
"I got these direct from a Vet at a local swap meet in about 1977. He said he was rummaging through a damaged house and found these in the attic. The cigar box is the same one he had them in."
That's it? Was he a vet? Was that bullshit? If he was a vet, was his story bullshit? If he was a vet and his story wasn't bullshit, was this in the attic of a damaged house in Columbus Ohio in 1975?
As with all Nazi relics, the presumption is that they are not original and the artifact must prove itself. As Peter U stated, simply apply your own standards to the ornaments as set forth here:
https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/m-40-heer-normandy-nebelwerfer-unit-helmet.49060/
Respond as we did. There are multiple of those ornaments as well. Far more concerning is that there are plenty of these thin glass ornaments which are rather poor fakes. "I speak German and Germans had ornaments so these are real" or analysis such as "I trust M45 and if he says they are real then they are and you can't prove otherwise" is essentially not positive of much (i.e., bullshit). If you have no other evidence to support originality other than a story about the 1977 swap meet story then I'm afraid the appropriate presumption of fakery is not defeated. All of us here are subject to the same rules, which keeps our information solid. Unlike Waftardistan, we don't give anyone a pass because they are an "advanced collector" toady type, or because of a Gunboreds intellectual Armageddon click bait mod-tardathon standard where post counts and toadyism mean so much. I'm going to point to a thread (and there are plenty here) which does what you say is a "bit unfair". It responds to criticism with better evidence. Anyone can be a critic:
I picked up a helmet, quite reasonably priced ($90) that no one was bidding on (ID'd as an "American WW1 helmet"). It is a MkII, Canadian CL/C make, 1941 date, with a unit flash painted on the left side. It has a camoflage paint scheme done over a wide mesh net. The service number in the rim...
www.k98kforum.com
I bought this Canadian Mk.II at auction, no bids, for $90, advertised as a "WW1 Doughboy Helmet" or some other such thing. It has a rare (painted) flash on it for an illustrious unit. I was first told by "experts" that the flash was "wrong because it has L cypher on it." It also has a service number and name. What did I do? I spent as much on the Seaforths Regimental history as I did on the helmet and showed:
1) The flash with the cypher is the correct one, per regs and regimental history (period documents), so the forum "experts" were wrong;
2) The service number is for the Seaforths and matches the name of the soldier on the helmet (again, period documentation); and
3) Got copies of his service records confirming this and also noting that his handwriting on parts of his service records is the same as on the helmet. (period military records).
Thus, there was a dispute and I used documentary evidence to show my theory was correct. That flash that the "experts" proclaimed bad subsequently became the depicted textbook flash (in the Canadian book on these helmets) for the Seaforths. From bullshit to textbook based upon documentary evidence. The knowledge base is improved by such exercises. The knowledge base is not helped by rah rah bullshit and censorship. There are plenty of threads here from plenty of people, you included, which provide the evidentiary support you claim is "unfair". That's how we separate knowledge from bullshit. You did the same with lot number research and the Champagne Rune fraud.
I'm not blindly condemning these as fake. I'm willing to be convinced, but right now with what we've got, anyone should be able to see that it is more likely than not that these are postwar creations. The presumption of fakery with all Nazi things is not yet overcome.
" in any post!
www.theawl.com
www.warsendshop.com
www.gunboards.com
