Lammy Posted 2 July , 2021 Share Posted 2 July , 2021 Took a chance.! On the dreaded online shop. 30 day return, so can get my money back if needed. Or should I start the return now ? Something looks to be eating this helmet. Chemicals? Will take better pictures, when in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark holden Posted 3 July , 2021 Share Posted 3 July , 2021 Personally I would return it. The shape is wrong the crown is too pointed and the bottom of the hood should flare out . See the IWM example https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30015954 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 3 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2021 Will take better pictures, when in hand. Also it was from a charitable organisation, the church of England. Not going to say its 100%. But in hand will tell. Also , I dont believe I have seen two identical helmets. Infact in the few existing photos. Not 2 are the same, shape or colour. Will see how pointy when on the dummy head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 3 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2021 It does look to have been shortened though. On that I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 I can get this thing carbon dated for £300 , so well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 4 July , 2021 Share Posted 4 July , 2021 10 minutes ago, Lammy said: I can get this thing carbon dated for £300 , so well worth it. Waste of money. It isn't accurate if the object is of recent origin (500 yrs or less) and the range of accuracy would be huge, say +/- 100 yrs. And that's assuming there is material in it containing Carbon 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TullochArd Posted 4 July , 2021 Share Posted 4 July , 2021 ....... aged with easily available iron filings sprinkled onto damp cloth ...... a popular technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 then it can be tested for any residue chemicals waste of what money? I would be paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 (edited) if its cotton or linen, then it contains plenty of carbon. Anyway should be easy enough to date , the material weave and composition. Edited 4 July , 2021 by Lammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 If this is Viyella which I believe it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 (edited) They have a Ph mask at the black watch museum , exactly the same viyella outer material. In exactly the same colour.I will also be able to run a few chemical tests, for the detection of Sodium Thiosulfate . Edited 4 July , 2021 by Lammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 (edited) Chromatographic paper, saturated with ammonia, is used to extract the residual thiosulfate from the gelatin layer of processed film. The paper is treated in a silver nitrate solution and fixed in an ammonia·sodium chloride solution. Thiosulfate, if present, forms silver sulfide and the thiosulfate is determined by measuring the transmission density of the paper darkened by silver sulfid e. The paper extraction method is simple, rapid, requires only a densitometer as special equipment, and is very sensitive especially when the transmission density is measured for two layers of the paper. No filters are required. The test readily reveals the uneven distribution of residual thiosulfate on the film. By selective removal of thiosulfate from the image silver by ammonia and potassium bromide solutions, it was shown that a small amount of thiosulfate was absorbed on the image silver immediately after processing. Except here, the paper will be substituted for fibres. Edited 4 July , 2021 by Lammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, TullochArd said: ....... aged with easily available iron filings sprinkled onto damp cloth ...... a popular technique. Rust from Iron (III) oxides with limited oxygen and low moisture results in black rust. Black rust can be visually identified as a thin, black film which is the result of oxidation in a low oxygen environment. Although the presence , of rust does not prove originality , neither does it prove fakery. I am not daft and have 40 years experience. It does like bad storage though. It was cheap. Less than a copy would have cost. Edited 4 July , 2021 by Lammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_C Posted 4 July , 2021 Share Posted 4 July , 2021 4 hours ago, TullochArd said: ....... aged with easily available iron filings sprinkled onto damp cloth ...... a popular technique. It appears to be a period shot/sand blasters protective hood, which would explain the extensive fine rust staining. Not that that would necessarily rule out a re-purposed Hypo hood, but the shape is wrong - British uniforms and equipment were made to precise sealed patterns, with no variation permitted, even under wartime restrictions. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TullochArd Posted 5 July , 2021 Share Posted 5 July , 2021 13 hours ago, Lammy said: ....... Although the presence , of rust does not prove originality , neither does it prove fakery...... No suggestion that you are daft Lammy - and clearly not the case from your detailed technical responses! However, the distribution of the discolouration medium, whatever it is, does not seem to be random and appears on both sides of the item suggesting it happened during storage is unlikely. Pete-C's comment on sealed patterns is most valid. Personally my reaction remains Caveat Emptor. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 5 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 5 July , 2021 (edited) No I agree , it does warrant further investigation. If fillings then should be able to spot those under magnification. But it could just be bad storage. I have asked where it has come from , just waiting for a response from the Church of England , have also asked the charity who do they use for verification of authenticity. Hopefully they get back to me. Edited 5 July , 2021 by Lammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 5 July , 2021 Share Posted 5 July , 2021 Proper hood here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30015666 TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 5 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 5 July , 2021 No image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark holden Posted 5 July , 2021 Share Posted 5 July , 2021 On 03/07/2021 at 20:30, Lammy said: Will take better pictures, when in hand. Also it was from a charitable organisation, the church of England. Not going to say its 100%. But in hand will tell. Also , I dont believe I have seen two identical helmets. Infact in the few existing photos. Not 2 are the same, shape or colour. Will see how pointy when on the dummy head. Ultimately if you are happy with it then that's all that matters. For me it is not one I would invest even a modest amount in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 6 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 6 July , 2021 I dont even have it yet. Should be here tomorrow. But have been trawling through IWM collection and the hypo helmet on display I feel is a repro. The image I want to see, you have to pay for through the licensing office. Even the one at the Macpherson museum is a repro. So finding stuff to compare, is proving difficult anyway.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 8 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 8 July , 2021 Refunded. Straight away as soon as I opened. Big give away was the plastic lens. Either way nothing lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TullochArd Posted 8 July , 2021 Share Posted 8 July , 2021 1 hour ago, Lammy said: Refunded. Straight away as soon as I opened. Big give away was the plastic lens. Either way nothing lost. ...... an education for us all Lammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 8 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 8 July , 2021 Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 July , 2021 Share Posted 8 July , 2021 On 05/07/2021 at 21:04, Lammy said: No image. Scroll down further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lammy Posted 9 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 9 July , 2021 Although I did find this image at the KOM. 1/5th Kings Own Dated June 1915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now