German Helmet conundrum

[SiegeGunner]

I have no specialist knowledge of German camo helmets, and therefore no grounds on which to doubt Doughboy's expertise in this field, but his condescending dismissal of the views of other knowledgeable members is out of kilter with the spirit of this forum. We have top-notch experts here on arms, ammunition, bayonets, equipment, etc, and none of them adopts such a high-handed tone. Perhaps we are too genteel on this forum, but I would urge Doughboy to curb his derision and share his knowledge in the same cooperative way that others do.

[trenchtrotter]

Hello all,

Well weather I agree with one poster or another I respect their arguements as long as posted with some degree of courtesy. I actually agree with just about everything said in the last few posts, particularly what grabenhelm stated....why?........well because this posts title says it all...conundrum. I disputed the first helmet because it did not conform to the timescale ie it was one month before the directive. I did not dispute its authenticiity indeed it beats many that have been posted on here. What I have seen in years of collecting is that there is no norm and if one only collects helmets that fit the text book then a collector is missing so much. Is a black dividing line too thick? should the pin be a rear or front type, what colour be the liner pads, three shades or four or two? No black divider lines?

This is what I wnt this thread too be...a discussion / articulated arguement / an excuse to post pictures of helmets right or wrong. If a wrong un is posted lets be truthful with our comments and reasoning....this we have not done on this thread so far. If I say its wrong...well its my opinion and my money should I choose to buy the item.

So come on guys lets be nice and accept each others views as long as expressed with courtesy.

Regards

TT...a helmet collector!!!!!

[Steven Broomfield]

Knowing nothing about the subject, and not being a militaria collector, I have no axe to grind one way or the other the issues discussed, but I must say I've seen few threads where more unnecessary bandwidth use occurs.

Chaps - no need to quote huge wodges of text (and photos) when replying. A simple snippet and a reference back to the thread you're replying to would suffice. I believe excessive quoting is one of the main devourers of forum bandwidth.

There - that's me done.

Carry on.

[George Armstrong Custer]

there are a few issues in life where sensitivity has no place.... and that is just the way I see it.

Well I'll take you at your word on that Doughnut and respond accordingly. You're a real motor-mouth aren't you - when I read your posts on this hitherto reasoned and reasonable thread I thought you were simply a troll so closely did you resemble the stereotypical caricature of a loud-mouthed Yank. Then I realised you'd crossed my radar a couple of weeks back when you first appeared on this forum. In your first appearance you were announcing that you were selling off some militaria on ebay, some of which you then went on to ask advice on the provenance of - such as your bayonets and a "circa WW1" miniature VC keyfob(!) Having already announced that you were going to flog off some gear on ebay I thought your repeated protestations that you weren't hawking your wares a trifle disingenuous, and wrote you off in my mind as a dealer or collector-cum-part-time-dealer on a fishing expedition for pm'd offers. However you now seem to be all over the Uniforms and Equipment section like a rash, playing the blow-hard know-it-all on everything from the paint finish on German Stahlhelm to wrong-headed stuff that you'd picked up about Colts and Lithgow elsewhere on the web. My interest is the helmets - though let me say first off I don't give a hoot whether your appraisal of any helmet of mine based on photographs is a negative one or not. What is important for the continued integrity of this thread, however, is to correct some of your more crass and just plain wrong statements in appraising a helmet. So what follows is more for the benefit of other collectors coming to this thread rather than you Doughnut - as by your own modest reckoning you've clearly forgotten more than I'll ever know on the subject.

The first essential point Doughnut misses is one which most of us who have contributed to this thread before he decided to enlighten us have emphasised on several occasions. That is that it's extremely hard to get a photograhic reproduction of a helmet which replicates the aura of authenticity (or not) which comes from handling a helmet 'in the metal.' This is particularly the case the more pristine the helmet is in general appearance. I've already stated that the Footguards helmet posted by me falls into this category and I certainly would not have bought it myself merely from a photograph. Anyone who has collected for any length of time will know what I mean about the 'vibes' a piece gives off when you handle it - as we've discussed earlier on this thread, this goes beyond looking for known tell-tale signs of authenticity and a knowledge of the construction and finishing processes to include using one's sense of smell. Genuine untampered-with aged military equipment has a smell all of its own.

This last point leads me neatly on to the specious argument upon which Doughnut bases his definitive appraisal of helmets by photograph. He says, in respect of the unit ID markings on the helmet in question:

"One point is the way the "white" paint is browned. I have many helmets with white paint on them and the serious browing shown on this helmet is due to "english walnut wood stain" or storage heat damage that would also have caused damage or cracking to the paint and liner. Helmets that have sweet and nice paint to this date have been stored in a nice way thus preserving the pigment of the whit paint too."

So, based on a photograph, Doughnut can tell us that the discolouration on the white unit markings is down to "English walnut wood stain" as applied by a counterfeiter. Doughnut's familiarity with such a technique (he says he has a faked Prussian Guard marked helmet himself) is duly noted, along with his being a flogger of militaria on ebay. What he is clearly unfamiliar with, however, is the fact that a serious collector would press any such helmet up to his nose and inhale the aroma of English walnut wood stain rather than the instantly recognisable musty smell of old military surplus. But that's not all our newly-arrived self-appointed expert is unfamiliar with. He is clearly unaware that the German army deliberately toned down these white markings at the time of painting. This is readily apparent in a blow-up of a contemporary Guards helmet insignia as shown on p. 61 of Baer:

Baer also shows, on p. 64, a photograph of the last commander of the 1. Garderegiment zu Fuss in 1918, wearing a Stahlhelm on which the white segments of the quartered Prussian shield are quite clearly toned down. Further, Baer shows a helmet from the 8. Kompanie on p. 62 from the collection of the respected Californian collector, the late Dick Deeter. This helmet, like my own, clearly shows that the discolouration on the painted white unit markings bears no relation to any age-related fading or discolouration of the helmet's camouflage colours :

From close examination of actual helmets, my own impression is that the technique used to tone down the white markings on such helmets was the mixing of dirt or dust into the paint before application - this seems particularly the case on small areas such as the white quarters of the Prussian shield - but that dirt or grime was also rubbed over the already applied unit numerals with a fingertip whilst the paint was still moist. The reason why the white markings would be toned down at the time of application should be glaringly (pun alert) obvious - you wouldn't go to the trouble of camouflaging a helmet and then add bright white markings to it! This, of course, explains why these white painted insignia appear disproportionately discoloured on surviving helmets today - though it should also be borne in mind that they will also have undergone a degree of discolouration due to the ageing process as will the whole helmet. In fact the use of soil on helmets for camouflage purposes is specifically enjoined in a War Ministry Army Administration directive of 1 August 1918, signed by Kuntzel.

Another point Doughnut is clearly unaware of is that 90-year-old paint is very dry indeed - a repaint, particularly one which has been, as he suggests, mixed with a wood stain - will not have that property. Collectors will know that it is easy enough to knock a genuine helmet through carelessness and have a dry section of paint break off - it really becomes quite brittle.

Another point. People often have difficulty in believing in just how mint a condition some militaria can survive in - items that make a 90-year-old Stahlhem seem like something from just last week. To make my point, take a look at the 130-year-old Royal Artillery officer's helmet below:

It dates from 1878, when this 'home' pattern of blue cloth helmet with a spike was introduced for officers of the Field and Garrison Artillery. It might fairly be described as mint condition. The interior, however, has cream/white leather elements which although undamaged, have some age discolouration. My point is that if Doughnut's criteria were extended to their logical conclusion with this helmet, then it would be dismissed as a fake because the white elements of its construction were more discoloured (overuse of English walnut woodstain? ) than the main body of the helmet. In fact, I have the helmet by an inheritance, and therefore know that it is in such fine condition because its original owner retired as a full colonel in 1878, the year in which the pattern was introduced. It has resided ever since in its japanned metal case, and is a rareity not only because of its condition but because the 1878 pattern with spike was superceded with one with a gilt ball in place of a spike in August 1881 - only because its owner retired before that date is this one in its original version. But no doubt Doughnut could tell me it was a fake just from looking at photographs.

As far as any of my collection is concerned, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone casting doubt on any item based upon photographs of it. I stated that months ago, and a theme throughout this thread has been the difficulty in getting true representations in photographs and making definitive judgements based upon them (the more crass fakes apart, that is, such as the fake made-in-India Stahlhelm with bright new paint which are now seen on ebay). There is no substitute for holding and examining an item. The mint item can often appear less so when seen in reality, whilst conversely the battered appearing one in a photograph can be in less poor nick when seen for real. Collectors know how to tell if a liner has never been removed from a helmet, for instance. They can spot honest age related wear and discolouration, even on mint items, compared to those which have been faked - comparisons which it is often easy to get wrong in a photograph. I hope that I've returned to this fine thread of TT's some of the integrity of discussion which had marked it up until Doughnut's ill-judged intervention. As Hans rightly pointed out (drawing Doughnut's insults in return), Doughnut's reasoning was fundamentally flawed. That does not mean that I, Hans - or others - might still not feel less than convinced about the integrity of some helmets on this thread. But the fact is that without handling them yourself you cannot make a definitive statement from the pictorial evidence alone on precisely what your own experience would tell you about a particular helmet and its likely background if you could actually hold it. As far as the Prussian Guard helmet in my collection is concerned, it had been in the same Dutch collection for over 35 years before I bought it and I have owned it for a decade. So for Doughnut to refer to it in the same breath as English walnut wood stain faked examples knocked out by his chum in central Florida is laughable. I would certainly be more interested in hearing what Hans' concerns about the liner are, however, as in my opinion it's clearly never been out of the helmet.

No hard feelings Doughnut - I'm just telling it the way I see it.

ciao,

GAC

[George Armstrong Custer]

Hello, Geroge Assstrong, looks like you cant read....I also said that from the photos I could be wrong

No you didn't. Here's what you said:

while indeed a real helmet, it is a repaint. One point is the way the "white" paint is browned. I have many helmets with white paint on them and the serious browing shown on this helmet is due to "english walnut wood stain" or storage heat damage that would also have caused damage or cracking to the paint and liner. Helmets that have sweet and nice paint to this date have been stored in a nice way thus preserving the pigment of the whit paint too.

That baing said I still would have no problems displaying this with my real helmets in that it is indeed a nice looking helmet and has value in that it is a quality job. I have a repaint M18 Prussian guard helmet in my collection, simply because I know I dont have the bucks (Quid) to get a real one if it came to auction.

So, IMHO nice helmet, just not real paint.

Never mind the camo paint though - you've just confirmed my estimate of your own true colours.

[trenchtrotter]

Mods,

Please do not delete this thread or block it but strongly edit it. I started it to foster good discussion. I did not want to see it reduced to this.

I implore all to stop this bickering and bad tempered posts.

This is a forum to generate discussion and foster interests in the Great war and most importantly to remember the sacrifice of the 14 - 18 generation. Some seem to have forgotton this!!!!!!

Some editing if possible?

Regards

TT

PS please no more ill tempered posts!

[151mg]

I would also advise you when next time someone with a funny Kraut sounding name like mine challenges your opinion that you don't use his ethnicity against him in your response. Never let your ignorance get in the way of your intollerance.

Hans

Sorry, missed this before. The transaltion was because I have German in my backgroung as well..... along with forefathers from most of the Western European Countries.... No insult intended,...

[151mg]

Mods,

Please do not delete this thread or block it but strongly edit it. I started it to foster good discussion. I did not want to see it reduced to this.

I implore all to stop this bickering and bad tempered posts.

This is a forum to generate discussion and foster interests in the Great war and most importantly to remember the sacrifice of the 14 - 18 generation. Some seem to have forgotton this!!!!!!

Some editing if possible?

Regards

TT

PS please no more ill tempered posts!

You are correcct...... sorry, give me a minute to delete some stuff .... All done and of value as a learning lesson.

If someone told me one of my real helmets was a fake, I would not be as defensive as some on this thread, for I know what is real and what is not.

Trying to tell someone their pot many be bogus is like being the person who raped their sister and pooped on their family name..... dang real or fake it is just a flippen helmet!

Good day to all, Doughboy

[eviltaxman]

I don't know anything about this subject, but what I do know is that a few people are being unfair and rude with comments and this forum is run on courtesy.

Therefore rather than have me edit the whole thread, bearing in mind I know nothing about helmets, I suggest you all look back over the whole thing and edit out the relevant insults please! It's time some people respected other's comments & views etc.

I will check back shortly and if the editing hasn't been done (or to a permissible level) I will close this thread.

[Steven Broomfield]

Good call, Les.

[George Armstrong Custer]

have my doubts about the red cross only because its so rare [.......] im pretty sure of the camo and if the cross is bogus they did agood job of it .Checked my records and i got it at wallis & wallis nov 98 for £435 all in .

Looking up material for my last post I came across some stuff of related interest to your cut-out ear medic helmet Graeme. I for one certainly wouldn't write off the cross on your helmet as a later addition just from the photograph, nor, of course, can I positively verify it to my own satisfaction without examining it. Having said that however, for what it's worth I think it looks promising. Take a look at this one from Baer for comparison:

As to numbers of 1918 cut-out ear helmets produced, you're right to suggest that the figure of 1500 is too low. A War Ministry Army Administration directive of 1 August 1918 states:

A number of these [cut-out ear] test helmets are ready, so that 2100 helmets (size 64) will be included in the August helmet shipment to every destination mentioned in the telegram 11b 7322 of 23 July. The department requests that these helmets be allocated to the various troop sections for comparison with the previous helmets and that experiences with them be reported by 1 December 1918. See attached questionnaire.

By 1 December 1918 of course it had been all over bar the shouting for over three weeks!

On the veracity of helmets in general, Hans made several excellent observations when he wrote:

"The fact that a helmet has non-regulation two/four,etc., colour camo which is bordered by thin dividing lines is certainly no serious grounds for suspicion on its own. As for a pattern being too pretty, there are many surviving original examples of camo helmets painted with great artistry and care. There is evidence that helmets within a unit were occasionally painted by one individual in similar if not identical patterns. I'm not so sure that most soldiers assigned with this task found it disagreeable and time wasting like you suggest they did. A fairly ambitious leap of faith on your part to say this with so much certainty. What makes you think that most of the painting was done in the trenches as opposed to behind the lines during periods of rest and refitting? "

On the idea that helmets may have been painted by one or two dedicated individuals within a specific unit is a reasonable supposition. But as it's well-nigh impossible to determine what units surviving helmets belonged to, this is a difficult one to produce hard evidence for. However, there is an exception with the helmets of the 1st Foot Guards Regiment and the 1st Guards Signal Battalion who wore Hohenzollern colours unofficially on the left side of their helmets - a painted shield divided into four quadrants of white/black over black/white. Surviving examples of these clearly belong to the same unit and, perhaps unsurprisingly, are very similar indeed - as are the camouflage and black dividing lines. On Hans' point about the variety of camo colours and the variable thickness (or, indeed, the complete absence of) the black dividing lines and their design, the pictures below from Baer (from the Barrows and Bandy Collections) fully bear him out. The variable quality and skill evident in these paint jobs is evident too (and it ought not to be forgotten that, according to Baer, "Aside from the normal field grey colour, helmets were also issued with camouflage colours direct from the factory. This so-called 'mimicry paint' was officially introduced by a decree from the Chief of the General Staff of the Field Army on 15 July 1918. The 'mimicry paint' was also partially applied by the troops themselves." One presumes that the factory-finished camo helmets Baer refers to were much more neatly finished and standardised. All of which must have created a great variety in quality of finish!) :

ciao,

GAC

[George Armstrong Custer]

GAC,

The one you posted your link to went for approx £1,200!

TT

Yeah I saw that TT - a very good price! It has to be borne in mind though that the weak pound against the dollar has made an impact - this time last year that would have just been £900. Still, militaria doesn't seem to have been a casualty so far of the credit crunch - given recent events some would say it's safer than banks. It certainly gives more enjoyment!

ciao,

GAC

[trenchtrotter]

Back on track...thankyou gentlemen.

Will post something related now we have moved on.

Regards

TT

[Hans k.]

G.A. Custer, I would like to discuss your camo Garde helmet. Would it be possible for you to post some clear close-up pictures of the helmet's interior, especially areas such as where the location of the size and lot#s are located, the lug bolt washers, etc?

Thanks,

Hans

[graeme gt]

Great thread and great detective work george and very amusing ,keep up the good work boys .cheers graeme .

[George Armstrong Custer]

G.A. Custer, I would like to discuss your camo Garde helmet. Would it be possible for you to post some clear close-up pictures of the helmet's interior, especially areas such as where the location of the size and lot#s are located, the lug bolt washers, etc?

Thanks,

Hans

No problem Hans, I'll take some shots of these specific areas and put them up for you hopefully in the next day or so.

ciao,

GAC

[findabetterole]

This is aimed at the dedicated collector..

I know nothing about the subject of this thread, but have found it very interesting. I have a small side collection of WW1 military artifacts, my major collection being the Enfield Pattern 1907 bayonet. I would like to include a genuine WW1 Imperial German camouflaged steel helmet in my collection. Knowing that these items are reproduced for the reenactor world... how would I.... as a novice within this field of militaria... be able to tell the genuine Great War item from a modern day reproduction?

Everyone has their own ideas and methods as to how to answer my question.. thats understandable. What I'm after, and I think it would benifit other like minded novices... is a generalisation of main pointers to look for.

Can anyone help?

Seph

[trenchtrotter]

Seph,

Firstly look at as many as you can especially if you know they come from experienced collectors / reliable dealers. If you do not trust your own judgement buy from a reputable dealer and ask him as many questions as you feel necessary. I would rather pay a high price for a good one than pay a going price / lesser price for one I was never happy with.

There are some good "coffee table" books with superb pictures from well known collectors out there.

Dont believe everything you are told by so called experts re what should be and what should not be on originals. There are so many variations that the mind boggles ie some examples have no black lines seperating the blocks, some are splotch pattern and not blocks.

In essence I would look listen and buy only after careful consideration.

If I had to give one piece of advice though is that I would buy one that looks right and feels right and not what I want it to look like ie fresh bright and fitting the text book patterns.

I can recommend a dealer should you wish to pm me but the prices are high.

Regards

TT

[trenchtrotter]

Getting back to the medics cross, I am still not convinced. The example Baer pictures looks to be some kind of tape and paper and not paint.

Of course if an original example is pictured in a book that is generally considered the bible then this is what will be copied by people. They will then be referred to the "bible" and told there is one just like yours. If its in that book it must be right!

I would be keen to hear views re the machine gunners emblem sometimes seen on helmets...more often than not these are false. Has anyone got views if these were ever seen in the field or a modern myth. Why would a soldier adorn his helmet with such an emblem when it is accepted they tore of the arm badge if capture was imminent. I believe machine gunners were not popular...or is that another myth?

Regards

TT

[Hans k.]

The white patch on the medic helmet in Baer's book looks to me like it's a series of white bars painted on possibly with a stencil to keep it neat. I don't think it's tape. I agree that many copies have been made of some of the nicest helmets in his books.

Hans

[koen]

Hello,

Just for the record, a picture of my helmet with a medics cross (although no camouflage pattern). I got it from a local farmer some 30 years ago; he used it in his backyard as a drinking-through for his chickens…So no liner either.

Regards,

Koen

[151mg]

This is aimed at the dedicated collector..

I know nothing about the subject of this thread, but have found it very interesting. I have a small side collection of WW1 military artifacts, my major collection being the Enfield Pattern 1907 bayonet. I would like to include a genuine WW1 Imperial German camouflaged steel helmet in my collection. Knowing that these items are reproduced for the reenactor world... how would I.... as a novice within this field of militaria... be able to tell the genuine Great War item from a modern day reproduction?

Everyone has their own ideas and methods as to how to answer my question.. thats understandable. What I'm after, and I think it would benifit other like minded novices... is a generalisation of main pointers to look for.

Can anyone help?

Seph

Yea, thanks for the help on the bayonets Steph it was appreciated.... As far as looking at real and not real, take your time. If you have a buddy that has a few, go spend some time looking at them, feel and yes there is a smell to old leather and horse hair that can't be faked. The paint will have a look to it and in areas that cannot be easily touched by the hand (around the lugs-posts) and then there are useage /wear patterns in areas where the users hand will have worn paint smooth in a natural way.... even sweat patterns on the leather pads, the front should show more head oils than the rear two....

Just spend time looking at the known real deals that trusted buds have and you'll get a feel for real soon enough.

As you just have one in mind, don't worry about that suff I wrote before about the white paint and all.... I failed at getting my point across to most here so .... not worth the bother.

Just as I said take your time, spend time looking at the real thing and get to know real.... you may not be able to write it down but you will know when a pot is not real...

good luck

Doughboy

[findabetterole]

Trenchtrotter, Doughboy....

Thanks chaps... your advice is appreciated. You both have differing views, but it all comes down to the same thing... same as collecting '07's', or any other item. Study the subject first, and try to get hands on with the genuine item.

Trenchtrotter... the dealers address that you offered would be most gratefully accepted.

A superb thread chaps.. keep it going!

Seph

[gew98]

This is aimed at the dedicated collector..

I know nothing about the subject of this thread, but have found it very interesting. I have a small side collection of WW1 military artifacts, my major collection being the Enfield Pattern 1907 bayonet. I would like to include a genuine WW1 Imperial German camouflaged steel helmet in my collection. Knowing that these items are reproduced for the reenactor world... how would I.... as a novice within this field of militaria... be able to tell the genuine Great War item from a modern day reproduction?

Everyone has their own ideas and methods as to how to answer my question.. thats understandable. What I'm after, and I think it would benifit other like minded novices... is a generalisation of main pointers to look for.

Can anyone help?

Seph

Seph ; The only problem I have found with collecting german helmets of both world wars - especially camoflauged examples is the dollar amount attached to them has led to some very nefarious types trying to make a living off uneducated collectors and dealers - some of whom are honest that just don't know their helmets. Some friends of mine have taken to task some big dealer types about using a chemical paint analysis to verify such high end high dollar helmets. The cost was in the neighborhood of $450 or so from what I gathered. But if you are going to plunk down $2k or way more on specialised german camo helmets would you not want that insurance policy at least ?. I would think there would be a way for a big name dealer to cut costs on a volume based solution to verify at least the paint is period to the helmets era. You would be surprised to have read the rancor with which some of the big nefarious dealer types outright condemned such a clear solution to the rife fraud in this theme of collecting. Many of these big dealers and some of their big collector interests are not about to be put out of many $$$$ when the truth of their bad helmets is revealed. It's real bad in colelcting WW2 era german lids, but the imperial camos are catching the eye of frauds more and more. I can remember cruising gunshows and flea markets in NJ/PA 25 years ago and buying honest camo coal scuttle helmets for $25 to $40. They were fairly common then and nothing special was attached to them. Lord has that now changed !.

To george... about a year or so ago on the WAF forum someone posted pics of a camo guards marked stahlhelm. I think it's still there on that thread. I think it got bad press from most of the replies , but off hand I can't recall the reasons stated...did you catch that posting there ?.

[gew98]

To george... about a year or so ago on the WAF forum someone posted pics of a camo guards marked stahlhelm. I think it's still there on that thread. I think it got bad press from most of the replies , but off hand I can't recall the reasons stated...did you catch that posting there ?.

Here's the link to the thread about the helmet I was talking about :

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=304656