Q68 Luft Normandy spray

[fader107]

Something came in the mail for St. Pattys day! Sunny day here in NY - so I figured I'd snap a few shots before I hit the pub.

[fader107]

2

[fader107]

3

[fader107]

4

[fader107]

4

[fader107]

5

[Paris Gun]

I think the helmet is original, but I understand the cautionary approach suggested by some of the posts. However, some of the remarks beg the following response.

"Tool marks" are indeed a common element of fake helmets, but the tell-tale sign is the faker can't help themselves; once they start, they cannot stop.

I have an original Confederate Officer's saber- it's over 150 years old... AND NEAR MINT! The condition of an item depends upon the extent of its use during the period, manner of storage & storage condition afterwards, & of course, how the item was handled or what has been done by the item's curator since.

SO, this item definitely cannot be said to be a 'combat veteran', & perhaps it was cleaned at some point. But if it was obtained from the original owner & then carefully handled/ stored ever since, its condition makes sense.

The problem with minty camos is no one trusts such; we have no problem with mint helmets in factory new condition even tho many were pulled off a soldier's head in the same manner this one may have experienced.

Thus, don't piss on it because it's not dirty, rusted due to poor storage, exhibits a VERY STRANGE/ UNIQUE camo scheme, or because there are just a few or minimal wear marks. In fact, if it had numerous wear marks on the exterior, THEN such would point to fakery given the minty interior.

[ITALIANWARFRONT]

Originally Posted by Paris Gun

I think the helmet is original, but I understand the cautionary approach suggested by some of the posts. However, some of the remarks beg the following response.

"Tool marks" are indeed a common element of fake helmets, but the tell-tale sign is the faker can't help themselves; once they start, they cannot stop.

I have an original Confederate Officer's saber- it's over 150 years old... AND NEAR MINT! The condition of an item depends upon the extent of its use during the period, manner of storage & storage condition afterwards, & of course, how the item was handled or what has been done by the item's curator since.

SO, this item definitely cannot be said to be a 'combat veteran', & perhaps it was cleaned at some point. But if it was obtained from the original owner & then carefully handled/ stored ever since, its condition makes sense.

The problem with minty camos is no one trusts such; we have no problem with mint helmets in factory new condition even tho many were pulled off a soldier's head in the same manner this one may have experienced.

Thus, don't piss on it because it's not dirty, rusted due to poor storage, exhibits a VERY STRANGE/ UNIQUE camo scheme, or because there are just a few or minimal wear marks. In fact, if it had numerous wear marks on the exterior, THEN such would point to fakery given the minty interior.

[zbv500]

For what it is worth I dont like the camo job.

The rim has much too much wear to it then the whole helmet probably ever recieved.
With that much worn off paint on the rim I would expect more wear to the top as well. I also see some artifactial marks to the rim in pic# 1 & 2.

This + the same tool marks all over the helmet would let me stay away from it.
Sorry I dont know those big guns that owned the helmet....

Jens

[Dan-K]

I had the opportunity to handle this helmet at the show and thought it was 100% legit. I know it doesnt fit into the classic salty dog, well worn, battle scarred or usual pattern image that the majority of collectors expect but whos to know how the camos were done and how long they were used in the field before the owner was either captured or killed ?

[randywrap]

Originally Posted by Paris Gun

I think the helmet is original, but I understand the cautionary approach suggested by some of the posts. However, some of the remarks beg the following response.

"Tool marks" are indeed a common element of fake helmets, but the tell-tale sign is the faker can't help themselves; once they start, they cannot stop.

I have an original Confederate Officer's saber- it's over 150 years old... AND NEAR MINT! The condition of an item depends upon the extent of its use during the period, manner of storage & storage condition afterwards, & of course, how the item was handled or what has been done by the item's curator since.

SO, this item definitely cannot be said to be a 'combat veteran', & perhaps it was cleaned at some point. But if it was obtained from the original owner & then carefully handled/ stored ever since, its condition makes sense.

The problem with minty camos is no one trusts such; we have no problem with mint helmets in factory new condition even tho many were pulled off a soldier's head in the same manner this one may have experienced.

Thus, don't piss on it because it's not dirty, rusted due to poor storage, exhibits a VERY STRANGE/ UNIQUE camo scheme, or because there are just a few or minimal wear marks. In fact, if it had numerous wear marks on the exterior, THEN such would point to fakery given the minty interior.

Very well said!!!!

[ROBB]

Not talking about little scratches we are talking patina and age ,this comment to defend a shiny new helmet always cracks me up "then carefully handled/ stored ever since, its condition makes sense." . Yeah like the nasty German camoes his helmet wears it arround for a while gets loads of scratches and edge wear whilst in barracks , dies and his mates pack it away for a GI to find who then does the same packs it away in a vacuum sealed plastic bag and keeps it at a constant temperature for 70 years . We are talking a combat helmet here and a camoed one at that which suggest a combat scenario, and I dont recall the Jerries getting it too easy . However its all pretty irrelevant if the buyer is happy then I am happyn too . Rob

[Anders L]

I had that helmet in my hands during this years SOS, did not see any red flags but as I always say....I'm no camo expert.
I would not have any problems having it on my shelf.

The soldier that painted that one must have smoked some really psychadelic stuff.....

[DennyB]

I am pretty sure this is the same helmet that I saw on Mike Davis' table at the SoS and at the time I felt that it was new paint.
I didn't pick it up and look at it closely but from 3 feet away, I did not like it.
I wondered why Mike had what looked to be a new paint camo on his table and assumed it had been left for him to examine.
Looking at it here doesn't change my opinion, it has too many characteristics of a forgery.
The paint around the edges has plenty of wear while the inside looks to be unissued.
The tool marks look to be added by the same tool at the same time to me.
The fact that the camo pattern is unusual is not a factor in itself but when combined with so many other little things that send up red flags, I would have to say that in my opinion, this isn't a pre-1945 paint job.

[me6_130]

I keep on thinking it's a LW helmet. I can almost see the eagle.

Carles