M.35 Heer SE 66 "ambush pattern" hand painted camo

Camo paint doesn't adhere to these parade finish helmets. This came out of an old collection. Feldgrau overpaint, then camo splotch over that later.

Great lid Craig!!

Love the decal peeking out and the classic colour scheme.

Another similar, recently sold. If the parade finish isn't prepped properly, the issue camo paint, sometimes pretty flimsy as it was a powder mix, won't adhere. This one looks cleaned on the outside as well.

Totally. Awesome.

Similar.......

Hambone said:

Camo paint doesn't adhere to these parade finish helmets. This came out of an old collection. Feldgrau overpaint, then camo splotch over that later.

Click to expand...

looks very similar to this helmet that was just pulled out of the woods in VA..

mauser99 said:

looks very similar to this helmet that was just pulled out of the woods in VA..

Click to expand...

Mauser, I think you know what I'm going to say about this one; camo paint in pristine condition, little if any dark rust patina, bright colors, heavy chipping to the rim, It all screams recent.

Thin spray stripes period picture as requested.....

Also period pic of a helmet any of us would call fake

mauser99 said:

looks very similar to this helmet that was just pulled out of the woods in VA..

Click to expand...

I hope they leave that one in Woods of VA.



P

Bigdibbs88 said:

Thin spray stripes period picture as requested.....

Also period pic of a helmet any of us would call fake

Click to expand...

I like that one using natural foliage combined with spray paint. Those photos were taken 70 odd years ago. If those exact same helmets were posted on the forum today, I would expect they would no longer look brand new like in the photos, but would show significant combat wear, age, fading, rust, grime, patina, and so on.

M45 said:

I like that one using natural foliage combined with spray paint. Those photos were taken 70 odd years ago. If those exact same helmets were posted on the forum today, I would expect they would no longer look brand new like in the photos, but would show significant combat wear, age, fading, rust, grime, patina, and so on.

Click to expand...

Not a known pattern, fake.

mauser99 said:

looks very similar to this helmet that was just pulled out of the woods in VA..

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that one does not stand on its own merits from the pics. When a helmet asks more questions than it answers and requires a story to help it along, then that is a problem IMHO. While much of this is subjective to the buyer, when it becomes a matter of becoming part of the knowledge base it requires more than the owner's subjective or a second or third or ..... hand story of provenance.

Back when I was doing shows I remember a little old man walking around with a cigar box of "Nazi medals" he "brought home from the war". Some of them were high end stuff, including numbered tank assault, FJ, etc. etc. He could have brought them home from the war, but it had to have been the 1991 war over a parking space at the flea market.

There are people out there faking camo helmets. big time. Some are exceptionally good, and were doing great work back in the early 90s. The better work now comes out of Europe and is airbrushed, aged, etc. Yes, there are "exotic freshies" which have a chance of being original. But yes, for every one of those there are 10 more which are artwork. Without an objective test which is objective and accurate, (i.e., not XRFacts, but, e.g., paint analysis for postwar elements), then it is a matter of subjective opinion. People should feel happy and comfortable with what they buy, but that comfort doesn't ipso facto make something original.

Bigdibbs88 said:

Not a known pattern, fake.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I utilize a holistic approach which involves multiple factors and then my overall gut based upon all of those factors, combined, some positive, some negative, and my overall gut. If it is not a known pattern, then that's a problem. However, a period pic makes it a "known pattern" doesn't it?

Hambone said:

I don't think so. I utilize a holistic approach which involves multiple factors and then my overall gut based upon all of those factors, combined, some positive, some negative, and my overall gut. If it is not a known pattern, then that's a problem. However, a period pic makes it a "known pattern" doesn't it?

Click to expand...

I was just being sarcastic. But I really do think 99% of people including myself would call that an outright fake despite wear patterns etc

Sorry you feel that way. I know where, who, and when it was purchased and the other items that came along with it... All were in stunning condition. The 8 page thread of me trying to reason with you and others that not every item is going to look like every other doesn't seem to sink in.. That's fine and Im fine with it.
I wasn't asking for opinions just pointing out the similarities to yours. Color, pattern ect. The helmet isn't mine but I have had it "in hand" and so have others that I value their opinions. How a helmet ends up post war has as much to do how it looks today as it does during.. Climate, storage, or lack there of, effects of smoking all will age paint,leather, metal ect. Why can we have minty "factory" painted shells or plain overpaints but, Camo's have to be excluded ?????? The logic or lack there of doesn't make sense....

Here Is the other side and front.. And yes it is a luft. Maybe there is enough wear on this side for everyone's taste.

mauser99 said:

Sorry you feel that way. I know where, who, and when it was purchased and the other items that came along with it... All were in stunning condition. The 8 page thread of me trying to reason with you and others that not every item is going to look like every other doesn't seem to sink in.. That's fine and Im fine with it.
I wasn't asking for opinions just pointing out the similarities to yours. Color, pattern ect. The helmet isn't mine but I have had it "in hand" and so have others that I value their opinions. How a helmet ends up post war has as much to do how it looks today as it does during.. Climate, storage, or lack there of, effects of smoking all will age paint,leather, metal ect. Why can we have minty "factory" painted shells or plain overpaints but, Camo's have to be excluded ?????? The logic or lack there of doesn't make sense....

Here Is the other side and front.. And yes it is a luft. Maybe there is enough wear on this side for everyone's taste.

Click to expand...

You aren't speaking to a child or a fool or someone who rolled out of bed last night, last year, or even a decade ago, and decided to start popping his gob about camo helmets and their authenticity. I was collecting these in the late 80s when an ugly old camo and wire was not as desirable as a mint decal and paint. I've spent a great deal of time studying them (too much probably). I've run newspaper ads, done motel buys, set up at all the big shows back then, seen great collections, vet helmets, and seen plenty of fakes. I know who some of the fakers are. I'm familiar with their work. The hilarious thing is some of these old school milshow guys who are now helmet gods at WAF are nothing more than funshow/milshow table jakes to me. They peddled humped up sh!t too, just like the current non-WAFgods.

One believing something, or wanting it to be true, does not make it so, except for perhaps the believer. Anyone who disagrees is not unreasonable or full of sh!t or not as knowledgeable as you. Just because something came out of an old collection doesn't make it original. I just got finished going through a very old collection and over half of it was fake. A standard ploy of the funshow/milshow circuit was the "straw vet" or "straw kid" walking something around stating that "I brought this back from the war" or "my pawpaw a WW2 vet who served with Patton gave me this". So, third hand hearsay of "out of the woods" or "from an old collection" mean essentially nothing to me in the analysis. Provenance is more than a retold story. This is provenance:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?506-KIA-wire-camo-M35-from-May-1940

Don't confuse legitimate and responsible skepticism with a personal attack or a proclamation that your things are fake. Legitimate and responsible skepticism are just that, and more then merited in the realm of SS anything or camo helmets or any 3R trinket over a couple hundred bucks. What we are doing here is exchanging information and helping people not get burned. And, IMHO, those purposes are not met if we do not require items to stand on their own merits, not the merits that those who own such things proclaim them to have.

mauser99 said:

Why can we have minty "factory" painted shells or plain overpaints but, Camo's have to be excluded ?????? The logic or lack there of doesn't make sense....

Here Is the other side and front.. And yes it is a luft. Maybe there is enough wear on this side for everyone's taste.

Click to expand...

Mauser, your comparisons of minty camos to minty factory shells or overpaints does not quite ring true for me.

Minty factory shells could have been on a rail car en route to a distribution depot and captured en mass. Many CKL marked M42s have been found in unissued condition. See link below:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...ad-car_trying-a-helmet_mortar-ammunition-case

Reissues with minty outer finishes could have been left in a depot and not yet reissued.

Camos, however, are issued helmets camoed/used in the field, often times front line helmets with some of the heaviest wear found on German helmets. We know camos belonged to troops in the field. After the paint dried, they were utilized.

So how is it that so many of these 'woodwork' camos exhibit large areas that have essentially not one scratch or ding ? This last Luft M42 appears as if it had been placed into a time machine before the paint was dry.

Bigdibbs88 said:

I was just being sarcastic. But I really do think 99% of people including myself would call that an outright fake despite wear patterns etc

Click to expand...

I know ;0 But if the picture didn't exist and it was placed in a vacuum sealed canister after it was painted and popped open like a Pringles tube within the last 5 years and inspected then, then yes. However, a period picture, gradual field and use wear over 6 months, or a year or three years, then 70 years of paint oxidation, and there would likely be uniform praise. This may take a hands on if it is especially pristine shape, but it may not. People here know what I mean by "oxidation" and "dead paint" which occurs after 70+ years.

For example, this helmet:
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?12320-M-40-Heer-buzzard-puke-camo

I don't expect everyone to like it, but I do, so I bought it. It is better in hand than in pics and the paint is quite "dead" and oxidized, the wear not forced, and this "pattern" or lack thereof, shows up in period pics and other helmets I think are original. I'm not butthurt if y'all don't like it. In fact, the debate over its authenticity helps me and the forum. Also, and most importantly, I'm not proclaiming people "troublemakers" who disagree with me, censoring and banning them, nor is any other mod here. Healthy debate and discussions with all sides represented is instructive and helpful for us and the hobby. People can make up their own minds based upon the information presented.

fake camo

Here is a fake luft tan and green camo.. It was found for sale on the Ruptured duck site. Posted on GHW. Look at the age and the wear. Snuck past ole' bill I guess..
Camo looks real and one needs not to look further ??? Oh wait, how did the fake luft. decal wind up under that fine camo paint. About 24 hrs after posting the helmet was quietly removed.. Oh, and it was only 2800.00 bucks..

Look at the wear the "dead paint"... I feel the liner is fake as well. Perfect wear right where you want it to be.. If you think all helmets need to show wear in these areas.