Another Woodwork Normandy

[M45]

Normandy helmet comparisons

Normandy helmet comparisons (both previously found in germanhelmetsinc gallery)

Compare these two 3-color camo helmets and note the differences in wear patterns and deadness/flatness vs. brightness/newness.

 

[mauser99]

There are three colors that were Factory made by the Germans for vehicle application that constitute a "Normandy" Or tri-color camo. Those are them. And so does the example rob posted exhibit the correct colors. There are of course other colors shades that are considered textbook and should not cast aside.
Km coastal artillery camo's being one of them. Some Luftwaffe camo's have certain greens and red's in them as well. As well as many hue's of Tan/tropical paint used on the Sud front.

 

[M45]

Yes, I realize that there were official RAL colors from vehicle and equipment paint, and others procured from whatever sources, meaning that there is really no standard camoflage paint scheme.

Of the two camos I just posted, do you see any differences in wear and paint ?

The M42 is basically covered in wear of a wide variety. The M40 has heavy rim wear and a few dings to the crown, but little else, not even the air vents.

The M42 has a flat, deadness to the paint, faded and worn, while the M40 has bright colors making it appear as if it was painted yesterday.

O.k., I'll come right out and say it: the M42 is how original camos often appear, the M40 is how post-war reproductions often appear.

The differences should be glaring and obvious.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

Even after my last post, you still don't get it. I surrender, all camos are fake

 

[Hambone]

I agree with both schools of thought and the opinions expressed here are all valid, so there is no need for any of this to get personal. As y'all know, I call it like I see it. This is a transparent discussion with all sides represented. People can make up their own minds based upon the give and take. Being skeptical of all camos is smart. Are there camos in exceptional condition without wear? Surely that is so, but they are not common. I like in hand examinations.

 

[Hambone]

Rob this one has similar paint techniques, the patern may be different than yours, I think both are legit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVoNcB62m7Y&feature=youtu.be

I've seen red/browns like that on what I deemed to be originals. I'm not as down on this helmet.

 

[armenjs]

It would have made it so easy if all were issued helmet covers, but we all know the shortage of basic material let alone camouflage covers.

although 12th ss panz were all issued with covers, or may have been-- there are always an exception.

check the video given the situation sloppy paint jobs was the case, however, bubba knows that as well. lol


http://www.zib-militaria.de/Helmet-plaintree-camo-for-the-M35M40M42-helmet

 

[armenjs]

Wait until you come across the dot44. there were so many fake post-war crap from Czech republic. Ohh

 

[iron bender]

I stay in tune when it comes to the best of the best in repro's. FYI, the guy selling these is a good friend of mine, and he clearly points out why these are not like known originals. I would bet any of the gear I used to carry years back as a reenactor would slip past the fingers of the best collector as original, including my m40 field blouse (you better know wool pattern if you want to not get screwed these days). Sadly it is what it is now. Age is difficult to replicate, but some of the best out of Eastern Europe are using all original materials in their repros. Most of these guys don't sell their items as original, and it's up to the secondary seller to be honest. Also keep in mind, look at the prices of some of these repros. They're not cheap, and it may be difficult to get your money back even as original.

http://www.atthefrontshop.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=GUSMAR

 

[nirvana]

I've seen one camo smock that I believed with my heart was totally 100% real. A friend of mine found it at a good will, for $10, and it was splattered here and there with what looked like house paint. Frayed edges, etc.

 

[M45]

Even after my last post, you still don't get it. I surrender, all camos are fake

Yes I did read your post. Basically total randomness and non-standardization with period camos. And yes, I get it.

Bear in mind, that was all 70 years ago. (70 years of paint aging, cracking, fading, oxidizing, soot-staining, slow rusting, handling wear, etc..) Original camos should bear the characteristics of period pieces. And there are definite differences between period pieces and modern replicas. I believe the two Normandies I just posed illustrate some of those differences.

I get the feeling that some collectors might use your post to justify almost any camo as authentic, because there was so much randomness.

I'd like your opinion of the two helmets in post#21.

 

[iron bender]

I'd like your opinion of the two helmets in post#21.

I don't buy big dollar camo helmets, so I have no opinion, but since you asked….. One is spray painted with no texture and the other has hand applied texture with brush then sprayed. I believe this will make a difference over 70 years. If I ever buy a camo helmet it's because I found it at a garage sale for $10, or it's a size 66-68 for $100. I know I can get my money back at that price point.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I'd like your opinion of the two helmets in post#21.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. One is an M40, one is an m42, which potentially had very different factory paint surfaces and an unknown number of overpaints in between. You're also comparing a textured and non-textured camo, which would have different wear/age properties. Furthermore, you're comparing a helmet that saw a lot of use with one that potentially didnt, and one with thickly applied paint and the other thinly. I also cannot see the liner to judge the amount the helmet was worn (even if i could i also realize it could have been worn for years before being camo'd) but if the M40 had less wear to the liner that would certainly calm some fears. We also have no knowledge of amount of field-use these helmets saw nor how they were stored the past 70 years.

I don't consider myself an expert by any means, which is part of the reason I only buy things cheap and out of the woods, but without hands-on, and with the few pictures shown, IMO both helmets have the potential to be real. Then again, they belong to a dealer so i wouldn't buy either of them.

 

[M45]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. One is an M40, one is an m42, which potentially had very different factory paint surfaces and an unknown number of overpaints in between. You're also comparing a textured and non-textured camo, which would have different wear/age properties. Furthermore, you're comparing a helmet that saw a lot of use with one that potentially didnt, and one with thickly applied paint and the other thinly. I also cannot see the liner to judge the amount the helmet was worn (even if i could i also realize it could have been worn for years before being camo'd) but if the M40 had less wear to the liner that would certainly calm some fears. We also have no knowledge of amount of field-use these helmets saw nor how they were stored the past 70 years.

I don't consider myself an expert by any means, which is part of the reason I only buy things cheap and out of the woods, but without hands-on, and with the few pictures shown, IMO both helmets have the potential to be real. Then again, they belong to a dealer so i wouldn't buy either of them.

I don't think we're on the same page at all, BD. You never even mentioned the obvious differences in wear and coloring. I'm glad that you are finding these 'camos' at very reasonable prices, but if you think the M40 has a chance, you are doing well not to buy from dealers.

The M42 is clearly a seasoned combat piece, in addition to its paint being faded and deadened over the last 7 decades.

The M40, to the contrary, is something that could have been created in a garage yesterday; texturing added to 3 paint colors and brushed on, then some artificial aging added by using a screwdriver to hit the rim (heavy wear) and a few dings to the crown. The rest of the helmet (including airvets) shows essentially no wear whatsoever.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I don't think we're on the same page at all, BD. You never even mentioned the obvious differences in wear and coloring. I'm glad that you are finding these 'camos' at very reasonable prices, but if you think the M40 has a chance, you are doing well not to buy from dealers.

The M42 is clearly a seasoned combat piece, in addition to its paint being faded and deadened over the last 7 decades.

The M40, to the contrary, is something that could have been created in a garage yesterday; texturing added to 3 paint colors and brushed on, then some artificial aging added by using a screwdriver to hit the rim (heavy wear) and a few dings to the crown. The rest of the helmet (including airvets) shows essentially no wear whatsoever.

We are definitely not on the same page, ill give you that. But you may want to read what i said again. In fact I said you cant compare the two helmets because of the obvious desparity in wear. The difference is, you think lack of wear is automatically fake. I say it depends on a number of factors some of which you can never know (service history). Lack of wear doesnt automatically make something fake. In fact, you are comparing wear patterns on a smooth camo vs a textured camo which is asinine.

I understand your prespective- everything must show wear and exactly the same wear patterns or its fake. Your response tells me that everything I've quoted so far about lack of universaly enforced standards, wartime paint quality/mixtures and its effect on wear and agining, along with unknowns like service life, storage etc, has been lost on you or ignored. By your definition, the barn find below is real because it shows necessary wear, but the yellow mustang is fake because it doesnt (no, in fact the yellow mustang actually has not been restored in any way and retains its original factory paint, but clearly led a different life). Lets agree to disagree.

 

[mauser99]

the coupe is real... the fastback is fake. Its artificially aged and shows tool marks and non-even wear !

Biggdiibbs your on a roll....

 

[Bigdibbs88]

the coupe is real... the fastback is fake. Its artificially aged and shows tool marks and non-even wear !

Biggdiibbs your on a roll....

Ah yes, the ol catch 22....

 

[M45]

I say it depends on a number of factors some of which you can never know (service history).

There are just soooo many factors with camos that we can never really know anything for sure. According to you seems that just about anything can be justified authentic and explained away.

As to the M40 with its pristine paint but chipped rim, maybe there was extra humidity in the air that collected as dew on the helmet rim that the trooper didn't see back in 1943 when he painted it. So that paint on the rim would not adhere as well as the rest. So while the helmet was drying, the trooper was captured (explaining the pristine paint - he had never actually worn it in combat). Then during the M40's trip to the USA in a GI's duffel bag, that loose paint came off of the rim. So you see, there is a story to explain everything. The story fits so the M40 Normandie must be authentic.

Now we just need to make up stories for all of those 'questionable camos' in my thread so we can change the name to 'most likely original camos'.

If I had to guess, I'd say you were a dealer. You may laugh at that, but you sound just like one. You know how they come up with some crazy stories about how their shoddy stuff is all real.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

I say it depends on a number of factors some of which you can never know (service history).

There are just soooo many factors with camos that we can never really know anything for sure. According to you seems that just about anything can be justified authentic and explained away.

As to the M40 with its pristine paint but chipped rim, maybe there was extra humidity in the air that collected as dew on the helmet rim that the trooper didn't see back in 1943 when he painted it. So that paint on the rim would not adhere as well as the rest. So while the helmet was drying, the trooper was captured (explaining the pristine paint - he had never actually worn it in combat). Then during the M40's trip to the USA in a GI's duffel bag, that loose paint came off of the rim. So you see, there is a story to explain everything. The story fits so the M40 Normandie must be authentic.

Now we just need to make up stories for all of those 'questionable camos' in my thread so we can change the name to 'most likely original camos'.

If I had to guess, I'd say you were a dealer. You may laugh at that, but you sound just like one. You know how they come up with some crazy stories about how their shoddy stuff is all real.

No need to go keyboard commando, no ones throwing any punches. I wont even dignify calling me a dealer with a response.

Fact is, I agree with you in that there are very high numbers of fake camos. I dont think there's a story to explain every camo, in fact I think most of the ones that pop up on dealer sites (many of whom you call out in your thread) are ridiculous. I do believe that your theory of what constitutes an original camo is extremely narrow and your common wear theory is ignorant. To that end, I simply provide ample evidence of why there is variation in wear/aging/application. You have yet to provide any and have simply ignored mine. I don't think you've ever even posted up a helmet you own, yet sit behind your keyboard and call out any given helmet posted on any site fake as if that helps anybody. The fact is that there are infinite possibilities to explain the current state of a helmet- to your point it doesnt make every camo real. But to my point, it also doesn't make every camo fake. Like Wayne says, a lot comes down to gut and experience (again, I don't claim to be an expert). You have a pre-concieved view of wear and age that every helmet must conform to. If that works for you thats fine, just not realistic.

 

[M45]

I do believe that your theory of what constitutes an original camo is extremely narrow and your common wear theory is ignorant.

They say that camos are subjective: 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. If that's true, then we all are going to have our own means of determining authenticity. Obviously, not everyone agrees with the way I do it. Since I believe that upwards of 90% of camos are fake, then of course my views are going to seem to be extremely narrow.

I don't think you've ever even posted up a helmet you own, yet sit behind your keyboard and call out any given helmet posted on any site fake as if that helps anybody.

I do not own any camo helmets myself (although I have in the past). I don't actually call the helmets I post 'fake', I simply discuss 'issues' or 'questionable attributes' I see with them. There are currently 18,605 views on that thread, no small number, so maybe it's helping somebody. And mind you, the camos I choose to post there are usually those I see as obviously bad.... not 50/50s.

The fact is that there are infinite possibilities to explain the current state of a helmet- to your point it doesnt make every camo real. But to my point, it also doesn't make every camo fake.

I think collectors are looking for solid answers on camos. They want to know exactly how to tell real from fake. This is a tall order, I admit. But the ideas of "infinite possibilities" and subjective feelings and opinions basically means that a camo can be original to one person and fake to another. This does not provide the solid tools collectors are looking for. They don't want to pay big $$$ for a camo based on an 'experts' advice only to realize later that it is a fake. My Questionable Camo thread can help collectors look at the fine details and make comparisons and come to logical conclusions instead of just using gut feelings and emotions or listening to others.

You have a pre-concieved view of wear and age that every helmet must conform to. If that works for you thats fine, just not realistic.

Those views are based on my experience. Anyone can slop some paint on a worn out old helmet and sell it as a 'camo'. There's big money in the business. Faulty age and wear can often tip off the collector that something is wrong.

An interesting thought, is that although other industries are regulated by the government, the Better Business Bureau, or what have you, the German helmet business is not regulated at all. Dealers pretty much sell whatever they want as authentic and wait for buyers. If the buyers later complain, dealers simply say the inspection period has passed, or just claim the piece is indeed authentic and refuse a refund. The "questionable" threads I've started on this forum show dealers that people are watching.