Questionable Camos

[M45]

Happy Easter! This one appears to be a bonified snow camo (remnants of whitewash). ET66 M42 with factory ET decal.

If you must have an original snow camo, concentrate on ones like this. Stay away from the white painted ones with bright new paint and near 100% coverage.

 

[mdarnell19]

Is this one for sale somewhere? I like the look of it.

 

[mauser99]

Is this one for sale somewhere? I like the look of it.

must be on face book based off the swaz being covered. I agree on the white wash but the chin strap is fake just from this shot. Its probably as easy to make an ex white wash as a full white wash..

 

[M45]

From facebook.

 

[Hambone]

M.40 H SD whitewash winter camo

Heer Q.66 winter whitewash camo helmet. German issue whitewash for their AFVs, artillery, equipment, etc., was a powder or paste form mixed with petrol and applied. It was designed to be removed with a stiff brushing, so original whitewash helmets are rare. Wearing a white helmet or riding in...

www.k98kforum.com

 

[M45]

Choice M40 Heer sand textured three-tone camouflage combat helmet, « Kustenartillerie »

Choice M40 Heer sand textured three-tone camouflage combat helmet, « Kustenartillerie »

www.lux-military-antiques.com

A stellar M1940 Heer three-tone sand camouflage combat helmet « Kustenartillerie ». The maker and the size is not readable but has a lot number of « DN161 ». The helmet's exterior features a true artist style period hand brush painted camouflage pattern. The colors of tan, brown and green with a mixture of sand. Nicely gentle sloping design makes this helmet very attractive with top shelf eye appeal. Normal to minor combat wear is present. Split-pins intact, tightly secured and retaining also their finish. The helmet's exterior shows use and wear yet in good overall shape. Partial leather liner is present, shows use and blood stained. Void of a chin strap and drawstring. Overall a very striking and top shelf Coastal Artillery camouflage combat helmet. Choice.

5650,00€tax inc.

A super-rare "Kusten Artillerie" helmet, or a jacked-up $200 beater ? Notice how the outside rim has been avoided re: camo application. Believable camo wear on the rims has been historically problematic.



Ref:LMA13158

 

[Hinrik WD]

Hello all, what do you think of this M40 camo helmet? Feels a bit more rusty on the inside. Not sure if legit.
If it is ok, then I might buy it.
Regards
Hinrik

 

[M45]

Basically only 1 type of wear on this helmet, apparent chemical degradation of the paint. I would avoid.

 

[Scharf]

M42 winter camo ef

http://www.ardennes44.com/en/items/...r-camouflaged-helmet-as-found.htm#prettyPhoto


M42 Heer winter camouflaged helmet, as found

Rare M1942 Heer winter camouflaged helmet, it still retains more than 85% of its camouflage, the Heer decal is visible under the paint. The helmet is a « EF64 », the lot number is not readable. It is as it was found, never touched or cleaned. The leather liner is in overall good condition and still supple, it comes with its original drawstring. This type of camouflaged helmet is certainly the most difficult to find !


Some areas have repetitive wear while other areas are pristine. Plenty of fresh, red rust. It appears to be an old heavily worn SD Heer that was jazzed up with white paint and then set outside to "cook". A heavily worn SD Heer might sell for 2-$300, but how much would the most difficult camo to find sell for? It was marked as 'Sold'.

Of course, we all know that heavily worn helmets are good candidates for post-war enhancement.

Hi Brian,

I just wanted to up this helmet as it illustrates something I have noticed quite often. Consider ALL, and I mean ALL winter camos with bright blue overtone as fakes. I have and had quite a few sourced winter items, be it whitewashed, oil based, fuel based, brushed, sprayed and rag applied, none of them show this blueish tone, none.

Here's a real Rautarn white overpainted helmet sourced by a friend in Belgium. Whatever some might say, raising doubts, I know my stuff, I'm not a hoarder and I don't pull the trigger without knowing what I face. It is important to recognize paint from lime wash, lime wash basically turns to a grey / silverish finish over time. Also, great to know how water thinned Tarnpaste ages on leather, it cracks, shows yellowing of pigments, looks almost translucide on sides.

 

[Scharf]

Just to up the thread, I have read a few pages, I like the idea of discussing what is dubious and what is considered as not but I see some helmets of which I know the provenance of being thrown out the window. I don't mean to be rude, but some of the posts on this thread are kind of sad, mainly because of personal biases. Although, I agree that some are obvious fakes. That's why I consider handling this stuff, seeing it in 3D so to speak, a necessary means.

Also, dismissing camos that show light wear is not always right, there isn't some kind of ground rule. Friends, not "friends" from forums, have found camo helmets out of the woodwork in France that were in very very good condition. I guess there's a difference between what is found here and what is perceived over in the US? Sometimes it's hard to believe I'l give you that. But in the end, it does not really matter who believes you and who doesn't IMO, I would not share some of my stuff if I cared what someone makes up in his mind about an item

 

[M45]

Since most camos were unique field modified items, they do not usually exhibit exacting standards like factory helmets do. With camos, the wear is what often clues collectors about originality vs fakery as it was historically difficult for fakers to apply believable wear, such as dark rust patina, random dings scraps and rub marks that do not appear contrived.

As camos were usually front line helmets often exhibiting heavy wear, seeing near mint camos raises red flags. It is as if the helmet had been camoed in the field, but then while drying the soldier was captured before getting the opportunity to even wear the helmet.

There is huge money in these camos, and where there is huge money there will be fakery, that's just reality.

 

[Scharf]

I do not refute that, but you cannot know what happened to every single helmet at the time. As I said, I know of pretty well documented lids that were found in good lightly used condition. Not from vet stories or whatever that is, but from people who picked up stuff when the Germans left in a hurry during their "Rückmarsch". Saying a camo should always look beat up would basically mean to some extent that a factory painted lid should also look beat up no matter what as it also sees field action. It does not make sense to me. Some camos were made by rear troops as well, not all of them saw extensive action. I have handled quite a few, one that came directly from a friend's relative as well that resides in his collection now.

The helmet I've shown above (another subject) is documented as well, does not come from any forums and whatnot but from someone I know who found it in Belgium. Yet, as I read in this thread it states from opinions of some including yourself that real winter camos are only the beat up and whitewash ones that show little remnants. Reading this is kind of making me concerned about how fast some ideas expedite real lids. In fact, not all winter camos are whitewash / lime wash, they used Tarnpaste and other thicker oil based paints as well so from that basis how can we throw everything in the trash bin? Sometimes it's good to not just look at helmets and study other camo items to get a good idea, handling them, comparing textures. I digress from my main point but thought it was important.

Yes there are fakes, but a camo lid or any camo item for that matter that is not "beat up" does not mean it's fake. I've found enough things myself out of the woordwork that easily dismiss that idea.

 

[Scharf]

Normandy style 3 color camo.

For example, this helmet is thrown into the lion cage whilst it exhibits exactly the stuff that's to expect with sprayed paint mixted in with Treibstoff when it comes out of the widened spray gun nozzle at low pressure with the characteristic splotch dots. I have observed this on many original (read locally sourced, with provenance items) pieces of fieldgear, and again, not talking about vet stories we don't have that around here, but we have stuff waiting to be found in many places. I have looked at some of ruffin's work for example, this is nowhere to be seen on his "art pieces" and what not. We have a sh*t ton of fakers in France as well, never ever seen something replicate this to that level. That's why most people say, again, the more you handle and scrutinize these things with clear live shots, the less likely you are to be fooled. Being fooled is easy when you only pay attention to "2D" hosted pictures with a compressed resolution.

 

[M45]

I took another look at that one and it still does not impress me. The short gouges in the paint strike me as odd. Also this smudge of the paint when it was wet, notice how bright it is compared to the rest of the paint. It this happened during the period, you would think it would have darker ageing like the surrounding paint.

 

[Scharf]

I don't know what specifically caused this, maybe you are right stating this was done when the paint was still wet, yet I am no expert on how pigments age with relative humidity or direct sunlight so I still can't say if this is a bad sign or not. I like it more than I don't.

 

[Scharf]

Care to explain the angry emote reaction @mauser202? I don't understand. Thanks

 

[M45]

Side by side comparisons of two 3 color Normandy style helmets. The bright one I have suspicions about. The darker one I like. Notice the differences. I would avoid bright new appearing paint. I prefer the dead darker faded look. All my opinions of course.

 

[Scharf]

Side by side comparisons of two 3 color Normandy style helmets. The bright one I have suspicions about. The darker one I like. Notice the differences. I would avoid bright new appearing paint. I prefer the dead darker faded look. All my opinions of course.

And I respect your opinion. Although, keep in mind that the way light reflects on the surface depends on the thickness and type of paste / thinner that was used. I have come to notice that Treibstoff thinned paste usually give off a darker shade and a splotch look. The gasoline based thinner evaporates and the remnants left on the surface oxydizes leaving a very toned taint.

Gasoline thinned paint on leather or rough surfaces usually leaves off resin material and yellowish residues. Observing a helmet with a microscope could help see that in some occurences.

All in all it is interesting to compare types and paint application.

To be honest, I don't have many water based camos, I only have a MG box which received Grün paste mixed in with water and applied with a rag. I can share close ups if you'd like as I believe studying helmet camouflage benefit from other camouflaged items which speak volume about texture, colorimetry ans aging.

I have also read on the labels of Tarnpaste cans that if no thinner was available, they could apply the paste directly by rubbing the surface of the item with either a cloth or their fingers. Can't say I have come across any camos with those specifics nor do I know how to tell the difference.

 

[mauser202]

Care to explain the angry emote reaction @mauser202? I don't understand. Thanks

Yes, I must have been tired or on my phone when I responded , I actually like it and corrected it to a thumbs up.

 

[Scharf]

Yes, I must have been tired or on my phone when I responded , I actually like it and corrected it to a thumbs up.

No worries, I realize that my comment sounds douchy, I'm sorry for that.