I like the aging to the exterior paint, it certainly looks to have been there for a 100 years. The interior has no aging at all, so definitely done by 2 different people at way different times.
My 2 cents
Jim
I like the aging to the exterior paint, it certainly looks to have been there for a 100 years. The interior has no aging at all, so definitely done by 2 different people at way different times.
My 2 cents
Jim
I'm not sure but i'm leaning towards it being good!...
Hi Harry,
Occasionally the forum consensus is wrong on camo helmets, mainly because as you said they are difficult to photograph. This helmet deserves more discussion so I'll be more specific with my concerns. I have a bit of experience with camo WW1 helmets, having had more than a few pass through my hands, although I'll admit I have never dealt with anything like this so I'm not claiming to be the final say. I just would like someone to address some of my issues with the paint. The main problems with it I have tried to identify in your pictures with red arrows and boxes. You have the helmet in hand so maybe you, and hopefully others, could elaborate on some of the things that I point out.
In this photo there are two main things that stick out (no pun intended). On both of these areas I have highlighted there is very little wear around the rivets. Remember, this helmet and paint job are suppose to be almost 100 years old. It is hard to believe that the paint would be this well intact on these two locations. The pristine paint on the air vent is a huge red flag for me. Look at the area where the vent contacts the shell. If you compare this to original camo M16s you will notice the paint never looks this good.
I have highlighted the same areas from a different angle. On the right liner rivet here it appears that there is a paint over rust. On the left rivet there is a distinct paint buildup around the rivet.
Here is a closer look at the paint buildup. This is another huge red flag for me. How is that paint buildup there after nearly 100 years!
On this photo look closely at the paint. It appears that it is over rust. Now look at the white line on the right side. Honestly I think the white paint is artificially aged, or at least mixed with other colors in order to make the helmet appear older. It just does not look convincing at all.
Maybe these pictures of the vents and rivets will give you a better idea. What's the problem with paint build-up still present after almost 100 years? This finish wasn't exactly sprayed on! it was applied by brush, and appears to have been daubed on. Please bear in mind that all three rivets must have been removed to enable whoever painted the inside to remove the liner. The removal of the R/H rivet has fractured the thick paint which covered the rivet. The finish on the lugs is hardly pristine, and the camera flash tends to make the bare metal look far redder than it actually is. if you look carefully at the pictures the thickness of the paint and the brush-strokes become apparent. Again I would say that when the helmet is in hand, the paint which appears to be green in the pictures is actually more of a darkish ochre. I should add that the paintwork is absolutely battered. The paint is out in chunks - leaving a visible ridge where the flakes are missing There is no thinning to the edges - as is usually the case when someone tries to imitate wear and tear. I really did doubt this one. But the more I looked, the more I was sure the outside finish is period done. As for the paint over rust on the left rivet, when I look at the rivet the only rust I see is where there is NO paint. I have no idea what lies beneath the remaining paint. I cannot see how you can say it has had paint applied over rust!
I am trying to be constructive about this helmet. I am trying to be very open-minded on it. And it is good to have this discussion - no matter what the comments are!
On occasion as far as I know the only country to use a white boarder were the Austrians, no idea why they'd do it.
Eric
Similar Threads
Bookmarks