SS M40 Q66 (Unique Lot#)

[cricketchris1944]

This is a very nice helmet.
chris

[reneblacky]

Quist also are known to have another mis-stamp with the M40 as the DN series has some with an IN as a prefix mistake. I'm quoting the Brian Ice ongoing research book pg 315. I have to mention that I haven't read the book thoroughly as yet.
I also have a Quist beaded helmet which has the IN prefix

[SSamir]

Hi Brian,

It may be just a broken die, we don't know that for sure. I never use the lot number book, or any lot number source to positively identify a branch, especially an SS. Too risky for a big dollor helmet. Unless I see the helmet for myself, everything else is disregarded. This is why I have my own personal SS lot number data base. It's small, but growing.

Regards
Samir

[Brian]

Quist also are known to have another mis-stamp with the M40 as the DN series has some with an IN as a prefix mistake. I'm quoting the Brian Ice ongoing research book pg 315. I have to mention that I haven't read the book thoroughly as yet.
I also have a Quist beaded helmet which has the IN prefix

Some quist M40's have been seen with an I N or a T N prefix. You will notice an inordinate amount of space between the two letters (I N vs. IN, T N vs. TN). A misstamp would show apparent extra space between letters; the area where the curved part of the 'D' did not materialize.

Samir, the lot number book is intended as a collector aid and as you alluded to, every helmet should stand on it's own independently of lot number research. However, I wouldn't disregard lot number research entirely as I think there is a place for it in the study of German helmets.

The key is finding out how it fits in.

[SSamir]

Samir, the lot number book is intended as a collector aid and as you alluded to, every helmet should stand on it's own independently of lot number research. However, I wouldn't disregard lot number research entirely as I think there is a place for it in the study of German helmets.

The key is finding out how it fits in.

Hi Brian,

It's just a personal preference for me. Not encouraging people at all to abandon the book, its a good book, have a copy myself, but I like to have my own experience, I don't even rely on TR books in general too much, as some have errors.

Samir

[SSamir]

Brian, just wanted to add that I like to use the forums. Great source for info as there are long time, and highly experienced collectors. I learned most of what I know on the forums.

Samir

[DougB]

Kind of like how vent holes might not have gotten punched into late M42s, it's all theory and supposition, some of these idiosyncracies will not bring absolutes.

[SSamir]

Kind of like how vent holes might not have gotten punched into late M42s, it's all theory and supposition.

Interesting. Didn't know there was a debate on that.

[DougB]

Interesting. Didn't know there was a debate on that.

No debate Samir, good stuff put forward by Brian with lots of great research. But like the lot number, or other idiosyncrasies we see without source documents or wider sample sizes all we can do is build theories and discuss vs debate. No winner or losers in a discussion, debates have winners and losers.

[SSamir]

Doug, speaking of errors, i'm currently reading "Soldiers of destruction" by Sydnor, a highly recommended book by the "old school" gents, but it has lots of errors, and the book was never revised, just an example.