Yet ANOTHER winter cammo!!!!!

[blaksaussa]

iDan, i saw this one on Ebay and i'm not convinced of the ''period '' camo...but the shell is nice !!

[Paul D]

Oh no not another E Bay bucket !!! Our friends in the East are really starting to churn these out now and some of them are coming round on E Bay that often they almost have provenance !!

[Danmark]

iDan, i saw this one on Ebay and i'm not convinced of the ''period '' camo...but the shell is nice !!

Despite the natural human desire we all share to get a "thumbs up" from everyone or even a 'like' or two ( don't we feel good when those happen ) I know things like this will always be contentious ... and I am expecting an even split on this one. BUT, if we all collected the same ( insert item here ) this would soon become a forum of back slapping only. Like all things in life, we sometimes win and we sometimes lose ....its a roller coaster, not a flat dull highway and I like the bumps and potholes!

Even though some may take umbrage to these thoughts of mine, we all have a point of view, thanks to you all for yours.
cheers, Dan

[blaksaussa]

agree with you Dan, you never tried to convinced anyone that the camo is original etc....you just want to buy this helmet, it is your choice and your money.. that's it, enjoy it Mate !!

[DougB]

I agree everyone should have an opinion, in the interest of education I will back up mine and you can take it or leave it as you may.

First note the thickness, width and length of the scratches. They match. Bad sign #1. Then observe the varied directions and how the scratches emanate from top down or bottom up. Look where the scrathes are in relation to how they would appear by use. Look at the paint wear on high points. Look at the low points. Then compare these out on clear one looker helmets. A clear sign of fakery is the wear along the edges and where the split pins "were". This is clear evidence this was painted without split pins present. The paint itself is not worn in a natural manner at all. Take 1 (one) screwdriver, scratch across both sides of the splits. Easy to do. Now look at the larger scuffs, back and forth motion done by hand not by wearing, dropping, moving. The curved scratches are also a huge red flag. Finally the paint doesnt look like anything that represents natural wear, exposure and patina that would occur on a helmet exposed or buried for an appreciably long time.

So Dan I am afraid this doesn't pass a single sniff test of paint or wear, from my standpoint anyway.

[Totenhead]

The more I look at it, I have to agree, the criss cross stratches just dont add up, just too many of them to be natural wear and tear .....

[Danmark]

I agree everyone should have an opinion, in the interest of education I will back up mine and you can take it or leave it as you may.

First note the thickness, width and length of the scratches. They match. Bad sign #1. Then observe the varied directions and how the scratches emanate from top down or bottom up. Look where the scrathes are in relation to how they would appear by use. Look at the paint wear on high points. Look at the low points. Then compare these out on clear one looker helmets. A clear sign of fakery is the wear along the edges and where the split pins "were". This is clear evidence this was painted without split pins present. The paint itself is not worn in a natural manner at all. Take 1 (one) screwdriver, scratch across both sides of the splits. Easy to do. Now look at the larger scuffs, back and forth motion done by hand not by wearing, dropping, moving. The curved scratches are also a huge red flag. Finally the paint doesnt look like anything that represents natural wear, exposure and patina that would occur on a helmet exposed or buried for an appreciably long time.

So Dan I am afraid this doesn't pass a single sniff test of paint or wear, from my standpoint anyway.

Not familiar with the "single sniff test" Doug - but I am ALWAYS interested in your opinion ( and exhaustive reasoning )

I'm not pushing a point here as to originality or not ( read my last post ) and, in the end, whatever it is deemed to be by either majority or minority, I paid what I considered a reasonable price and do NOT feel ripped off ( thanks to all those concerned about my finances ).

The "Holger Danske" relic of last year polarised opinion but it still sits on my shelf and I still enjoy it - but it won't appear here again.

With this one, it may well be contrived or simulated wear ( move it to the restoration forum if needs be ) but in my youth I spent many an hour 'weathering' plastic models of armour and aircraft and know how hard it is to simulate old finishes so in the very least I consider it 'art' and a worthy effort on someones part. For those that say a finish like this is easy to do without breaking stride, I challenge anyone to do so and show us ........ h'mm?

Regards, Dan

[Sir Payne]

I hate to say it but this is what I would consider a "one look" fake.

[DougB]

Not familiar with the "single sniff test" Doug - but I am ALWAYS interested in your opinion ( and exhaustive reasoning )

I'm not pushing a point here as to originality or not ( read my last post ) and, in the end, whatever it is deemed to be by either majority or minority, I paid what I considered a reasonable price and do NOT feel ripped off ( thanks to all those concerned about my finances ).

The "Holger Danske" relic of last year polarised opinion but it still sits on my shelf and I still enjoy it - but it won't appear here again.

With this one, it may well be contrived or simulated wear ( move it to the restoration forum if needs be ) but in my youth I spent many an hour 'weathering' plastic models of armour and aircraft and know how hard it is to simulate old finishes so in the very least I consider it 'art' and a worthy effort on someones part. For those that say a finish like this is easy to do without breaking stride, I challenge anyone to do so and show us ........ h'mm?

Regards, Dan

Dan I sense more than a touch of defensiveness with your reply. Yes it is your money, please spend it as you wish. Its simply said as collector courtesy, nothing more. Making backhanded remarks in reply to those that took the time to respond to your thread is not warranted.

With respect this helmet is so poorly aged that yes I believe would be easy to do for anyone with moderate painting skills, an awl, a rat tail file and a scraper. For those that want to give it a try, and have never done it before; Aging & Distressing Paint Techniques | eHow.com. It honestly isn't all that difficult.

As for my responses being "exhaustive", personally I find it exhausting to read replies like yours which are quoted above. The bottom line is you are not interested in replies as to the originality of the helmet, and will fall back on it being "art" or "may well be contrived" in other words it also "may be real", which this one is clearly not.

Finally the Holger Danske helmet did not polarize anything. It was and remains a clear fake and easy to prove, like this camo helmet is easy to prove tool marking and faux wear. If you are not familiar with a single "sniff test", slang for knowing what to look for in real vs fake, please don't belittle those that do have some inkling of it and are trying to assist you in making that determination.

In closing Dan, if you find replies to your posts exhaustive, uninterested in other opinions, want to deflect to children's modelling or how fakes are now "art" and can be appreciated as such (I admit that is a new take on the acceptance of fakes) and cannot discuss an item collector to collector, please take your leave of the forum and discontinue posting here.

[Danmark]

Wow ...... that hurts Doug. I didn't think for a moment my points of view would invoke a dressing down from such a Doyen of the hobby. I apologise that I obviously have brushed you personally the wrong way ( and seemingly by extension others ) which was NOT my intention. By "exhaustive" I meant concise, not any assumed alternative and I believe I don't shun opinion - in fact I absorb it.

A pity, I thought I had much to offer on WRF .....