Awesome M35 ET64 Luft Camo

[MAP]

With some of it's siblings.....

[DougB]

Hi Michael, thanks for the additional pics. I remember seeing this one on Ken's site and it didn't hold much appeal to me then nor does it now I am afraid. Perhaps in hand it is better as it nearly always is, but for my personal tastes the wear from what I see appears artificial. Just my opinion, I'm happy to hear others think differently which is ok by me. With camos it's tough to please everyone I know and differing opinions are common on "minty" camos.

For provenance, what history does the helmet have? Can it be traced back to the veteran who brought it back? If a consignment piece I'd be hard on the provenance of this one.

In any case, like I said just saying what I see and I'm sure Ken and others may disagree, I'm not trying to stir anything up but just stating what I think.

Cheers
Doug

[relicz]

FWIW and in my opinion, from the photos it is not a one looker and would need an in hand. To be fair, I've had camo helmets in hand and in my collection that it took some time, days to a week, to arrive at a definitive conclusion. Sometimes, you just have to put a helmet down and revisit it on a few occasions. If it ticks all the right boxes in hand, then all is good. I often here people say that they can't find fault with something, I tend to look at it the other way.....and find as many convincing positives as I can.

[MAP]

Thanks Doug/John,

really appreciate the feedback. Will see what else I can find out on the provenance from Ken. In hand it looks good IMHO. But always open to hearing everyone's opinions and appreciate the critique.

Regards,

Michael

[slados28]

I don't know the actual history of the helmet but here are my thoughts anyway:

-Inner dome stamps point to it having been worn by an Unteroffizier from Flieger-Ersatz-Abteilung 34. This unit was based in Handorf, as noted in one of the two stamps, from Apr. 1st, 1937 to Nov. 1st, 1938. To me it seems the ET lot number 3378 would allow for the validity of the Handorf stamp as this would place the production date within this time period, if not earlier (?). I don't have any lists or anything so just going by what I've read in threads on the subject --- please correct me if I'm wrong.
So, going by this I would personally tend to believe that the configuration of shell, stamps and probably decals are all period (hard to say with the decals seeing as they are obscure by the camo paint, of course).

OK, so my thinking up to this point suggests a matching range of components and features which leads me to believe that at least the main components themselves and the configuration that they make up together have not been messed with.

Now, camo paint. I like the patina better with the more natural outdoor shots. Scheme is OK, the only thing that stands out a bit to me as well is the repetitive wear... especially the repeated stabs to the left side. But, in a way, going by what appears to have been a little used early Luftwaffe used by an Uffz. with a replacement unit based at an airfield (pre-ww2) I would kind of allow for uncommon wear patterns--- my thinking being that one would perhaps be less likely to see the more organic and extensive wear patterns from field usage as opposed to what may have been a "shelf queen"... it all kind of looks more accidental rather than wear too, so I'm almost leaning more towards a minty/little used camo helmet that has suffered some awkward/untypical looking scuffs during post-war storage. A theory...

I don't know, like Doug said it's harder with these mintier spray camos helmets only going by photos --- but I'm also sure that the helmet reveals more to Michael, who's actually in possession of it. I still like it, although I can see the other points put forth as well.

btw; hope you don't mind the lengthy "dissection" --- I usually don't like doing this but this one's got so many nice matching features, imo, that i feel it's worth looking at in more detail.

[MAP]

Thanks Slados,

I'm no expert on Camos myself. I know a mid-level amount but in hand and under a loop, the marks all appear to have much age to them. Nothing looks recent, with most showing a nice "patina" (for lack of a better word) or to the exposed edges.

I also was thinking what you were saying (much more eloquently than I however). A camo that was a shelf queen.

Respect all opinions given here. It is greatly appreciated to have a debate (unfortunately with my helmet LoL).

Here are some close up shots of the marks from my USB Microscope. I bit hard to focus these but hopefully it helps.

Michael

[DougB]

The wear on the rivet in your latest pic above is most concerning. Again just my observations. Curved scratches for me are always a red flag, repetitive chipping as well. The USB pics for me reinforce my concerns. Just a thought. Cheers
Doug

[Glenn66]

The wear on the rivet in your latest pic above is most concerning.

What is it that gets your spider senses tingling Doug? The edge of the paint having a 'hard' break to it rather than a soft transition from paint to raw metal? (my best guess at what might be a concern)

[MAP]

The wear on the rivet in your latest pic above is most concerning. Again just my observations. Curved scratches for me are always a red flag, repetitive chipping as well. The USB pics for me reinforce my concerns. Just a thought. Cheers
Doug

Thanks for you ongoing analysis and feedback Doug. Mucho appreciated.

Michael

[DougB]

Look at the similarities of the wear and much of it in appears tool marked. Small chips and scratches at similar lengths and styles, and similar small circular chips. Curved scratches, that is done by hand. No wear on the dome, vents look worn by abrasion. Sorry Michael, the more I look at this one the more I dislike it but thats just my opinion. On camo helmets it is hard to get a consensus at the best of times.