Is this a KM decal? German wwii m-35 with zimmerit paste?

[Scout]

Well said.

[Scout]

Its quite easy, really.

To run with aforementioned example of the field jacket:

Here are two M65-type field jackets.

Point to the camouflage jacket. You may pick one option.






99.9 % will pick the same jacket. The rest will argue about the remaining jacket.

Webster have both the example of
The army tanks were painted green and brown for camouflage.

and

The rabbit's white fur acts as a camouflage in the snow.

So the argument can go on for ever.

But what would be the point.

[Sir Payne]

The argument is not pointless because the ramifications of the conclusion will greatly affect the price. It should be talked about and argued over. Arguing is debating, not a bad thing in this sense. I agree that the helmet in question does not adhere to the definitions provided of the word 'camouflage'.


Still, I do not think you guys understand what I am trying to say. Alright, for Explanation's sake i will say this: this helmet is Not a camo... but, This helmet would be considered as a camo by a dealer. Just look at the ruptured duck helmet I posted. It is basically the exact same as the one that started this thread, and is being sold as a camo. If a dealer, and I don't think Mr Shea would be the only one, gives such a high value to this type of textures helmet, then that must mean that this type of textured helmet currently sells around that price. The fact is, these are 'considered' camo even though they are not.... Can we agree on that last sentence?

[davejb]

Yes they are considered by some dealers as a camo but really that is a generic identification which really is'nt accurate and of course if a dealer can convince someone that this type of paint scheme is a camo then its buyer beware in my opinion and a potential buyer who has the wherewithall to question such a description should do so and use that to his advantage in order to obtain a fairer price, why pay an extra $500-800 for a textured helmet when a factory produced one will be much less, i cannot see any reason to do so, after all the wearer of the helmet is only copying the factory issued look because his helmet is of an earlier issue with a smooth paint

[Sir Payne]

Knowing the helmet could sell for $2000, I dont see how anybody in their right mind would be willing to sell it for $800. I agree it isn't conventional camo, maybe not camo at all, but if somebody is willing to lay down 2000 for it then if I was the seller, I would try to sell it for that price through consignment. It all depends on what somebody is willing to pay. Personally I think heavily textured paint is more attractive, not to mention rarer then factory textured paint, and therefore it should command a higher price rather 'camo' or not. Because of all of this I have just said, I first recommended the owner in the beginning of this thread not to let go of this helmet for $800 or even $1200. Some buyers will pay much more than that.

Regards,
Corey

[Schwerpunkt]

I disagree with the forum consensus. I think this is an original Zimmerit camo helmet. I have posted below a similar example of a Zimmerit from the Ruptured Duck. The price is $2100. If this helmet being discussed is priced at $800...then I hope the owner will put it on hold for me!

Attachment 416698

Attachment 416702

Attachment 416703

Regards,
Cory, I mean Corey

Zimmerit is a dealer word , it means pay more for this camo. Never have I seen 1 helmet on the boards that would fill the definition of a zimmerit helmet and experienced collectors have reached a concensus on that.
The one from Shea looks to be a simple sand camo. Not worth 2K at all.

[Schwerpunkt]

I'm not the only one who considers this camo. Let me explain why it is. The helmet has been repainted in the field with a thick overpaint. The interior of the helmet has not been painted with the textured paint which is proof that it was not a factory job. Camo is not limited to color, camo also has to do with textures, hence the sawdust effect. All in order to hide the wearer from a sun glare, which would reflect off of the factory paint. This helmet was altered in the field to better hide the wearer from the site of the enemy, therefore it is classified as a camo.
Most dealers consider this a camo, most reference books consider this camo, and I would venture to say that most helmet collectors would as well.

But what's the collectors definition of a camo ? Because that is what sets the price. For me a camo is either a helmet overpainted in 2 or more colors or a helmet painted in one or more colors with sand or woodchips added. In all cases the decal should be under the paint. If that is not the case I would term the helmet a factory or depot overpaint or 'reissue'.
We all know why the M35's were changed to M40 standards , glare issues as they stood out too much.
For me this is a classic reissue helmet albeit with less often seen very rough paint but does that make the helmet worth more than any other reissue ? For me the answer is no , it remains a single decal Heer helmet.
I think in this case we should think as collectors and not as dealers , dealers will always seek a way to make a helmet more attractive than what it really is and our valuations should not be made from a dealer viewpoint.
Do you think the dealer will pay 2K for this helmet ? Certainly not.

[davejb]

Knowing the helmet could sell for $2000, I dont see how anybody in their right mind would be willing to sell it for $800. I agree it isn't conventional camo, maybe not camo at all, but if somebody is willing to lay down 2000 for it then if I was the seller, I would try to sell it for that price through consignment. It all depends on what somebody is willing to pay. Personally I think heavily textured paint is more attractive, not to mention rarer then factory textured paint, and therefore it should command a higher price rather 'camo' or not. Because of all of this I have just said, I first recommended the owner in the beginning of this thread not to let go of this helmet for $800 or even $1200. Some buyers will pay much more than that.

Regards,
Corey

Perhaps they would pay more, but would this be because they are blinded by the word camo or not experienced enough to know the difference, heres one buyer who would walk away rather than part with more money than what its worth, or at least put my doubts forward and present an informed argument

[Schwerpunkt]

Knowing the helmet could sell for $2000, I dont see how anybody in their right mind would be willing to sell it for $800. I agree it isn't conventional camo, maybe not camo at all, but if somebody is willing to lay down 2000 for it then if I was the seller, I would try to sell it for that price through consignment. It all depends on what somebody is willing to pay. Personally I think heavily textured paint is more attractive, not to mention rarer then factory textured paint, and therefore it should command a higher price rather 'camo' or not. Because of all of this I have just said, I first recommended the owner in the beginning of this thread not to let go of this helmet for $800 or even $1200. Some buyers will pay much more than that.

Regards,
Corey

Someone could be willing to give 3K for it too but a good valuation is based on rarity , condition and knowing the market and not just throwing out a guess. Secondly is the owner willing to wait for his 3K or 2K (a gamble). I sell a couple of helmets a year from my collection. If I need the money quick I forfeit any meagre profit I make and in some cases I'm willing to accept a small loss. Even if under consignment he will not get 2K as the dealer will take his percentage off.
800$ could be a blessing for this person if he wants a quick sale and a fellow collector would be happy because he did a good deal. Isn't that allowed anymore ?

[Sir Payne]

I respect everybody's views on this, especially yours Frank, you raise some very good points, but I still have doubts that this is a classic reissue. Nonetheless, I will retire from commenting on this thread since I have overlong beaten a dead horse with a stick. I don't know how we got so off topic, I'm probably the responsible one, but I think it was a good discussion, and entertaining at some points. It was never my intention to make anybody look stupid or get some fight started. I am only interested in the truth of the item being discussed. I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong when I realize I am incorrect about something, that is the process of learning. I hope none of you hold anything against me because you disagree with something I said or feel that I have offended you in some way. If I said or did anything of that sort I apologize. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and of course an opinion is more accurate the more educated the opinionator. Anyways, my last words, in answer to the original poster's question, no, this is a toned Heer.

Regards,
Corey