M35 camouflage Luftwaffe

**plumbob** · 10-17-2016, 10:07 PM

Second coats of paint could have been applied months perhaps years (war time) after base coats were applied thus being painted over chips scratches or even war time years old rust.
Unless there’s some way to date paint we could question any paint job on any helmet from any country.
Certainly I wouldn’t claim to be a expert but I am open minded anything can be possible including colours.
Bye the way I like your helmet.
Best regards
Rod

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 10-17-2016 10:07 PM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**busman** · 10-17-2016, 10:31 PM

Thanks Rod for your comments, I feel the same , especially as this helmet being an M35 was getting on in years by the end of the war it would have all sorts or usage wear on and under the camo paint. And as for colours take a helmet out of the context it was camouflaged for may look odd but worked at the time, I have a 1960'c Czech salamander / clown pattern jacket that looks mad in a U.k forest but blends perfectly in its intended environment . And as for the decal not being painted over , I have seen this many times in many books.

**relicz** · 10-18-2016, 03:36 AM

by MAP

I am just getting my feet wet with Heer decals and even then, I'm still learning. Definitely not experienced with Lufts. What are your views John. Would love to get your experienced feedback as this is a make or break point.

Thanks!

Michael,
As always, the devil is in the details. Graphics are wrong. Start by comparing to known originals,....and then, known fakes.

You are correct, if the decal is bad - there is no reason to debate the camo paint (which btw, is also contrived and problematic - IMO). Even with the contrived damage, enough decal detail is present to flag it as something other than a period correct decal.

Flipped and enlarged

**relicz** · 10-18-2016, 03:45 AM

by busman

I have no problem with the Decal on this one.

Busman,
Please study this closely and compare it to both known originals and known fakes. I have no interest in offending you. I was asked for an opinion and here it is - This one appears to have been created to fool people.

**MAP** · 10-18-2016, 03:57 AM

by relicz

Michael,
As always, the devil is in the details. Graphics are wrong. Start by comparing to known originals,....and then, known fakes.

You are correct, if the decal is bad - there is no reason to debate the camo paint (which btw, is also contrived and problematic - IMO). Even with the contrived damage, enough decal detail is present to flag it as something other than a period correct decal.

Flipped and enlarged

I've been studying the major originals....it's the fakes (not the really bad ones) and less common ones that get me

. It's also tough in that my interests go far beyond helmets as well. Jack of all trades....master of none

Thanks for the feedback. As noted...if the decal is bad.....

**Walkwolf** · 10-18-2016, 04:03 AM

Thanks for the enlarged pic, John. If it were not for
the odd paint colour, we may not have looked
too closely at this lid. It astonishes me how
much time and effort goes into fooling
people in this field. I bow to your
knowledge sir.........

**busman** · 10-18-2016, 01:58 PM

I can't see where this one stands out as a fake compared to ones I've looked at. I'm obviously missing the finer details.

**HARRY THE MOLE** · 10-18-2016, 04:25 PM

All three images below look different to me. The only main difference appears to be that the bottom two have previously been passed as OK on the forum. Having said that, I have never studied decals - and lets be thankful that what's being studied here is not the so-called SS champagne decal - which was the cause of so much division amongst the supposedly better informed. Perhaps it would be helpful to Busman (and me) and other forum members, if the reasons for the decal being wrong are pointed out?

**busman** · 10-18-2016, 04:57 PM

Thanks Harry , that's where I'm having difficulty as there are a lot of different examples . The one I have does not seem to be a match of known fakes I have seen.

**M38** · 10-18-2016, 05:16 PM

I wish I could add arrows to point to the obvious differences between the top eagle and the bottom two. But they are there. Look at the zipper-like row of feathers just above the eagle's left foot. Look at the eagle's missing "hump back". Look at the ultra fine lines of the feathers on the top decal. Look at the shape and position of the right foot that grasps the swastika. Look at the shape of the eagle's head. These are just a few of the differences that make this decal fake, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Terry