M35 DD Heer Q64 DAK ? helmet

[Hanomag83]

Hello! Before purchasing this beauty I need some more opinions about this helmet. For my feelings it looks awesome and it is a museum-like-piece.
But emotions are a bad guide. So what do you think? Everything ok with this helmet or are there any red flags?
Thank you in advance!
Best regards Thomas

[PotatoDigger]

Interesting helmet, Thomas.
Looks like the helmet was sanded at some point, looking at the decals and the paint in picture 8, but wait for the more qualified people to leave their thoughts, don't base anything off of my comment
Can't comment on the paint but I would say the helmet (shell, liner and chinstrap) look good.
I know that this will be asked at some point so I might just say it out now, we probably need some close-ups of the decals.
Luis

[Hanomag83]

Here the decals... sorry for the poor quality.

[Giants77]

To me the liner looks aged. Also looked like someone went “digging” for the decals. Wait for others of course. I hope it works out for you!

[MAP]

I see decals "over" pitting and potentially the same with some paint.

Liner could be a Norwegian "red". Hard to tell.

From what I can see I'm not crazy about it.

[BlackCat1982]

I agree the national shield decal shows signs of being scraped out, the liner has been out at some time and the rivets are clear of dunkelgelb paint. I'm not buzzing with it either I'm afraid.

[real steel]

The liner looks like a hard worn example expected in a tropical environment (minus the tie string) I see no signs of Norway red. Decals might be Quist...but of course "dug out". Camo paint is not convincing.....so not sure what happened here. The next to last pic shows this helmet was over painted by brush in green before the tan was applied. So much "digging" was applied to liberate those decals. The split pins (other than the rear pin) clearly show the original paint with the brushed over paint on top. Might want to pass.
D.

[MAP]

The liner looks like a hard worn example expected in a tropical environment (minus the tie string) I see no signs of Norway red. Decals might be Quist...but of course "dug out". Camo paint is not convincing.....so not sure what happened here. The next to last pic shows this helmet was over painted by brush in green before the tan was applied. So much "digging" was applied to liberate those decals. The split pins (other than the rear pin) clearly show the original paint with the brushed over paint on top. Might want to pass.
D.

The liner probably isn't but when the photo is expanded there are areas that do have a redish tint to is. Maybe the flash/light. I can't tell. Would be nice to see the underside of the liner.

As for the decals, I will always defer to you but so much is missing it is hard to tell and the photo is not clear at all when expanded.

I think I see what looks to be the remains of a Q Bigfoot.

But I did have some concerns. Not taking a hard stance.

1) First issue for me is the pitting under the decals and as I noted under the paint
2) The Swaz on the Q Big Foot to me always looked a bit thicker than the non BigFoot. Maybe an illusion. But on this decal the arms of the Swaz seem a bit thin
3) The "Foot". You can see the three talons going below the line of the Swaz as you would expect (highlighted in red), but the BigFoot does not have that long black line separating the 2nd and 3rd (rear) talon/claw. It should just have a small little indentation. It could all just be my eyes, decal damage and poor photos.

Throwing this hypothesis out there for discussion/debate. Not wedded to it at all

Is it possible this was a helmet with pitting (semi relic even?) that had fake decals added then painted with camo and then heavily scrubbed?

[Schwerpunkt]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder , I would not even pick it up if I saw it for sale on a fair.
From these photos the camo could anything , fake or not.
Although so far I do not have much hope for it.

[Anderson]

Indeed. Way too much post war/recent meddling/damage for most collectors.