This M40 look too clean, liner too clean?

[Schwerpunkt]

Something about it smelled wrong... At any rate, even if it was 100% right, and anything that's been through a war doesn't look like that IMO, or shouldn't. I'd prefer to have something looks like it's that's been through a war.

I never could stand anything "minty" that is supposedly from WWII, first thing goes through my mind is "is it fake, refinished"? And anyway the "been there" look is what does it for me. It's infinitely more interesting to behold something that makes you wonder about the hell it's been through?

That's a completely wrong mindset , you can prefer more beat up helmets that's fine but don't diss mintier examples because you can't tell if they are authentic.
In any case this helmet is bad not because the paint lacks wear but because it's the wrong texture and color and doesn't have a decal.

Lear

[ObKrieger]

My concerns about the liner:

The stitching doesn't run completely down the tab. It actually matches a very good reproduction that is currently being reproduced. I have one of these liners back in PA, otherwise I'd take a photo of it for you. I have attached a photo of one from the dealer's site where I got mine, but the one I have is actually a better match.

Also, the ink stamp in this liner pretty much matches the one on my repro perfectly.

I also aged my liner a bit by giving it some artificial wear, and it turned out exactly the way this one looks.

I suppose it's not enough to completely discredit the liner, but these things stand out as red flags to me.

[Doppelgänger]

That's a completely wrong mindset , you can prefer more beat up helmets that's fine but don't diss mintier examples because you can't tell if they are authentic.


Lear

I have been interested in WWII stuff since the 60's, got more interested in it in the 70's, started seriously looking for items in the 80's, got fairly obsessed with it in the 90's, and to this day... I'm leery [make that extremely leery] of anything from the time period that looks too clean, too new, not aged enough. Like a buddy of mine use to say "does it speak to you?".

[Schwerpunkt]

My concerns about the liner:

The stitching doesn't run completely down the tab. It actually matches a very good reproduction that is currently being reproduced. I have one of these liners back in PA, otherwise I'd take a photo of it for you. I have attached a photo of one from the dealer's site where I got mine, but the one I have is actually a better match.

Also, the ink stamp in this liner pretty much matches the one on my repro perfectly.

I also aged my liner a bit by giving it some artificial wear, and it turned out exactly the way this one looks.

I suppose it's not enough to completely discredit the liner, but these things stand out as red flags to me.

If you look carefully at the one posted in the beginning you'll see the stitching running all the way up the tongue ;-)

[bigmacglenn]

I agree that the liner is good, and that the shell has been repainted at some time during its journey...and although not desirable to many, I'd still consider it if the price was right...just my thoughts...
cheers, Glenn

[ObKrieger]

Are you sure? It really looks like it stops right when it gets to the tongue. I hope I'm not going blind at 20.

[MD Helmets]

Look at the third pic in the first set of pics. You will see two stitches near the to of the finger with the size stamp. Might need to put your Franklins on first

[ObKrieger]

Oh wow... that's odd to say the least. lol

[Adrian]

I have been interested in WWII stuff since the 60's, got more interested in it in the 70's, started seriously looking for items in the 80's, got fairly obsessed with it in the 90's, and to this day... I'm leery [make that extremely leery] of anything from the time period that looks too clean, too new, not aged enough. Like a buddy of mine use to say "does it speak to you?".

It doesn't matter if we're talking helmets or anything else here. The look of something should not be taken as the determining factor in authenticity. There are things out there made 70+ years ago that look like new and conversely things made yesterday that look like they were made 70+ years ago.

Mint items from the war are out there just as artificially aged items exist too, to catch the unwary and those people not willing to accept that everything has to look old to be old.

If you had a mint original helmet in front of you and an aged one made last week, which would you go for?

The fake based upon it's look?

[Doppelgänger]

I've been into antiques for about 30yrs, and I have eagle eyes, especially up close... artificially aged is just that.