Lucky Bugger, especially as you were going to be happy with a copy.
Lucky Bugger, especially as you were going to be happy with a copy.
In the dealings I have had with sellers, if I wish to trade something they usually give a provisional 'yes' after seeing pictures, but still refuse to commit to a deal until they actually handle the helmet and have a good look at it. It would appear that there are some truly outstanding people who use this website. They have the power to tell if something is right merely by looking at a photographic image - something that even auction houses will not do! I do not in any way wish to dismiss the ability of some, but there are times when I wonder if some users are a bit too quick to write off an item.
Newcomers to the field of collecting should not take as gospel everything that is said on here. They would do better to visit museums and study original items, or join a collectors club and get to know other collectors by meeting them face to face. These websites can be very useful when used correctly. Anything said about items on here are only opinions and cannot always be taken as evidence for an item's authenticity.
For the record, this Fj helmet shell was found at Auvers in Normandy. It's location would point to it as having been used by a member of Fallschirmjager Regt 6. The US 101st Airborne were active in this area at the time. The shell is stamped... ET71 and has the batch code of 941. The spanner-bolts are original to the shell, and are of the early type.
I know the straps are wrong, but they are similar to the wartime type. Both these and the liner were added by me to just finish off the shell and make it look more presentable for display. I know I could never afford a complete original helmet, and I could not believe my luck when I saw this shell being offered for sale at a very reasonable price by R J Militaria.
harry i agree with what you say but isnt the debate and the different oppinions what make this forum so much fun , we can be very wrong (as i have bin ) or we can be wright ,but at least we have fun talking about things , yes what is said here should not be taken as the be all , but its still good fun to thrash out some ideas , i realy enjoy it ,cheers ian
Here,here...some people are far to quick to, write highly collectable and historical pieces off,as FAKE....it's a Fake...FAKE,FAKE,blah ,blah blah.( especially Nazi lids)
It's very tiring,not to mention exasperating, to read these posts at times, some lid look's interesting, and some critic writes it off as , the wrong colour,the rust look's faked etc,etc.
One point of view could be," How would you know,were you there,did you wear something like this,in battle." No..then perhaps you need to watch and learn.
Another point of view could be, "Don't know much about these,particular lids" That's ok, perhaps you can, watch and learn.
That's where persons ,who have a wealth of experience, and years of collecting, need to step in ,and state the facts,not personal feelings.
I am no expert,and do not claim to be , and I have a lot of respect for those who are.
But maybe,just maybe..there are people who use their limited knowledge, for negative gains, personally I feel they should get a real life !
In no way,is this a reflection on any of the responses,you have recieved about this particular lid, you have shown.....just a comment about,some elitist, negative, collecting types,that I have had the misfortune,to waste my precious time on,by reading their negative retoric.
Any way I'm off my soap box, now!
No offence,to any genuine people out there, and good on you mate,I feel your comments are justified,and you deserve some respect,for them.
I like the shell but liner and straps are added for effect and paint is way wrong as far as cammo goes in my opinion.Still they were only made in green and never in blue-grey so hopes ahoy for the overall finish.Take the bolts out carefully and send some pics of stamps.Its not hard to do without damage and worth the price
So let me see if I understand. You give incomplete information about the piece, feign a lack of knowledge, and solicit comments, just so that you can "come clean" and mock those who responded to your inquiry. I went through the comments in this thread after your confession, and correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone, myself included, said the piece was a fake, or dismissed the helmet out of hand. I pointed out why the liner was clearly a repro, and that the straps weren't right ( I did say "fake" for the straps, when in fact they are real, just not period TR - mea culpa!). When better pictures of the shell were posted, all, including myself, stated that the shell looked real, "looked" real, because we all know that it is very difficult to judge a piece from pictures alone! I did, did I not, say that I couldn't comment on the paint and the bird from what I saw in the pictures, but did tell you to look for paint in the pits, which is often a sign of a humped up shell. But when asked to comment on a piece, and when the comments are made with specifics, such as the zig zag stitching on the liner (a telltale earmark of a repro, which some novice collectors may not know) and warnings about paint in the pits of a pitted shell (usually a huge red flag!) to help newer collectors who may not know what to look for, I get just a little annoyed when I am derided for responding to what appeared to be a "genuine" request for feedback. I am by no means a self proclaimed "expert", but I have been collecting for over 40 years. I know more than some, and alot less than many. I try to give constructive and thoughtful comments, with specifics that I think support my opinions, and always try to give good advice (for whatever worth my advice is) to new collectors. I urge the novice to get good reference books, speak to advanced collectors, and go to shows to see, handle, and smell what a real helmet should be like in order to avoid being burned as I have been several times in my collecting life. I tried to give you some information that I thought may have been helpful to you, but I guess that I failed your little test! Sorry if I don't measure up to your exacting standards. Your humble servant and "expert" whipping boy, Jim G.
Sorry if I caused any offence to you. that was certainly not my aim! I was hoping to solicit negative comments about the helmet to serve as an illustration to new collectors the dangers of using websites such as this. I was somewhat suprised by the lack of response. I noticed that most of the comments were guarded about the item's authenticity, which is a good thing. It's far better than coming straight out and denouncing it as a fake or being 'dead right'.
As for the paint being 'the wrong colour', I find the comment a little odd! The thick camoflage paint which still adheres to the surface is certainly genuine, and underneath is the original colour of the shell. It is probably the thickness of the cammo paint that preserved the helmet so well. I have added a few pictures taken in natural light which probably show off the helmet better. I really did hope that by doing this (underhanded) posting it would make some collectors aware of the difference between opinions and concrete evidence. I feel as though I may well have failed on that score.
Steve, In case you didn't get my private reply, I wanted to thank you for your message, and publicly apologize to you and the whole group for the earlier harsh post, which, in retrospect, was unwarranted, and not appropriate. A fellow collector, Jim G.
Well looking at the new photos i take my comment about wrong paint back too.It looks like its been there for 60 years and may have chipped off due to bad storage and what appears to be relic condition.I would be happy with that one on my shelf.No you have not failed but done us all a favour
No need for apologies. I am sure you know what I'm on about, and if I have made others sit up and think a bit about some of the remarks that are passed on here, then I have achieved my aims. I would never belittle anyone on the topic of collecting, that is the surest way to a humiliating downfall!
And Tom Bennet in OZ, I made no attempt to fool with the original pictures. But it just goes to show how pictures can be manipulated to show things better (or poorer) than they actually are. The actual pitting on the shell is very shallow, and none of it comes even close to going through the metal. I would say this shell is just approaching relic status - or just in it!
The fakers of highly prized items are getting even better at their task now, and I'm pretty sure that shell stampings in repro german helmets will be far more accurate than they used to be. I would think that even ET71 stamps WITHOUT the foot on the bottom of the one will be viewed in some quarters with suspicion!