Ss m42 et64

[ShaneH]

could it be a decal overlapping another giving it the thick border

[DougB]

Yes the helmet is an EF for sure , I kind of like the wear and it's an ET pattern style shield.
The only thing I notice is the thick upper black border , looks thicker than what I expect.

But all in all I don't dislike it.

Doug what makes you not like it ?

The borders for one, they appear much thicker than a post 40 ET decal. The 2 most glaring things by the photos provided are the waviness of the print and graininess of the pulver. ET decals just don't have the waviness to the runes that you see on early Pochers. This is a 1942 or 43 ET decal, or it's supposed to be. You just don't find print irregularities at this stage and never really did with ET decals, from what I've handled anyway. Combined with the border and pulver irregularities I see it doesn't stand up to what I would be looking for and I am willing to make minor exceptions but all 3 make this tough to swallow.

( look at the waviness of the center lateral runes, left and right are completely asymmetrical )

Jim, As for lot numbers on EF I have a SS helmet database at least 3 times larger than GHW and there is no rhyme or reason to most EF lot numbers with ET decals, or even ones with EF decals it seems. No real pattern and I wouldn't prescribe lot number patterns to specifically with this helmet.

Could this be good? Well, if it were offered to me by Kelly Hicks using these photos I would turn it down flat. That being said I am judging and offering my opinion and backing it up, from less than adequate photos needed to offer opinions on SS helmets. But if in hand this might look totally different. Then I might have a different opinion given the ability to examine it in hand.

So, yes I stand behind my original opinion that it doesn't conform to a period ET decal. I am also very fussy with ET decals on anything other than ET / ckl helmets. It's exactly the fertile ground fakers and post war applied decaled shells wallow in. My EF M42 helmets must have EF decals but that doesn't mean they weren't period done. Just the bar is raised awfully high when they dont and that ET decal better be textbook to the letter.

Those that know me know I have a 5 second rule as many SS collectors do, if in 5 seconds you can't tell an SS helmet screaming at you it probably isn't.

[Schwerpunkt]

So, yes I stand behind my original opinion that it doesn't conform to a period ET decal. I am also very fussy with ET decals on anything other than ET / ckl helmets. It's exactly the fertile ground fakers and post war applied decaled shells wallow in. My EF M42 helmets must have EF decals but that doesn't mean they weren't period done. Just the bar is raised awfully high when they dont and that ET decal better be textbook to the letter.

You know we disagree on this Doug , as the ET decalled EF's catalogued are never in the no decal range and most show nice age wear. Furthermore as you say there's neither a pattern for EF style runes as there is for ET style runes.

I think this helmet merrits further study , I hope the owner can post even better close-ups or perhaps can get this decal viewed under a USB microscope by someone experienced with it. That would seal the deal in my opinion.

[WILCO]

Guys,
Thanks for all your efforts so far, much appreciated.
Would like to get to the bottom of this one.
Do you need pictures of decal as close as last uploaded?
If so which area or just the whole area?

Does anyone know anyone trustworthy and With the
Knowledge in the uk that could do this inspection
With a microscope?

Will try and get some really close picture
Of decal early next week as away. Hope
You will all have a look when uploaded.

Thanks
Matt

[Schwerpunkt]

Matt can you measure the thickness of the upper border ? Check if it's the same thickness as the side borders. But also let us know what you measure. You can do this with overlaying a paper and mark the edges on the paper with a pen , then measure it when lying flat.
Any kind of better decal close-up would help , to make really good close-ups make sure your camera is on macro and let the camera rest on some books so that it doesn't move when you push the shoot button. That gives the most crisp close-ups.
I don't know anyone in England that uses the USB microscope , the device which enhances up to 200x zoom costs about 90 euros. (for a 2 megapixel one).
The photo I posted above is a 200x close-up of the middle part of the left tip of a rune. It's a good comparison point as fakes fail to provide the same graphic at this magnification.

[WILCO]

Thanks

Will get some measurements and try with a Macro
Setting on a Canon EOS or IXUS as soon as I can.
Will. Have a look at microscopes as 90 euros is cheap
If it proves anything or clears this one up.

Matt

[helmet2id]

The borders for one, they appear much thicker than a post 40 ET decal. The 2 most glaring things by the photos provided are the waviness of the print and graininess of the pulver. ET decals just don't have the waviness to the runes that you see on early Pochers. This is a 1942 or 43 ET decal, or it's supposed to be. You just don't find print irregularities at this stage and never really did with ET decals, from what I've handled anyway. Combined with the border and pulver irregularities I see it doesn't stand up to what I would be looking for and I am willing to make minor exceptions but all 3 make this tough to swallow.

( look at the waviness of the center lateral runes, left and right are completely asymmetrical )

Jim, As for lot numbers on EF I have a SS helmet database at least 3 times larger than GHW and there is no rhyme or reason to most EF lot numbers with ET decals, or even ones with EF decals it seems. No real pattern and I wouldn't prescribe lot number patterns to specifically with this helmet.

Could this be good? Well, if it were offered to me by Kelly Hicks using these photos I would turn it down flat. That being said I am judging and offering my opinion and backing it up, from less than adequate photos needed to offer opinions on SS helmets. But if in hand this might look totally different. Then I might have a different opinion given the ability to examine it in hand.

So, yes I stand behind my original opinion that it doesn't conform to a period ET decal. I am also very fussy with ET decals on anything other than ET / ckl helmets. It's exactly the fertile ground fakers and post war applied decaled shells wallow in. My EF M42 helmets must have EF decals but that doesn't mean they weren't period done. Just the bar is raised awfully high when they dont and that ET decal better be textbook to the letter.

Those that know me know I have a 5 second rule as many SS collectors do, if in 5 seconds you can't tell an SS helmet screaming at you it probably isn't.

Thanks Doug, I see what you mean. Hopefully USB examination will clear this one up, and I am hoping that it will have a "happy ending". Cheers, Jim G.

[DougB]

>>>>>>>>>You know we disagree on this Doug , as the ET decalled EF's catalogued are never in the no decal range and most show nice age wear. Furthermore as you say there's neither a pattern for EF style runes as there is for ET style runes.

We don't disagree on ET decaled EF M42 helmets, I just don't care for them from an aesthetic standpoint and they just don't appeal to me. But I am cautious in the extreme with any ET decaled EF M42 I dont care what the lot number says, as there is no pattern to them with respect to ET decal usage never mind in general. I have no dispute as I stated, that they were period done.

>>>>>>>>I think this helmet merrits further study , I hope the owner can post even better close-ups or perhaps can get this decal viewed under a USB microscope by someone experienced with it. That would seal the deal in my opinion.

I don't disagree, but the waviness of the horizontal section of the runic print is a huge concern Frank. Look closely at this. USB is always nice to see, I want to see the left lower rune tip and the central area of the runes, as well as the pulver and top border corners.

[DougB]

>>>>>>>>>You know we disagree on this Doug , as the ET decalled EF's catalogued are never in the no decal range and most show nice age wear. Furthermore as you say there's neither a pattern for EF style runes as there is for ET style runes.

We don't disagree on ET decaled EF M42 helmets, I just don't care for them from an aesthetic standpoint and they just don't appeal to me. But I am cautious in the extreme with any ET decaled EF M42 I dont care what the lot number says, as there is no pattern to them with respect to ET decal usage never mind in general. I have no dispute as I stated, that they were period done.

>>>>>>>>I think this helmet merrits further study , I hope the owner can post even better close-ups or perhaps can get this decal viewed under a USB microscope by someone experienced with it. That would seal the deal in my opinion.

I don't disagree, but the waviness of the horizontal section of the runic print is a huge concern Frank. Look closely at this. USB is always nice to see, I want to see the left lower rune tip and the central area of the runes, as well as the pulver and top border interior corners.

[DougB]

Thanks

Will get some measurements and try with a Macro
Setting on a Canon EOS or IXUS as soon as I can.
Will. Have a look at microscopes as 90 euros is cheap
If it proves anything or clears this one up.

Matt

Matt, your photos need to be clear, much larger, no flash glare and straight on with no distortion please.
If you can provide detailed closeups of the pulver and center ofthe runes on macro setting please as well.

Also what is the provenance on this helmet?
Thanks
Doug