Heimwehr Danzig helmet

[appie]

Are you saying that the white paint has come off the skull showing more of the helmet paint underneath?
It may be my eyes but is there a greater distance between the bottom of the jaw and where the helmet flares out. The book one seems much closer to the line than the one under discussion.
And presumably with the damage in the same place this has got to be one and the same helmet, or there are 2 extremely rare helmets each with damage in exactly the same area, odds are pretty great for that to happen or ...?

Its the same lid, photographed from a different angle. Just look at all the pics posted, and compare. Distance just looks bigger, but its the same lid for sure.

[DougB]

I would question if this is the same helmet.
Look at the distance between the skulls jaw and the edge of the hole on both pictures. It appears that the hole is closer in the book picture.
Coincidence????
If I was selling such a rare helmet and it had been previously displayed in a quality publication, I think that I would have mentioned this!

There is no question these two helmets are the same. Look at the circled areas, the two rust patches at the top are identical in shape and the damage including damage to the rivet head and the crack, and liner beneath are identical. You cannot have two helmets ballistically damaged in an identical fashion or rusting in an identical fashion, it is too random. You must take into account the time between the photos taken, lighting, camera type, distance, picture quality, picture size and one is a photo and one is a scanned image.

Also in order to say the helmet posted is in a book one has to know the helmet is in a book. Perhaps Ostlandigger does not know the helmet is published or perhaps he is witholding the information to drop like a brick on the naysayers as he does open this thread by saying and I paraphrase "there is not a question of originality but of value".

If Ostlandigger would take the time to check back his thread where he expressed some impatience at the forum membership for not replying he would do wonders to further this discussion.

BTW it was mentioned the "paint on the skull" in a previous post, this skull is not painted, it is a decal as it appears to be in the period pics as well, so the research available appears to be wrong, but then it was strong supposition that the skulls were painted from a stencil and not decalled. However a real H-D M35 helmet has never been seen, thus making this a rather exciting helmet to discuss.

[OKW]

I'm still with Andy123 on this if you look at the right hand side of the skull on the helmet in the book the hole touches the skull. There appears to be as much white to the right of the fissure running down the skull on both examples yet on the posted helmet the skull is further away from the hole. Is it possible to enlarge these photos and measure the distance fissure to hole for both examples?

[big ned]

I'm still with Andy123 on this if you look at the right hand side of the skull on the helmet in the book the hole touches the skull. There appears to be as much white to the right of the fissure running down the skull on both examples yet on the posted helmet the skull is further away from the hole. Is it possible to enlarge these photos and measure the distance fissure to hole for both examples?

Hi Chaps,

Please re-read post no.2 page 1.Maris clearly states that he has removed some white paint from the skull that was applied years ago by the helmets owner. It was apparently easy to pick off due to the rust underneath.

It is therefore entirley probable that the book photo was taken BEFORE the helmet was 'renovated' shall we say.

In my opinion, due to the identical rust marks and battle damage, these 'two' helmets can only be one and the same. If anyone can make as good a copy, let's see it....

Regards, Ned.

[Jan]

Ned. Thats absolutely my opinion too. From an archaeological standpoint that is.

Rgds Jan

[ostlanddigger]

you are right Ned.i newer knew that this helmet pics are published in some book.but for sure i know wehre this helmet been laying since 90-ies,and i been holding it in my arms many times.and it,s still possible to get that helmet

[DougB]

you are right Ned.i newer knew that this helmet pics are published in some book.but for sure i know wehre this helmet been laying since 90-ies,and i been holding it in my arms many times.and it,s still possible to get that helmet

You may have an absolute rarity there, is there any way we can get full head on no glare hi res photos of the insignia? Also what do you think of my remarks in reference to your wanting to lab test the helmet.
Thanks
Doug

[DougB]

Hi Chaps,
It is therefore entirley probable that the book photo was taken BEFORE the helmet was 'renovated' shall we say.

In my opinion, due to the identical rust marks and battle damage, these 'two' helmets can only be one and the same. If anyone can make as good a copy, let's see it....

Regards, Ned.

Ned, with the timelines Ostlandigger gave and the copyright of the book and time needed to put a book like this together (2 years) there is no question in my mind the book photo was taken before.

And there is no chance someone can replicate random rust and battle damage with this degree of accuracy.

These are the same helmet.

[Anders]

Does the book give photo credits?

Just that the pictures come from: Archive Renoult.

[Dimas]

Yes, I agree the helmet is the same, noone can replicate ( as Doug says) the battledamage. Anders, you mean the picture from the Bruno Renoult archive? I can ask him about the closeup pictures if he have