Its quite easy, really.
To run with aforementioned example of the field jacket:
Here are two M65-type field jackets.
Point to the camouflage jacket. You may pick one option.
99.9 % will pick the same jacket. The rest will argue about the remaining jacket.
Webster have both the example of
The army tanks were painted green and brown for camouflage.
The rabbit's white fur acts as a camouflage in the snow.
So the argument can go on for ever.
But what would be the point.
The argument is not pointless because the ramifications of the conclusion will greatly affect the price. It should be talked about and argued over. Arguing is debating, not a bad thing in this sense. I agree that the helmet in question does not adhere to the definitions provided of the word 'camouflage'.
Still, I do not think you guys understand what I am trying to say. Alright, for Explanation's sake i will say this: this helmet is Not a camo... but, This helmet would be considered as a camo by a dealer. Just look at the ruptured duck helmet I posted. It is basically the exact same as the one that started this thread, and is being sold as a camo. If a dealer, and I don't think Mr Shea would be the only one, gives such a high value to this type of textures helmet, then that must mean that this type of textured helmet currently sells around that price. The fact is, these are 'considered' camo even though they are not.... Can we agree on that last sentence?
Yes they are considered by some dealers as a camo but really that is a generic identification which really is'nt accurate and of course if a dealer can convince someone that this type of paint scheme is a camo then its buyer beware in my opinion and a potential buyer who has the wherewithall to question such a description should do so and use that to his advantage in order to obtain a fairer price, why pay an extra $500-800 for a textured helmet when a factory produced one will be much less, i cannot see any reason to do so, after all the wearer of the helmet is only copying the factory issued look because his helmet is of an earlier issue with a smooth paint
Knowing the helmet could sell for $2000, I dont see how anybody in their right mind would be willing to sell it for $800. I agree it isn't conventional camo, maybe not camo at all, but if somebody is willing to lay down 2000 for it then if I was the seller, I would try to sell it for that price through consignment. It all depends on what somebody is willing to pay. Personally I think heavily textured paint is more attractive, not to mention rarer then factory textured paint, and therefore it should command a higher price rather 'camo' or not. Because of all of this I have just said, I first recommended the owner in the beginning of this thread not to let go of this helmet for $800 or even $1200. Some buyers will pay much more than that.
We all know why the M35's were changed to M40 standards , glare issues as they stood out too much.
For me this is a classic reissue helmet albeit with less often seen very rough paint but does that make the helmet worth more than any other reissue ? For me the answer is no , it remains a single decal Heer helmet.
I think in this case we should think as collectors and not as dealers , dealers will always seek a way to make a helmet more attractive than what it really is and our valuations should not be made from a dealer viewpoint.
Do you think the dealer will pay 2K for this helmet ? Certainly not.
800$ could be a blessing for this person if he wants a quick sale and a fellow collector would be happy because he did a good deal. Isn't that allowed anymore ?
I respect everybody's views on this, especially yours Frank, you raise some very good points, but I still have doubts that this is a classic reissue. Nonetheless, I will retire from commenting on this thread since I have overlong beaten a dead horse with a stick. I don't know how we got so off topic, I'm probably the responsible one, but I think it was a good discussion, and entertaining at some points. It was never my intention to make anybody look stupid or get some fight started. I am only interested in the truth of the item being discussed. I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong when I realize I am incorrect about something, that is the process of learning. I hope none of you hold anything against me because you disagree with something I said or feel that I have offended you in some way. If I said or did anything of that sort I apologize. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and of course an opinion is more accurate the more educated the opinionator. Anyways, my last words, in answer to the original poster's question, no, this is a toned Heer.