However as collectors we must not have singular "experts" categorizing items without a basis of fact which is all I am trying to establish. Has he found something in these to establish a basis for the claim these are "late war" or are these just a hypothesis of his? Perhaps some are late war, some are post war and some are fantasy creations?
It's very important to establish the difference between a theory and fact. Why?
1. "Late war" is a favorite term for fakers to explain the unexplainable.
2. "Small local vendor" is a favorite term to explain the unexplainable.
3. It's important to not have a singular "expert" establish his viewpoint as "fact" without merit.
4. Any theory must stand up to scrutiny. Rather than attack the question, answer it.
Case in point, the fake M34 SS helmet, published and repeatedly sold as an "early war" boutique decal made by a local firm. I've seen the same decals explained as "late war" as well. The fact is, they are fake. Being in a book doesn't make them any less fake despite who wrote the book, what he knows, and any explanations which break down once questions were asked.
As collectors it is our duty to ask questions of the leaders of the hobby to both learn and understand as well as to ensure knowledge is based upon fact not theory.
I simply don't abdicate the responsibility to ask the question. "If", "maybe" and "possibly" aren't firm positives but a theory.
I won't be labour the point and in closing these helmets could be late war, or post war/pre-recovery helmets or even fantasy creations used by movie houses as props. Who knows? There is no proof either way.
I would just appreciate the thread and any followup discussion including self published books to establish the basis for any claim. If a theory that's great, make the hypothesis for it and establish your argument, like a proper researcher does. Take the processs down a correct path as a professional, not a hobbyist.
Finally - Read my signature line. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.
---And here we go again as you so often do, attack the person who has a simple question that puts your posts to a question of fact. You don't like your self asserted theories questioned and now that you are a self published hero anyone who dares question you, you choose to attack. Typical Brian, I've seen this song and dance many times now across many forums.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm simply posting some of my helmets for discussion with some ideas on what they might be. You are certainly free to accept or reject my theories but please, do not make the matter personal. If someone has a different idea than you on matters of militaria, it is not a lack of respect or a personal attack on you. They simply think differently than you do, that's all. And I doubt if that alone is against forum rules. It would seem that it is you who is bringing a sour note to this otherwise interesting thread.
---So let me rephrase: you are the one saying these are "late war". I am the one asking "how do you know"?
So, I ask again, how do you know or are these your own theories? If they are your theories then please provide some supporting facts.
That is all. And I don't think that it's not too much to ask as your the one making the blanket statements not me.
And last time I checked in this hobby "how things work" some form of proof is needed before a declaration is made would you not agree?
A theory is ok, just back it up before making your theory declarations of fact.
Let me make it clear that I am not required to prove anything to anyone. That's the bottom line. It is not a requirement for posting a helmet to 'prove' that it is authentic. Members are free to comment yea or nay as they see fit. I understand that late war helmets are not everyone's cup of tea. That's fine. It only means there are more left for me.
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true (websters online dictionary)
Yes, those are my theories. Usually unconventional but often thought provoking. I have been collecting German helmets for decades and believe I have developed a good sense as to what was and what was not period produced. My theories are mine, and it is not required that you or anyone else accept them.
Doug, you sure are thorough in your desire for 'proof ', supporting facts and so on when it comes to my late war helmets, but are you as thorough in requiring period documentation, period photos etc.. when it comes to all of the decals on your SS helmets?
Brian the title of the thread is "Late War Helmets". That is a statement of fact. I am not making it personal just asking questions which after several attempts to rebuff you finally answer above, that they are in fact, your theories, which I do respect indeed, but please simply state them as such, that is all I am asking and wanting to know.
And as you do with every time I ask you a direct question, you always, without fail, turn it around on what I collect, which is politician speak for deflecting.
If you happen to read the fake M34 decal thread or follow certain decal specific threads on various fora, I think your deflecting question about what I collect will be answered.
When I have a post and it is a theory I will state it unlike you who made a statement of claim with the thread title and the items posted. Terry asked a good question which wasn't answered.
As it is you who is self publishing books and therefore seat yourself as a person of authority on the subject matter, I feel clarity is required for the readers. That is all.
Thanks for the answer on your post, that is all I was wondering. And no, it is not personal.
---Post war done
Let me guess:
-you and your friends have never seen one before
-there are none in print
-there are none in any well-known collections
-no period photos
-no period documentation
-none with vet provenance
The conclusion: it must be fake/postwar.
What if I got a COA from Doug's friend ?
>>What if I got a COA from Doug's friend ?<<
And this means what exactly???
I thought you were not in attack mode or making the conversation personal? I am disappointed but I cannot say that I am not surprised. When anyone questions your theories the usual result is some form of condescending remark about their collection, their knowledge (or lack thereof), or their motives combined with how long you have been doing this. You almost never answer the question asked or provide back up or commentary. Ever.
To be perfectly clear, I don't and never have doubted your knowledge and collecting sensibilities. Your thoughts are usually well thought out, rational and reasonable. But you would have far more credibility if you would allow others to ask questions and engaged them in replies and discussion, nobody is right all of the time.
As well through labelling threads as certainties and self publishing books (a disadvantage to self publishing is these books go through no editorial oversight or independent critical fact checking) you seem to seat your theories as unassailable and knowledge as unquestionable.
Why you brought my name up in a COA comment I have no clue. COA's are worth less than toilet paper. At least you can use toilet paper. I don't care who writes them.
Perhaps you want to ask Munich why it is postwar done? I certainly do not know and I am curious. Perhaps he has some knowledge you do not yet possess, and thus the value of sharing of knowledge in the forum setting can be achieved vs. threads that are merely to show ones prowess and anoint themselves as an expert and pump self published books?
Finally: Are you suggesting that if none exist in period photos, documentation, without provenance, and no other known examples are known that it is not important?