Wow! I now hate you Doug, as I will never be able to add something that spectacular to my collection!
Wow! I now hate you Doug, as I will never be able to add something that spectacular to my collection!
What is the SIZE difference between the Fat Rune and the Original Pocher? Is the entire decal wider or just the Runes?
How did I miss this, lovely stuff Doug.
I am surprise you did not get the M34 with the fat runes that is for sell on Kelly website.
Great helmet you have there Doug.
chris
I agree with the other guys,VERY NICE(P.S love the re-issued M-18 ear cut)
Not much appeal for me on that one. There are only 2 Fat Runes helmets for me. This one, and I would love to get the one Bob H has, a black transitional named to an LAH soldier.
Thanks for the further compliments gents.
-edit- I dont want to make it sound like I dont think the helmet on Kelly's site isnt real, it is just a matter of collector preference and aesthetics. In other words, I find it kind of ugly... but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This is my first real post on this forum; I hope you all enjoy my fat rune as my first contribution! The letter is from the 501st PIR veteran who brought this back from Berchtesgaden. As far as these examples, especially Doug's excellent piece that started this thread, I have often wondered if these ET helmets were from what Ludwig Baer has described as a one-time shipment of several hundred M-35 helmets to the LAH during the early distribution period of M-35s. They all bear similar characteristics, such as the 3574 (or 3567) batch number; 1936 dome stamps, 1937 dated liner bands, blue-green liner retaining rivets, and especially thin paint which is discernable when in hand. It's almost as if they were a botique batch job, done specially on a one-time basis. I have not seen another M-35 fatty outside of these parameters to date, so that is what I think they were.
Regards, Kelly H.
Wow! The runes still look almost new, a quality decal construction!
Similar Threads
Bookmarks