As a technique it's been used before. An established collector wanting to cash up his collection and knowing it to contain debatable items, co-operates with a third party to publish a book based on same collection. The intention is to give those contentious items (fakes) a veneer of approval. "It's in a book it must be real".
An old trick, as always "let the buyer beware."
straightened them outby Anders
I cant add anything to the discussion aside from, what kind of person trys to make a historical /reference book using info from Wikipedia?
I agree and this book is a real shocker for more than one reason.
It would appear that at best the author is inept and at worst downright dishonest if this is an attempt to lend a "cloak of respectability" to the garbage we all try so hard to keep from contaminating the diminishing pool of genuine artifacts (not just helmets I hasten to add).
We all constantly advise new and inexperienced collectors that they should "do some research" and that good reference books are worth their weight in gold. Then we see something like this which to someone trying to "do some research" appears like just such a book (it does seem well presented).
The irony here is that if you can spot the fakes in it you don't actually need the book in the first place!
I am afraid that there will always be "snake oil" out there which is why a forum like this is so valuable, in fact, an electronic "good reference book".
We can't stop this rubbish but we can try to limit the damage it causes to the hobby.
Regards
Mark
Last edited by Watchdog; 04-18-2018 at 07:43 AM. Reason: typo
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
The sad part about all of this is he will be remembered for a very bad combat helmet book, and not a very good buckle book
I would like to buy all 100 copies & burn them. The more I try to analyze this fraud, the angrier I get. His acknowledgement page is as big of a joke as the "author" himself. I know three of the names listed, one of them on a personal level. None of them know anything about helmets. One of them used to ask me to vet his fake helmets at shows in the Midwest US. He had not a clue. A "large inventory of helmets"....yes, but 99% were bad.
Maybe Anderson is right. The "author" maybe just found out his "30 year" collection is a compilation of fakes & this might be a way to sell them to novice collectors in the near future, thinking if they are published, some may take that for originality. What other reason could there be ?
He won't be remembered,,I forgot his name already & the title of his "comic book"The sad part about all of this is he will be remembered for a very bad combat helmet book, and not a very good buckle book
One who can't spell 'Wikipaedia'! <sic>
No! Then he do another print run, and another etc...
Nick
Glad to see this topic surfacing here , it's been hot since 8 days already.
I have also brought it over to local forums as this book must get as much bad advertising as possible.
This book is made by dealer fed collectors , collecting with a blindfold on and probably not very smart ones either.
He totally misunderstands the concept of a lot number database (someone close to the author or the author himself made an ass out of himself on GHW 2 months ago , the exact words he posted there are in the book).
He denies there are links between decals and helmet makers.
He only thinks the fake big foot should be on a helmet with a fake chemically aged stinking liner.
He says there is no proof that ET became CKL and HKP was SE.
Look at the vent holes , look at the dome stamps , look at the fonts.
Mr Nash has been discussed and lampooned elsewhere. Sadly we live in a World where many believe only what they see on their computer screen and fail to comprehend that there are other places to research and learn. He is not the first and certainly not the last person to build a babel for himself on Facebook and call himself "an expert". This book is not worth the paper it was printed on.
Those individuals and businesses listed in the acknowledgements should not automatically be held to account as it is entirely possible that they have little or no prior knowledge of being associated with this publication. If they do, then that decision may seem somewhat misguided.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks