Fake Helmets And The Demise Of XRFacts Technology

[Bugme]

In the October 2016 issue of Military Trader magazine, Third Reich(TR) helmet collector, author and authority Kelly Hicks, answered some tough questions about some recent game changing events occurring within the TR helmet collecting community. While most of the interview delves deeply into TR helmets, specifically SS helmets, there was one question that was asked, which in the recent past, negatively affected those of us in the US helmet collecting community. This question was on the subject of X-ray Florescence Spectroscopy(XRF) and a now defunct helmet authentication service referred to as: XRFacts.

Let me be clear, I have no personal issues with Mr. Hicks and outside of a few chance meetings with him at some of the OVMS Show of Shows in Louisville in which I spoke with him at his table or when he was promoting XRFacts several years ago, I really do not know him well. I also appreciate Mr. Hicks answering the tough questions posed to him by John Adams-Graf. So, this is not a personal attack in any way and I am sure that he and I have much more in common than what divides us. However, I feel it is vitally necessary to address some very clear errors he made in answering one specific question.

All my critiques of his answer are in RED. Grab a cup of coffee, this is a long read.
__________________________________________________

Military Trader: X-ray florescence(XRF) seemed to be a revolutionary advancement in the hobby, but then fell from favor as fast as it appeared. Can you tell us about the process and do you still use it today in authenticating helmets?

Kelly Hicks: I appreciate the question. Essentially, I no longer use XRF as one of my authentication methods, although it was exciting to work with. I, and many others are fans of this technology, which is widely used by museums and universities throughout the world for forensic analysis of inorganic materials from stone to oil paints to porcelain to metals.(While this is true to a point, it is not true when speaking about U.S. helmets. XRF can confirm general time periods of things which are hundreds and thousands of years old, it becomes less accurate when we are talking about mere decades. Especially when used on painted insignia found on U.S. helmets in which the composition of the paint used in the 40’s is still available or easily made today)

While it showed great promise, especially in my main focus; The absolute determination of the material composition of helmet decals, there had been a growth of opposition to the practice among certain members of the community(Since Mr. Hicks “main focus” is TR helmets, when XRFacts decided to cross into an area out of his expertise, specifically the U.S. helmet collecting community, XRFacts made huge mistakes. This was later admitted to by the tech guy for XRFacts, David May.)

There is a long story to my involvement in XRF, but I will skip the drama and be concise. My role had not been on the technical end. Rather, it was as the final inspector of the helmets for a visual hands-on, to ensure the machines verdict was understood and in line with visual expectations of decal characteristics. (To me this is a confusing statement in that the final determination of the authenticity of a helmet, came back to a visual inspection based once again on experience and opinion in order to make sure that the machine wasn’t wrong? This contradicts XRFacts slogan: Provenance Through Science)

We had trained technicians who knew how to interpret the data from the helmet scans, analyzing the data and compare measuring with a growing database(The data base needed for U.S. helmets to make XRF remotely accurate was in the tens of thousands of helmet comparatives not about 100. This is not science at this point, this wishful thinking. The result was legit U.S. helmets were found to be fake and fake helmets were given a COA) ….of original data scans from the best known examples.(These known examples which he is speaking of are those helmets which were already inspected by human eyes and determined to be legit but, what if the human inspection was incorrect? It would then flaw the database, which is exactly what happened with the U.S. helmet side of XRF)

The brief history of XRF is a disappointing one. As we all know, social media can be very political and agenda-driven. Over time, a negative narrative(Blaming politics and personal agendas is a way to blame others. And a negative narrative is not necessarily a wrong thing when it is in conjunction with something that is not working) ….about XRF had been carefully crafted and repeated; (carefully researched responses would be a more proper answer here. “Crafted” implies a twisting of words to discredit XRF, this was not the case as U.S. helmets collectors actually had people who work with XRF themselves and proved the inconsistencies with this technology for use in the U.S. collecting community.) ….to the extent that reasonable collectors questioned its merits as a dependable authentication method. (Questioning its merits is exactly what we should have done. We relied on reasonable collectors who didn’t automatically endorse something just because it was touted as the answer we’ve all been looking to find for vetting out fakes) Many were reluctant to express positiveness(sic) about it publicly because of fear of rejection and criticism on social media.(Lets be honest here, the social media mentioned here was Militaria forums and quite the opposite was true, those who questioned the validity of XRF were shut down on many forums and their posts questioning XRF or debating its merits were removed) ….Moreover, we discovered that one of our team(under an alias)(David May aka; cherrypoint; aka; maui and also the tech guy behind the whole XRFact enterprise) ….argued about it on social media, causing damage and further fanning the flames. Recognizing this, and due to the growing backlash, the expense of maintaining the equipment, and the untimely death of one of our key members and benefactors, we decided to stop the service. (The untimely death was that of Robbie Wilson who ran the Wilson History and Research Center which focused on historical military helmets. I will not say anymore here about their benefactor or the research center since Mr. Wilson is unable to answer for himself)
___________________________________________

Let me conclude my critique with this: What occurred on the TR side of Helmet Collecting can be handled by those in that collector community and I will not address the many other things that worked in conjunction with this subject, such as the so-called Champagne runes. However, I felt it was very necessary that what happened on the U.S. side of this debate needed to be addressed after this article was published in which it appears that the blame for its failure is placed on the collectors who questioned this technology and not on those who tried to propagate and profit from it.

Finally, since I have used actual names here, I feel it is only fair to use mine here also. So, thanks for taking time to read this and I hope it clarifies things for those who collect U.S. Helmets
Scott Stevens(Bugme)

[TheGrayGhost]

Great writeup Scott!

 

No question that XRF is currently pseudoscience. It would be wonderful to have a technology whose conclusions are irrefutable, but this is simply not it. If there actually is anything to it, proper scientific method will vindicate it. Until then, the old adage still applies, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

[MAW]

Nice write-up, and good information.

 

Thanks for posting it!

[jagjetta]

Great follow up, Scott! May I print this as a letter to the editor in Military Trader? You raised some extremely important points that I feel are crucial to add to the published record.

John Adams-Graf
Ed, MT

[aef1917]

So the infallible machine's baseline readings for "authentic" helmets came from a fallible human's visual inspections.

 

That's pretty much everything you need to know right there.

[sgtdorango]

No it didnt, according to the article the blame falls on social media and the tech guy he throws under the bus!!!!!.......mike

[Nkomo]

Enjoyed the read and information. Thanks, Scott.

[Bugme]

Thanks gentleman. A lot of folks seem to think that this only hurt the TR guys, however, misapplication of this technology on U.S. helmets caused us no small amount of problems.

Great follow up, Scott! May I print this as a letter to the editor in Military Trader? You raised some extremely important points that I feel are crucial to add to the published record.

John Adams-Graf
Ed, MT

By all means John, feel free to use this in part or in it's entirety. I've also sent a PM to you.

I probably should have added the following link to this thread since it shows the progression of this debate, explains more thoroughly XRF technology and shows some of the data that was used in this process on the U.S. side: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/187042-authenticating-helmets-with-xrf-spectroscopy/

[warpath]

Some folks believe in Voodoo!

[Dirt Detective]

I wonder if they will refund everyone who bought that service? I think it was about $150 for each cert???

[Bugme]

It did become like voodoo however, at one point, XRF had possibilities but, when the technology was misapplied and the database of comparables was so small, it rendered itself useless as a viable tool for authentications. Everyone now has a sour taste over this debacle and any new technology will face even tighter scrutiny.

[vintageproductions]

Like I have said before, when you have to use scientific means to find out an item you have is good or bad, there is no fun left in that hobby.

[Cap Camouflage Pattern I]

Yep, I just go with my gut, and I stay away from Airborne and Ranger helmets, or ones that are sold with graphitti being their selling point, too easy to sharpie something on a helmet cover.

[conn]

thank you

[Bugme]

Like I have said before, when you have to use scientific means to find out an item you have is good or bad, there is no fun left in that hobby.

 

Isn't that the truth! This hobby has already lost some of it's luster and if we have to bring in scientific apparatus beyond any collectors ability to afford or understand in which only a scientist can give you the readings and tell you what it means, then this hobby is doomed.

[jagjetta]

Isn't that the truth! This hobby has already lost some of it's luster and if we have to bring in scientific apparatus beyond any collectors ability to afford or understand in which only a scientist can give you the readings and tell you what it means, then this hobby is doomed.

 

I wonder if the whole rise and fall of XRFacts Technology isn't a symptom of a greater malady within the collector community, and that is, the desire to find the bag of magic beans that will make one's own judgement unnecessary. If a person can find the magic beans, they won't have to take the long arduous road of study, research, making mistakes, and making discoveries.

 

Whether magic beans, mystical water, or divining rods, people LOVE to buy this sort of assurance--it appears as a good gamble and doesn't take near as long as actually mastering a subject area.

 

As Dad used to LOVE to say to me, "Nothing in this life worth having comes easily." He probably wasn't referring to a combat-worn 301st Tank Battalion helmet that was hand-decorated by the original wearer, but I think I got his drift.

 

JAG

[vintageproductions]

JAG it's the same false feeling with everyone wanting COA's on their items.

 

We have all seen many fakers in this hobby ( and the US collecting field is nothing compared to the German collecting field) that peddle these pieces of "assurance" that aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

It comes down to some people being lazy, and I really hate using that word, in that they do not want to do their own homework, they don't want to crack open a book, they don't want to go to shows and touch an item or talk to a seller, they just want someone to pat their hands and tell them everything will be all right.......

[Bugme]

 

I wonder if the whole rise and fall of XRFacts Technology isn't a symptom of a greater malady within the collector community, and that is, the desire to find the bag of magic beans that will make one's own judgement unnecessary. If a person can find the magic beans, they won't have to take the long arduous road of study, research, making mistakes, and making discoveries.

 

JAG

It comes down to some people being lazy, and I really hate using that word, in that they do not want to do their own homework, they don't want to crack open a book, they don't want to go to shows and touch an item or talk to a seller, they just want someone to pat their hands and tell them everything will be all right.......

 

John and Bob, you guys both nailed it, lazy collectors wanting the work done for them so they don't have to take chances. Half the fun is the books, research and learning experience.

[lettow]

 

I wonder if the whole rise and fall of XRFacts Technology isn't a symptom of a greater malady within the collector community, and that is, the desire to find the bag of magic beans that will make one's own judgement unnecessary. If a person can find the magic beans, they won't have to take the long arduous road of study, research, making mistakes, and making discoveries.

 

Whether magic beans, mystical water, or divining rods, people LOVE to buy this sort of assurance--it appears as a good gamble and doesn't take near as long as actually mastering a subject area.

 

As Dad used to LOVE to say to me, "Nothing in this life worth having comes easily." He probably wasn't referring to a combat-worn 301st Tank Battalion helmet that was hand-decorated by the original wearer, but I think I got his drift.

 

JAG

That is what coin collecting has become with the rise of third party grading and authenticating.

[Bugme]

That is what coin collecting has become with the rise of third party grading and authenticating.

 

The same has become true with a great many antiquities as well. This includes but is not limited to, artwork, jewelry, icons, pottery etc. Sadly, most collectors are ignoring subjects like the one in this thread and want to just show off their "eye candy" so they can get a bunch of "atta boy" comments on a forum to make themselves feel good about their purchase rather than to really research and learn if what they got is a fake or not.

[jagjetta]

It occurred to me, some folks might not subscribe to Military Trader (about $20 a year!), so I posted the article for all to read:

http://www.militarytrader.com/military-trader/10-questions-kelly-hicks

 

 

JAG

[vintageproductions]

For only $20.00 a year, it's a bargain......

[anton67]

I wonder if they will refund everyone who bought that service? I think it was about $150 for each cert???

 

 

[Bugme]

It occurred to me, some folks might not subscribe to Military Trader (about $20 a year!), so I posted the article for all to read:

 

http://www.militarytrader.com/military-trader/10-questions-kelly-hicks

 

 

JAG

Thanks John, I think once folks see how big this really was and how potentially dangerous this could have been for the hobby, they won't be falling all over themselves to go to the next smoke and pony show. The explanation of the C/SS debacle is a perfect example of covering the truth. And I have to agree with Bob, $20 a year is cheap when you see all the information, articles, contributions, show schedules and web sites which are all militaria oriented.

[jagjetta]

Thanks John and I have to agree with Bob, $20 a year is cheap when you see all the information, articles, contributions, show schedules and web sites which are all militaria oriented.

 

Shoot...I guess my shameless plug was more obvious than I thought. Whether folks subscribe or not, I do hope they take the time to read the interview and if they have something to share, do not hesitate to do so.

 

This discussion is a meaningful and important process in the maturing of a hobby. New technologies will be introduce. Having discussed other innovations, the hobby will be able to more adequately evaluate these advancements (or step-backs).

 

Personally, I have been suspicious of any new technology that post-dates the introduction of the magnifying glass -- and I am not talkng about those fancy-schmancy lighted magnifiers!

But, I can sometimes be a bit of a luddite.

 

JAG