Jump to content

Is it just me or is this paint to new for the helmet?


Recommended Posts

If someone did this good of a job to fake it, do you really think they'd be so dumb as to not use a lead based paint? This thing is legitimate, not worth the kind of money it went for but, good nonetheless.

Lead paint manufacture was outlawed in the 70's. Of course, the faker could have found an old WW2 US BU Navy Ordnance spec paint can,( they had rubber gaskets on the lids) but they used some really nasty formulas back then,in addition to lead, chromium, chromates, antimony, etc..( their ordnance yellow was almost 50 percent lead), and on a footnote, ( from a historic view point that many here should realize), paints issued to the field was not the same as used by manufacturing plants. Many field paints were issued as pastes to be mixed up in the field and often applied by brush.That accounts for the many different hues and shades, not to mention 75 year old oxidation. Few of the larger quartermaster and damage repair depots had spray pots, which then again had to mix the pastes. That applies to helmets, grenades, jeeps, artillery, which answers the many questions that are often posted here ( especially in authenticity questions). I would recommend any WW2 " serious collector" spend a few hours reading the US Bureau of Standards pubs, BU pubs, Army TMs and directives. Rember rule one, "just because you have never seen it- does not mean it Is fake"....as nobody here even knew about the WW2 US Navy BU standard hunter green color in use is a very good example...I bet the bidders knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A name on an item just tells you that at some point in that item's history somebody inked their name on it. It provides a glimpse into that item's history. And it makes for some nice research opportunities if a collector is so inclined. It does not, however, provide an unbroken chain of custody, which is personally how I have always interpreted the meaning of provenance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lead paint manufacture was outlawed in the 70's. Of course, the faker could have found an old WW2 US BU Navy Ordnance spec paint can,( they had rubber gaskets on the lids) but they used some really nasty formulas back then,in addition to lead, chromium, chromates, antimony, etc..( their ordnance yellow was almost 50 percent lead), and on a footnote, ( from a historic view point that many here should realize), paints issued to the field was not the same as used by manufacturing plants. Many field paints were issued as pastes to be mixed up in the field and often applied by brush.That accounts for the many different hues and shades, not to mention 75 year old oxidation. Few of the larger quartermaster and damage repair depots had spray pots, which then again had to mix the pastes. That applies to helmets, grenades, jeeps, artillery, which answers the many questions that are often posted here ( especially in authenticity questions). I would recommend any WW2 " serious collector" spend a few hours reading the US Bureau of Standards pubs, BU pubs, Army TMs and directives. Rember rule one, "just because you have never seen it- does not mean it Is fake"....as nobody here even knew about the WW2 US Navy BU standard hunter green color in use is a very good example...I bet the bidders knew.

Not really sure you understood my statement. I was not calling it fake, quite the contrary, I think it is legit.

 

Speaking as a "serious collector", I previously had a career on the automotive side of the paint industry plus, I have heavily researched WWI and WWII paints, both paint manufactured specifically for military issue as well as trying to make sense of commercial paint which was "procured" in the field. I promise you that lead paint can be made yet today very easily and inexpensively if you know what you're doing. You do not need NOS pre-70's mixed paint. Fakers of M-1 helmets are very good at what they do, as we sadly found out a few years back with a trusted collector who turned out to be cranking out very good high end fakes. Of course there were those in the TR helmet collector circle who learned an expensive lesson via the now debunked champagne SS rune debacle. When it comes to aging a helmet to look exactly like a helmet that is 75+ years old? That too is easily accomplished, if again you are good at faking.

"There is no such thing as an expert, only students with different levels of education."
donation2007.gifdonation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2011.gif
donation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif
donation2017.gifdonation2018.gifdonation2019.gifdonation2020.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.