General US Helmet Collecting Question

[BryanJ]

Over the years I’ve collected quite a few US military items, mainly weapons I’ve bought, sold, traded etc., but I’ve never collected helmets.  I picked up my first a couple of weeks back, have started reading the posts here on the forum, and I have that old familiar feeling that maybe I’d like another one, which invariably leads to twenty.  Realizing the first place to start is with a collector’s book, I have a general question.  With weapons, what every collector wants is that truly unique, original weapon, that has a documented history.  However, with some weapon collectors (Russian) it’s really discouraged to correct a weapon, but not so much with Garands and carbines.  So, what’s the general philosophy with helmets?  Ok to correct, add a helmet liner chin strap, look for a camo net, look for a nice liner to go with a steel pot?  I didn’t see a lot on the forum about those sort of issues.  Just curious.

[Gtilk8455]

These helmets that you’ve described (ones with nets or liners added by you to the helmet) are called put togethers. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with displaying a put together helmet, I have several in my collection. To me the standard for a put together helmet should be that all added parts are original period and that they do not change the helmet in anyway that can’t be changed back. For example: I would NEVER use period original paint on a period original helmet to make an insignia say a 1st Infantry Division insignia. Additionally I think it is important to disclose to someone if a helmet is a put together, especially  to a buyer. Ultimately I think helmets that have all of their original parts definitely bring more money in when put on sale but put togethers certainly have their place within the helmet collecting community. That’s just my 2 cents 

 

Graham 

[Nickman983]

I'm sure everyone has a different answer to this.

 

In general, I'm OK with adding things for display under the condition that they can be easily removed without causing damage. The way I see it as long as that's the case it's OK so long as you don't represent it as all parts being original to each other. For example, I've got some helmets that I've added nets and liner chinstraps to, if I were to sell one of those I could either remove whatever I added or at the very least list what was added so as not to deceive the buyer. Outside of liner chinstraps (which are very easy to add and remove) I personally would tend to avoid replacing things on a helmet. If I get a liner with a roached out sweatband I'd rather leave it as is than replace it.

 

Regarding adding liners to shells, I'm OK with that so long as you keep track of which sets are original and which are put together. That being said, I would tend not to take a liner from one shell and pair it with another unless I was reasonably certain the liner was added for display somewhat recently.

 

I'm generally against doing anything that's more permanent, unless you're putting something together for reenacting or are just looking to make a representative piece out of a bad pot.

 

That's just my feeling on the subject. I know there are some members who are against doing anything to a helmet while others are fine with repairing/restoring their helmets. I think it really comes down to personal preferences and collecting goals.

[Nickman983]

20 minutes ago, Gtilk8455 said:

Additionally I think it is important to disclose to someone if a helmet is a put together, especially  to a buyer.

 

I think this is something that should be emphasized. There are some sellers out there who have no issues slapping together a set and selling it as an original but doing so is not fair to a potential buyer.

[huntssurplus]

As long as you don't remove original paint, paint over original paint, remove chin straps, sew on new chinstraps, add/take away thanks that are irreversible, it is fine IMO. I think 90% of helmet collectors have a similar opinion. So adding a liner, or a net, or a liner chinstraps, anything that could easily be reversed without permanently affecting the helmet is fine. I think the real problem is the people that paint over their 506th PIR spades over nice original paint and add on paratrooper D style chinstrap loops so they can go and play band of brothers in their backyard. Or companies that buy hundreds of while in rough condition, but perfectly original helmets with original paint and then repaint them and sell them for hundreds of dollars more. It can be quite infuriating if you are a respectful collector who understands the history. A common argument is that "there were millions produced" but with how many original helmets I've seen ruined over the years, the actual number is dwindling, and quick. 

 

Now there is a grey area with paint too. Many collectors like to remove original paint on helmets to return it to an original configuration. Many WW2 helmets were repainted and pressed into service in Korea and Vietnam, and so really the repaint is part of the history in my opinion. If we as collectors are really to respect history, shouldn't we leave artifacts as they were used? Even though the helmet is repainted, the WW2 history is still there, just under the later history. That is for another thread entirely, but that is the biggest grey area with helmet collecting.

So in conclusion really, add a liner if you want or a net, or anything you can remove without damaging the helmet. If you want to sell it, try to disclose that the parts you added, were added, and say if they are original to the same period or not. In the end though, if you pay for it, then it is your property and can do you whatever you want with it. No one has the right to say you can't. But morally it usually isn't as accepted to alter items.

 

Hunt

[thorin6]

I would respectfully disagree with the idea that “with weapons, what every collector wants is that truly unique, original weapon, that has a documented history.”  Having started out collecting Milsurps, most military weapons haven’t got any documented history beyond where they were made (SRS not withstanding).  The important criteria are originality and condition, with originality sometimes trumping condition for the hard to find pieces.

 

With helmets you add the “provenance” because some folks marked their helmets with names that can be tracked and sometimes the original wearer of the helmet is the one (or his estate) who passes the helmet on.  When you add the various methods of wearing helmets (covers, painting, decals, etc.) you can get an item that is truly unique.  However, the large majority of helmets (M1917, M1917A1, M1 (and various configurations), PASGT, ACH, MICH, and Special Forces (Bump helmets, for example) helmets) come without provenance that can be tracked.  Many people who collect these will add, replace, or otherwise change the condition (such as adding pads that may be missing in an ACH).  Nothing intrinsically wrong with that if it makes you happy to research and find original pieces to spruce up a helmet or liner.  The moral dilemma comes when someone sells a helmet claiming that it is original when it has added pieces, nets/covers, paint, etc.

 

If you are concerned that you may be marring a rare helmet, use the forum to get opinions, read the books, research the parts (chin strap, net, etc.) before you change anything.  Even adding some pieces can alter the helmet if allowed to stay on the helmet for years.  If you collect high end pieces, changing the helmet is probably not in the cards, but for Plain Jane (or John) Doe helmets, putting a sweat band in a liner to a front seam, fixed bail (or loop), stainless steel rim helmet with original paint is generally acceptable (unless you put a Vietnam era band in place of the HBT band of WW2).  While some people like the rough condition and don’t want to see it changed, other people like a helmet that has all period correct pieces.  Also understand that many helmets have undergone multiple changes through multiple owners and sometimes multiple conflict, so originality may be in the eye of the beholder (not unlike M1 Garands and M1 Carbines that underwent multiple arsenal disassembly and reassembly)

 

In the end, unless you are a dealer trying to make helmets for sale, do what you enjoy while respecting the history.  And, if you are concerned about it, put a tag on each helmet documenting the changes.

[Luxview]

I think this is a wide and heterogeneous field: Restoring helmets, completing them, putting them together. I agree to what other and more experienced collectors have said in this thread before, whatever you do with a helmet, it should be documented and shared when selling (as part of the collector code of ethics).

 

Personally, as many others, I wouldn't restore a helmet either. In my view, every piece has a unique service history and the layers of paint, the scratches and dents document this journey. Taking this away destroys the history and authenticity of it. Also, what would be the goal of a restoration: Make it look like day one, absolutely unused condition, bring it back to the stage when it looked best (whatever this means to somebody) or even bring it into a "could have been" condition?

 

I give you one example, fixed bail, very early production. Had a blue rectangle with a yellow "SG" on it, in a later stage repainted (very dark) with an officer's bar added. To make it worse, somebody (a kid?) scratched parts of the "SG" away, why ever. How can you restore this helmet without destroying parts of it?

[Luxview]

An exception for my would be to carefully undo an unprofessional treatment, like this one: A late WW2 / Korean area MP helmet. It seems (at least to me) that there are still the original MP markings below the over-paint.

 

[huntssurplus]

I always found that adding new paint to a helmet Is generally frowned upon unless it the helmet is absolutely trashed. Removing paint is also frowned upon, unless it is a non military paint job, or some cases if there is some sort of other paint peeking out underneath the top layer. It depends person to person though. If I had a helmet that was repainted post war for Korea or Vietnam service, but I saw something like a ranger diamond, 506th PIR spade, 29th ID insignia, etc, id probably want to remove the paint to reveal it. It all depends and varies though.

Hunt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sgt. BARney]

It all depends on your interests and what YOU want to do with your collection.  Just like weapons (old jeeps too),  all of these things are only original once.  You have probably read the discussions on Garands - do you want to restore a mix-master to all original parts (it still won't be "original") as a show piece, or do you want a reliable functioning rifle you can take to the range and enjoy shooting and/or sharing with others to tell the history?

 

The helmet shown as my avatar is a WW2 front seam swivel bail shell that was a real train wreck of repaints, past paint removal attempts, (even a large area where looked like someone tried to burn off the paint).  There was no texture left on the outside (cork or sand) and no chin straps. I wanted a decent looking representative helmet for living history so decided "What the heck - I can't hurt this one!" and began to restore it. I started stripping layers of paint and uncovered a name and service number painted in white on the inside. I went ahead and completed a restoration with new paint and texturing, but protected the name and number I had found on the shell.  I guess my point is, even on the worst of basket case shells, there may still be a story to uncover. 

 

I restored a basket case WW2 helmet liner (someone had converted it to a skate boarding helmet or something) with repro webbing and leather chin strap, added a repro sewn-on chin strap and helmet cover to the shell,  and put the two together.  It makes a nice set for living history, which I am not afraid to use and wear, plus I am able to "weather" the whole ensemble without worry of damaging a true artifact.  Warning though, I probably spent $15 on the shell and liner originally, but have over $100 in repro parts to do the "restoration" - haha!