Thoughts on wwi camo

[644td]

I purchased this helmet with a return policy and I’ve shown it to a few members off the forum but before I keep it or send it back I wanted to get other thoughts for the purpose of archiving this helmet as good or bad. The paint was test and it’s lead paint but as told to me and as other know old paint can be found and used to fake helmets, so the lead test is not conclusive test.

[Mr.Jerry]

While the 1st pics initially put me off a bit, seeing the second close up ones I do like it.

Obviously "in hand" is always better to judge.

Can we see the "Rainbow"?

[644td]

The rainbow is not as bright in hand and there’s not any crazing in the paint. It looks good sometimes but then it doesn’t. 

[644td]

[daswrack]

this might be because im not well versed in camo patterns and custom camo, but i dont think it would be so precisely done with specific lines on what is usually a kind of "splishy splooshy heres some green and brown on your grey helmet"

[Radio Operator]

I agree with Mr. Jerry's assessment, up close the paint looks good and has age to it, also the paint scheme looks similar to other painted helmets posted on the large WW1 painted helmets thread on here. I'd say if you feel that iffy about it to return it, whenever I have an iffy feeling on an item it never really goes away for me. WW1 helmets with "good" (not saying this one is bad) painted insignia are not rare to find, while it might take some time to get a specific division it will be worth it to find one that doesn't make you question its legitimacy.

[daswrack]

6 minutes ago, Radio Operator said:

I agree with Mr. Jerry's assessment, up close the paint looks good and has age to it, also the paint scheme looks similar to other painted helmets posted on the large WW1 painted helmets thread on here. I'd say if you feel that iffy about it to return it, whenever I have an iffy feeling on an item it never really goes away for me. WW1 helmets with "good" (not saying this one is bad) painted insignia are not rare to find, while it might take some time to get a specific division it will be worth it to find one that doesn't make you question its legitimacy.

you seem more knowledgable than me, so i go back and yea, thats some proper aging on the paint it seems to  me as well, educational for at least 2 of us here

[644td]

Guys Thank you for the input. I’m still on the fence and off forum text it’s 50-50 on the helmet. Any other thoughts? I’m fine with any input, please feel free to share.

marty

 

[aef1917]

Here's one of my 42nd Division helmets, done in a similar color scheme.

 

 

The rainbow on yours looks like it may have been done in artists' oils.

[644td]

12 minutes ago, aef1917 said:

Here's one of my 42nd Division helmets, done in a similar color scheme.

 

 

The rainbow on yours looks like it may have been done in artists' oils.

I love the helmet!!! So do you give it a thumbs down, up or on the fence? LOL 

 

 

[644td]

A helmet being made up from Alexander and son restoration(fakers). This is why I sometimes feel like get out of the collecting hobby. 

[dmar836]

First, I would be surprised if such a painted lid didn't have a name or other info painted inside.

There are areas that look "properly aged" but that's the bread and butter of those who might fake a helmet and the first thing any one would do so I don't get focused on that.

I, at first, noticed the areas of chips in the shell that are filled in with the camo paint. Naturally, many helmets had wear prior to having insignia or victory paint applied. But you always have to weight that with 100 additional years of handling, storage wear, etc. Not much paint wear for something this noticeable and likely to be picked up, tried on, played with, displayed, collected, etc. There are a lot of brush strokes still visible and some of those troubling really short, dabbing strokes in the yellow on the rainbow. I often think that looks like oil paints. Brush strokes are often visible in paint but isn't usually sharp due to shrinkage and handling. The "caramelized" look of the yellow camo is interesting. I don't see the rainbow colors having that. Often an ochre wash really ages things so I always balance that possibility in there. I don't see that around the rivets so...

Then I have to step back and take a bird's eye view and reset the tunnel vision we all get into. If it is 100 yr old helmet paint, it's likely the brightest I have ever seen. Typically, the paint mellows over time and the hues sort of homogenize. UV itself over 100yrs would seam to have a much greater effect(to me). In addition, the obvious blending of blue and green not on a palette but on the helmet itself is more than a little strange. If there was any standardization of paint colors in cans available to a soldier's unit, did he just want something a little different? You can see the two colors on the rivet that don't look well mixed at all nor do they necessarily look very old.

Many will say, "There he goes again" but these are just things I notice before taking a one way view of something. I tend to take the questionable and add to it with positive traits hoping for good. Others hope it's real first and must be convinced of any detracting issues. Sometimes we don't want to know. Then tunnel vision ensues. I will say, I've never been burned but I also don't buy and sell painted lids. :)

Dave

 

[daswrack]

19 minutes ago, 644td said:

A helmet being made up from Alexander and son restoration(fakers). This is why I sometimes feel like get out of the collecting hobby. 

in my opinion its no restoration if the markings werent there originally, if you arent trying to pass it off as original thats fine, especially since markings are hard to come by sometimes, but no matter how hard you try its never been an original marking and never will be

[Bob Hudson]

4 minutes ago, daswrack said:

never been an original marking and never will be

 

The consensus seems to be that most painted WWI helmets were done after the war ended, often on the ship going home, so it could be argued none of them are "original." 

[daswrack]

8 minutes ago, Bob Hudson said:

 

The consensus seems to be that most painted WWI helmets were done after the war ended, often on the ship going home, so it could be argued none of them are "original." 

yes, maybe i should specify "done by the soldiers of the period and not just some crud slapped on by scammers"

[Mr.Jerry]

I am now wondering if maybe the base camo was done earlier and then the rainbow was added later.

If I had to say I would lean 51% good. But I am an optimist.

[644td]

46 minutes ago, Mr.Jerry said:

I am now wondering if maybe the base camo was done earlier and then the rainbow was added later.

If I had to say I would lean 51% good. But I am an optimist.

I had the same thoughts but I wonder if the rainbow was “restored” . I will be sending it back on Monday. The helmet came from EBay.

 

marty

 

[bigschuss]

Painted on the boat, in theater, or shortly after arriving home...that doesn't look like 100+ year old to paint to me at all.  In fact, the yellow seems to show signs of some kind of a modeler's wash.  

[dmar836]

644td,

If you look at Shadawg's P17 in the following thread you will see the type of "mellowing" I referred to. I know you aren't knew to this but we all get that tunnel vision. The checking of the paint is not the big clue but look at the overall "lay" of the paint and the muted colors as they appear to all be headed the same direction in hue over time.

Good stuff here!

Dave

 

[aef1917]

13 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

644td,

If you look at Shadawg's P17 in the following thread you will see the type of "mellowing" I referred to. I know you aren't knew to this but we all get that tunnel vision. The checking of the paint is not the big clue but look at the overall "lay" of the paint and the muted colors as they appear to all be headed the same direction in hue over time.

Good stuff here!

Dave

 

 

Making generalizations about WWI helmets is a fool's errand. There are far too many variables in play to be able to say there is a standard way the paint fades.

[dmar836]

So what is your impression of the helmet in question?

 

[The Rooster]

I see it as the only way the paint could be so dust free and new and in the light shiny,

would be if 103 years ago or so it was wrapped in some kind of cloth that would not effect the paint and left in a trunk

or drawer for 103 years or so. Its too clean. Could be?? But to me its too bright and too clean.

Possible maybe...

Here is one I had for comparison. Mine was prob not in a drawer etc...

[dmar836]

My question to AEF was if my assessment is "generalizing" and a "fools errand" then what is his assessment of this helmet? I'm either a fool and Shadawg's is an obvious fake, we are all in agreement that this paint is quite questionable, or we agree it's questionable but just not because I think so. I suppose another option is that we are all wrong and the paint is good but nobody will say why they think that. I state these are things I notice on any shell and how I mentally deal with that doubt. We are all learning here and sometimes I feel we don't approve of another's methods of assessment and can't let that go yet we we also don't have a differing set of criteria to offer. I tend to be pragmatic and I'd like to know what others see that makes them think this is good so I can add this into my consideration.

Dave

[The Rooster]

Then again, the paint does look old close up in better pics. Question I have is how old? Painted in 1918 or1958 ?

I have no idea. All in all its a pretty cool looking helmet.

[aef1917]

There's no reason Shadawg's helmet and this one can't both be original.  You can find unpainted m1917s ranging from factory mint to rusted-out shells, and the same is true of painted ones.