Painted Medic Helmet With Hollywood Connection

[BryanJ]

Here’s something I think you’ll all enjoy.  I recently picked up a medic’s helmet that was a “Prototype Design Combat Medic” by the Western Costume Company, in Hollywood, that was reportedly used for the 1962 show “Combat”.  The helmet was part of an extensive WWII uniform prop collection recently auctioned off by the estate of a gentleman who worked in Hollywood in the 1950’s - 60’s.  I know next to nothing about WWII helmets, other than painted ones are frequently faked.  The helmet liner “W” appears to be dated 1962 and the steal-pot has no marking I can see, and is a front seam, swivel-bail (not sure if my terminology is correct).  I’d be curious what you guys think of the paint job and helmet in general.  Anyway, the cool factor is way up there, and I still enjoy watching old  “Combat” episodes.  Comments?

[BILL THE PATCH]

I was watching that auction, by centurion auctions I think. They had Vic morrows complete outfit including Tommy gun. And lots of others.

[BryanJ]

That was a great auction.  I actually went and looked at Lee Van Cleef’s Good, Bad and Ugly hat prior to the auction, and intended to bid on it.  I was dreaming, it sold for $11,250.  But, you’re right, that’s where I got the medic helmet.

[Mr.Jerry]

Cool!  I've been getting into the Movie props lately-

sorry I missed that auction- is there a "past results" catalog?

[BryanJ]

Yes, google Centurion auctions past auctions and look for the link to the October 7th auction.  The movie props start on page 16 and there are a bunch of them, some going for big bucks.  

[Ronnie]

I just saw this and checked out the past auctions. On the Sgt Saunders gear.....his helmet cover was a piece of parachute canopy. Not an USMC cover. Most of the “prop” guns are bogus too. They would show scratches and such from use. They are too minty. Also the .45 in the Sands of Iwo Jima John Wayne lot is a Model Gun Company of Japan piece. They weren’t in business in 1945. Lot of this stuff is bogus imo.

[BryanJ]

It’s interesting that you bring this up a year or so after the original post.  Weeks after this auction, I received a PM from someone from the area where the deceased  “prop collector” lived, and it was reported to me that the vast majority of the prop items were faked, prop items.  I have no idea if that is true or not, but if it is, then there were a LOT of folks who paid big bucks for a LOT of fake prop items, some of which went for over $10K (I think I paid $400 for the prop medic helmet).  The biggest issue that this brings up to me, is just what are auction company’s responsibilities to validate unique items that come to them for auction?  My take away after this auction, is that I will never give an auction company any more credibility than I would any other seller, when it comes to descriptions about what they are selling.  

[Blacksmith]

On the topic of “responsibilities”, I’m not sure how anyone can reasonably expect any company to validate items, when a specialized community of collectors often can’t agree on authenticity.  
 

The two subjects that seem to come up most often in militaria discussions is value and originality.
 

Value is easy, as it’s a buyer’s perception, resulting in what they will pay for an item - not what a seller is asking, someone saw on a website one time, or what the seller paid when they bought it.  
 

On originality, while opinions may vary, I feel it’s the buyer’s responsibility to determine their own comfort level with what they’re buying.  If they don’t know the item under study, they should find someone that they trust that does.  But keep in mind, buyers are the ones laying out the cheddar.

Oh, and if that hypothetical day comes where we get burnt on an item, we should consider that tuition, and eat it.  What we should not do is sell an item, to an unwitting buyer, that we know to be bad to try and get our money back.  
 

And let me clarify what may appear to be a contradiction with my ‘buyer’s responsibility’ comments above.  Caveat Emptor is not a lease to cheat someone - intention matters.

 

 

[Ronnie]

14 hours ago, Blacksmith said:

On the topic of “responsibilities”, I’m not sure how anyone can reasonably expect any company to validate items, when a specialized community of collectors often can’t agree on authenticity.  
 

The two subjects that seem to come up most often in militaria discussions is value and originality.
 

Value is easy, as it’s a buyer’s perception, resulting in what they will pay for an item - not what a seller is asking, someone saw on a website one time, or what the seller paid when they bought it.  
 

On originality, while opinions may vary, I feel it’s the buyer’s responsibility to determine their own comfort level with what they’re buying.  If they don’t know the item under study, they should find someone that they trust that does.  But keep in mind, buyers are the ones laying out the cheddar.

Oh, and if that hypothetical day comes where we get burnt on an item, we should consider that tuition, and eat it.  What we should not do is sell an item, to an unwitting buyer, that we know to be bad to try and get our money back.  
 

And let me clarify what may appear to be a contradiction with my ‘buyer’s responsibility’ comments above.  Caveat Emptor is not a lease to cheat someone - intention matters.

 

 

Totally agree with both of the above comments. If we buy something and get shafted then take the loss and move on. How can you live with yourself if you knowingly resale something you know is bogus. There is a bigger judge than the Justice Court Judge.

[neenbeen]

I was checking out this auction as well. My opinion is all complete bogus. You can cross check images of the actors in the "day in June" episode and the chalk writing doesn't match as well as other details. James Coburn's helmet and netting don't match to his season 2 episode. The field jackets appear to be at the front summer m41s. The weapons seem like Denix replicas. No idea where the m43 attributed to Vic came from. I know this is way late in the game, but just my two cents.