“Modern fantasy “  - shirt and patch 

If I look closely, According to me, a nice type 2 with a matching tab (101st AB). And a nice classic 17th AB.

Based on his actual verifiable jump and combat history I would say even higher. I would prefer it like this without some-one restoring the ribbons and parachutist wings. An Ided and confirmed WW2 Airborne Ike Jacket is super tough to find anymore, especially un-messed with. I would put $1000 BIN on ebay and take offers. Airborne has always had a following and it seem that the desirability with European collectors has even gotten higher. Nice Jacket.

It would be a guy like this:

Definitely, I don't know much about bayonets and knives but I know a little about helmets. So here's a "rare Vietnam m1" that I saw. As another example a while back at a antique store I looked at a "ww1" helmet, took about 9 seconds to see it was dated 1945 on the liner. It gets very frustrating seeing this kind of stuff. That's why unless i getting it dirt cheap I'm going to try to do my research before i buy anything like the knife above. 

Thank you, atb. Does this mean the original owner of this uniform was a driver for officers at headquarters?

The detail in the rotors are amazing!

Sounds high to me with no ribbons, etc. Can you show a closeup of patches?

All the mentioned information is appreciated.

What caught my attention was Allan's comment including the words "soft details" - I'm no wing expert but have watched these threads for 18+ years, having been an art museum curator with some involvement in casting vs die-struck artifacts. So, in my opinion, his observation might well be germane as to deciding authenticity.  Unless a die is highly primitive (i.e., a feature not ordinarily associated with die making), anything struck with one will be crisply defined on the edges and throughout. Recasting of metal objects from an original almost inevitably results in a poor reproduction or facsimile - front and back (as to size and detail), at best, and signs of that are relatively obvious to the naked eye; which is what I believe Allan noticed. For example, to my personal knowledge, there is no "pitting" which can be associated with die-struck metal objects.   It may well be that the wing in question had been or is genuine, a fact I'm not able to discern. But, as to his point about "soft details" I would have to concur by the measure of visual evidence.