Para helmets ???

[SMP]

The one on the French site is not the same helmet as the one bought by Hans of Ebay recently!

Many thanks We should all learn to look more carefully.
So......is it just coincidence that we have two identical, rare helmets, or should we be worried ?

Steve

[Gary Jucha]

1945

Well, the fakers must have had good insight in 1944 ..
BTW .. do you actually collect or research WW2 Airborne ?
Gary J.

[yellow]

not issued to Poles after 1943

Maybe there are photos of this gentlemen wearing this helmet at Arnhem, but that only proves that the gentleman wore a fibre rim during the battle not the fibre rim in the museum.

1943 is not the year of the battle of Arnhem, who is to say another helmet was not issued after the battle just as BD's were? Or the helmet was obtained from another source perhaps another member of the regiment? Or even the helmet in the museum is a helmet that he left behind and asked for a replacement before the battle? I dont believe the first thing on this gentlemans mind was to go running to the museum to donate his helmet, there was still much for the unit to do.

Photographs are a source material for fakers.

Old equipment is also kept in stores. That is proven on this forum, remember the war time dated helmet that has featured on this forum recently? The gentlemans name who is inside served from the 1960's to the 1990's a long time after that pattern of helmet was manfactured.

[jelle]

Many thanks We should all learn to look more carefully.
So......is it just coincidence that we have two identical, rare helmets, or should we be worried ?

Steve

Well liked the RAMC insignia on the one Hans bought ,not sure about the French one.I could be the french seller saw for what price the one on Ebay sold for and decided to sell one in his collection{maybe added the RAMC insignia as well?}

[Gary Jucha]

I give up !

I give up !!!

The earth is flat, and Elvis works in my local chipshop !

Gary J.

Maybe there are photos of this gentlemen wearing this helmet at Arnhem, but that only proves that the gentleman wore a fibre rim during the battle not the fibre rim in the museum.

1943 is not the year of the battle of Arnhem, who is to say another helmet was not issued after the battle just as BD's were? Or the helmet was obtained from another source perhaps another member of the regiment? Or even the helmet in the museum is a helmet that he left behind and asked for a replacement before the battle? I dont believe the first thing on this gentlemans mind was to go running to the museum to donate his helmet, there was still much for the unit to do.

Photographs are a source material for fakers.

Old equipment is also kept in stores. That is proven on this forum, remember the war time dated helmet that has featured on this forum recently? The gentlemans name who is inside served from the 1960's to the 1990's a long time after that pattern of helmet was manfactured.

[yellow]

{maybe added the RAMC insignia as well?}

Excellent point there. Now we are thinking logically. What is the evidence is genuine? Some big noise in the hobby once owned it? If that collector is still active why did he part with it? This type of evidence should be viewed with scepticism.

If I were selling helmets in my collection, I`d allow a collector to make up his own mind if the helmet was genuine. Not make up a load of bull about the helmet being in this or that battle. Its just a helmet so pay what you as a collector think it is worth and lets cut the crap.

The earth is flat, and Elvis works in my local chipshop !

Is a shame that modern science cannot prove a helmet was used in a particular battle. How much for small bag of genuine Arnhem soil?

[Beau Brummel.]

Listen to Gary yellow, he knows what he's talking about.

Both he and I have been priviledged to be shown some of the most incredible collections In Holland; to include at least a dozen bullet and shrapnell damaged helmets picked up at the time and donated over the years to a particular collector. A polish helmet replete with picture of It on grave marker (found many years apart). Berets taken from houses or in some cases given as gifts to homeowners by troops. Drop containers recovered from farm yards, glider pieces same, Smocks recovered from buildings (one covered in blood) and on and on and on. just cos you haven't seen It and have no experience of It doesn't mean It's not so. Bloody hell, you live in Lincolnshire, any idea how many US hand carts and ammo trailers etc were being used in nurseries up there until fairly recently. I've had one and Gary I believe has had several. Like It or not this stuff does tend to stay around where It was used or dropped in large quantities.

I appreciate that medal collecting Is a very dogmatic discipline with facts and documentation cross referancable and checkable but on this side of the fence things are a bit different. One often has to do with a sworn affidavit and written provenance.

Yours, Guy.

[Beau Brummel.]

My mistake, you live in Dorset.

[yellow]

Anyone would think that there arent any collectors in Holland and they they are not buying on an international scale. Would my small collection of airborne actually be worth more if I shipped it all out to Holland and declared it was a load of Arnhem pick ups?

If civilians were given berets. Go away and prove that, prove that very same beret was the one given away and not an example bought from a dealer or another source? These are mass produced items and anyone can write a name inside. Its totally impossible to prove mate. There were collectors for this gear, even during the war.

Written provinance you mean those little brown paper tags that are knocked out in Louth?

You know I once found a GVI penny at Scampton airfield, it must of been Guy Gibsons lucky penny he took on the Dams Raid. Your idea of provenance is just a rediculous as that tale, because the evidence is twisted around facts to make it sound believable.

...........and as for the comment of masses of material being located in battlefields Ive spent almost 20 years looking for WW2 RAF items in Lincolnshire and I can tell that such items are rare despite the incredible wartime RAF presence in the county.

[G.F.C.]

Yellow....

I agree with Gary - the earth is flat.

I have know Mr. Jucha for many years through involvement with the late Polish Airborne Forces Association.

Think what you want, but I knew the adjutant well, as well as other Polish Para Brigade staff officers. The Adjutant kept most of his stuff, including his smock - photos exist of him during the battle wearing this smock. It is very difficult exactly replicate the camouflage pattern on the right sleeve of the smock.

Some of these items mentioned by Gary were discussed with me years ago - though no one has as of yet made up a “Provenance” for me and my relationship with Mr. Jucha, I can testify that he is a meticulous and skeptical researcher with a generous spirit, but then again, who am I.

I myself, have not been an active collector for almost 20 years, and never with the paras - I did not care to compromise my interviews with the impression that I was after whatever the veteran had retained.

PS - I do have a few modest items that I was given despite this, and was shown other interesting items and some were actually carried during the battle, but there is no reason to discuss them. We live in “free countries” which permit practice in any belief, and you are free to believe anything you wish to.

Cheers,

G.F.C.

[Beau Brummel.]

well then this doesn't need to go any further does It. We are all liars and only you know the real truth. When did you become so argumentative, I actually remember you coming on here asking for advice? I can only assume with all this attitude that you have started selling medals and are looking to build some form of reputation.

[yellow]

Dont get me wrong, I respect everyones opinion here and the case I`m making does not only apply to Airborne militaria but any mass produced militaria that is sold, listed or exhibited with the claim that it was present in a particular battle.

What started this ball rolling for me was a comment made earlier in this thread that put forward the point that dealers and collectors do not understand the significance of the militaria they are selling. Well my point is there is actually no way to prove the significance of this type of mass produced militaria, I think this type of provinance on mass produced military equipment is something thats being abused by both dealers and collectors to achieve higher prices on the items they are selling.

[Beau Brummel.]

Ah, well, I agree wholeheartedly with you then.

I was responding to your question with examples with which I am happy. As we have said there Is no paper chase with these items ergo one has to take a different route. If a piece has a nice story I will relate that to a potential buyer however I make them aware that this Is simply the way It was put to me when I purchased the item no more , no less..The Item's price is not affected and It must stand on It's own merrit. If It comes with stacks of pictures, written provenance etc etc then that Is a different matter.

I remember about 5 or 6 years ago I had a BD and SD group to a captain In the Royal West Kents. It came with stacks of paperwork and a large portrait of the owner in his service dress. It was quite clear from the picture that It was the exact same jacket as the one I purchased. It came from a totter who picked It up in house clearance. Now i know The veteran himself didn't give It to me but one can't really argue with that as provenance can one?

Yours, Guy.

[DJT]

Lets just take a step back here and take a look at the definition of provenance itself.

Provenance is the documented history of ownership for an item.

So if you have that documented history, then you can certainly make claim to having provenance. The problem of course lays in what your 'documented history' actually is and how reliable it is under scrutiny. 'Provenance' can range from the laughable (a photocopy of a scrawled note saying my uncle Jim told my aunts friends babysitter he wore this in Burma) to the most impressive (documentation of where it has been since the war/battle, letters of donation from a veterans family, attestation papers from the veteran saying he wore/used something in a certain place etc, photographs of it being worn before the battle/in the theatre and so on and so forth). Of course you will never or very very rarely get a clear photograph showing your man wearing/using the item during an actual battle so you must rely on what evidence remains and apply some common sense.

I do understand where Steve (Yellow) is coming from with regards to many sellers associating particular battles and campaigns to items for sales purposes. I think we would all agree that most of those associations are wishful thinking/invention rather than provenance but that does not and should not lead us to dismiss all items with associations to particular battles or actions. I have a few items in my collection which I believe were worn in particular actions by certain individuals but I could not provide a completely solid line of irrefutable documentation from WW2 to prove this in a court of law. Despite this I am happy with their 'provenance' given my knowledge of the items, their attestations/associations and how I acquired them. That of course is probably neither here nor there to other people and may not fully convince them as it does me. I think that as long as the owner of an item is happy with the provenance then that really is all that matters at the end of the day. However I think when it comes to selling an item (if you do promote the item as having provenance or an association to a battle) then you have to be able to substantiate that to the buyer in some reasonable manner.

Most military items I see linked with famous battles are usually held in museums and I have no problem believing their 'provenance' if the item is the right model/type used for the date of the battle and the condition is reflective of their likely use. Museums if they are properly run will have some documentation on an item they claim to have provenance although they may not indicate what exactly that is to the general visitor. The battle damaged Polish Para Helmet in the Sikorski Institute is one example I believe without hesitation. If you can combine how they obtained the helmet, how long they have had it, how as a collector you know its 100% original and has realistic wear and tear then the only logical assumption is 'yes it was there'. That may not be scientific enough for you Steve or indeed other people but that brings me onto the most important point about provenance which is faith.

You have to put faith into the people who have documented the item from the start and into the people who have cared for the item over time and trust they are truthful and did not replace the item at any point. Don't get me wrong, a healthy dose of skepticism is always good (and indeed necessary) but if you think everyone (veterans, relatives of veterans, archivists, historians, authors, curators, dealers etc...) are all unreliable then it might be difficult believing anything you think you know about militaria.

Whoops, I did not mean to write so much here but hope I have made a few decent points.

[yellow]

Ive have got mass produced militaria in my collection that I know is attributed to a particular battle that has been bought in the trade but I can think of no concievable way of proving it, even when Ive got the medals, all the photographs, all the letters, all the badges to the same man. The difficulty has come about because of the fakers and disreptable people operating in the hobby creating the doubt.

Let me explain........

In the collecting days of old items would be removed from group lots to achieve a better price. Uniforms would go to uniform collectors, belts to belt collectors etc. But now for a number of years the opposite is occuring, people are actually adding items to group lots to make them more desirable and achieve a better price. For exmaple what is to say I havent added a group of WW2 un-named medals to a pay book?

The only way to know for certain is to create a written inventory of the items you are buying and have someone close to the veteran put their signature to the list. That is my own personal way of assuring that when you buy group lots from me that the veteran did in fact wear that cap, sam browne etc, essentially mass produced items. I realise when it comes to collecting that there is not always the opportunity to be so meticulous, but I`m afraid that is the only evidence I am prepared to accept. When I buy from people like the house clearance boys I`ll even go to the extreme of paying them for the privalidge of knowing the information as to where the militaria was removed from then visit the property myself with the aim of getting that valuable signature on the bottom of the inventory.

Signatures can be faked like almost any item of paperwork, but its going to take a very determined faker to get hold of the signature of a family member of a veteran........of which can be verfied for a fee with someone such as a solicitor.