Helmet cover with bamboo camouflage

[RussellM]

I thought that looked like foliage as well, which may have been forced into the liner from the damage received. Or it may be the material in the pocket.

Regards

Russ

[NARVIK1940]

Russell, Yes, I just looked at it again and it looks almost like vegetation might have been pushed in to the liner from shrapnel damage? I'm not sure. Could be padding as you say. I am just intrigued by how the vegetation was affixed to the helmet without the use of a net. Makes me think that nets might have been scarce wherever this was picked up. This is a fascinating piece.

[RussellM]

It would be good if we could see the other side of the pad but I guess that may place stress on the surrounds. I do think it is foliage in the liner though, not the pocket material. And yes, they are all quite fascinating!

Regards

Russ

[nutmeg]

Looks like stuffing with a few fragments of the foliage, sort of hard to tell, don't want to monkey with it too much.

[RussellM]

Thanks for taking a look - I understand you may not want to cause any extra stress on it.

If there is some material there, it must have been forced there from the damage received.

Regards

Russ

[nutmeg]

Could be, I think the anchor popped off when it was hit as well.

[NARVIK1940]

Helmet cover with bamboo camouflage

I looked hard under the foliage on my cover after a suggestion from Russell and see clear evidence that the Navy insignia was removed for some reason. There are several loose threads where it would have been. Hard to photograph, though. Hard to say why, but it was clearly done. So at least it is a little less anomalous now!

[WalterB]

Don (nutmeg), I really like the helmet that you posted. Very nice, imho . It is unfortunate (but understandable) why advanced collectors are more and more reluctant to share their collections. It is just not worth it. In the end, people like Hambone contributed little, if anything, and adversely affected the quality and sharing of the Forum. Sad really. Reminds me of a favorite saying of an old-time collector...arguing with such people is like wrestling with a pig. In the end, you end up dirty and the pig likes it.

[Ron P]

Don (nutmeg), I really like the helmet that you posted. Very nice, imho . It is unfortunate (but understandable) why advanced collectors are more and more reluctant to share their collections. It is just not worth it. In the end, people like Hambone contributed little, if anything, and adversely affected the quality and sharing of the Forum. Sad really. Reminds me of a favorite saying of an old-time collector...arguing with such people is like wrestling with a pig. In the end, you end up dirty and the pig likes it.

Well put.

[BROBS]

It's because people are scared they will post a high dollar item (that they dished out wads of cash for) and someone will rail on it as a fake. Thus deeming it a 'fake' in the eyes of the community and most likely devalued to near 100% loss.

It's true that items should stand on their own but there are always those who call even good helmets fake. It's a very fine line and there is much head butting about what is truly 'real' (pre45) and what is 'fake'. Who do you trust?

I know this doesn't apply to this forum but I have seen US helmets on here called 'good' that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Doesn't mean the helmet isn't 'real' but it doesn't mean it is, either.

The problem and what everyone is frightened of, is that they will never recover the status of their item.... Even if it's 100% good.

Plus, nobody wants to think they got duped... so it's easy to be blissfully ignorant in some ways. If no one has ever told you a helmet is bad, then there is no 'paper' (internet?) or 'people' trail to follow.

-Brian

[nutmeg]

Just because a whistle blower challenges something why should they be the ones to out of pocket pay for the cost of the research? We both know there are numerous, excellent quality camos out there in top collections and in reference books that were outed as fakes. I agree if cans of period paint were used tests would be inconclusive. Camos are the tip of the iceberg & then there are the unapplied, original period decals added to correct shell maker helmets.I'm glad I don't collect German helmets! I pity the beginning collector.

There was a LOT more then that involved, nasty accusations against major collectors and dealers which IMO was spurred by jealousy. Also an attempt to become the sole judge of was good or not . I followed it closely at the time.

One instant that summed it up for me. I photoed a nice camo at a State museum that according the the paperwork had been donated by the vet who brought back ages ago. Untouched beautiful but a bit different thewn normal colors and patterns. I posted it for opinions and Mr Bone instantly pronounced it a fake. When I followed up with the provenance he was furious at me and I was subjected to a good deal of abuse, etc.

[Jeff V]

Nice helmet Don! I look at collecting and the forums this way after many years: If I know conclusively that an item is fake I will say it. If I don't or I only suspect it, but am not sure, I keep my mouth shut. Why crap on somebodies item that they may really treasure? I just don't get the attitude of railing against pieces that are impossible to prove one way or another.
If Jareth doesn't like these foliage helmets fine, he never has to buy one. I wonder however if a vets family sold him one of these at a yard sale for 5 dollars if his opinion would be different. And what price would it be listed for if he wanted to sell it on the e-stand?
best wishes,
jeff

[NARVIK1940]

Helmet cover with bamboo camouflage

First off, there are many commonalities between collecting Japanese, German or helmets of other nationalities. They can be dated to some extent, there are different shapes, liner types, emblems, size and maker marks, colors, paint colors, nets with or without foliage, and even wire in some cases. Camos are much rarer, but exist. White ones, black ones, some with crude patterns. The Japanese applied mud and foliage to their helmets to camouflage them in some cases (so did the Germans). The navy had shipboard helmets in blue or grey just as the Germans, Americans and other nationalities. There are oddball helmets that are rarely encountered, there are helmets for rarer branches or uses (paratrooper for example). Some variants are incredibly rare.

It seems to me that because there seem to be fewer active collectors of Japanese helmets, the discussion gets stifled rather quickly if an experienced collector gives an item the thumbs down. Fakes are more common with German helmets than Japanese, and the former can be harder to identity as such. But there seems to be a much larger community of German helmet collectors (and availability of helmets?) as well. Of course, we know of a few people jazzing up Japanese helmets in order to make a fast buck or just to tinker with them. So skepticism is justified and warranted when unusual or seemingly improbable items are encountered.

At the same time, knee jerk reactions, particularly by experienced collectors, can derail the discussion of potentially authentic items. German, Japanese or otherwise. Particularly when there is no real rationale beyond "I don't like it". Making provocative or aggressive statements meant to offend are not helpful in that context. Trolls like Hambone and Hoss were good at that. Hurling insults at posters that dared present the unusual. In the end, getting themselves banned. Having some kind of an agenda. Telling people they don't belong, that they should go back to wherever they came from (e.g the German helmet forum as I've seen on this forum), that they are beating a dead horse if they are undaunted and attempt to discuss an item with new perspectives or details, etc.

In this thread I have tried to be objective and have tried to understand this cover. I have gotten a translation of the kanji by a forum member (thank you!), a few assessments of the cover (authentic late war navy with insignia removed), and had a world class botanist identify the plant material (a species endemic to islands in the tropical Pacific in coastal and littoral areas that is adapted to sandy soils and windy conditions, and is also not commonly found on the US mainland). I have established that these plants were found on Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

In addition, a forum member spotted Nutmegs helmet on another forum and told me. So I posted it up and asked him for more pictures. It is a navy helmet, too, and the vegetation and mud on the helmet look like they have been there forever. The helmet was sourced directly from the woodwork by an experienced collector who has many years of experience.. The pattern of application is very similar to that on the cover, with twining of leaves in a specific style to bind the foliage to the helmet and cover. Clearly the same plant species on both. It looks as if there might have been a shortage of nets and soldiers improvised with material available. As they often must do in combat conditions where supplies might be scarce, as was the case late in the war for the Japanese.

This is how we learn. We gather information and compare to similar items and do detective work. We are critical and objective. We use our knowledge, experience, analytical powers and logic. It helps if there is more than one piece to compare with, to examine similarities and differences in context. Period photos can help, too, if available.

To me the evidence points to both of these items being authentic. The burden of proof is now on those that disagree to say exactly why either or both of these are fakes. Just because something has not been seen before does not make it a fake. Fakers will generally try to imitate items that are accepted as real and command high value. At least with my cover, that seems to be improbable. I bought it on an online auction for almost nothing. Why would someone ruin a good navy cover and sell it for the fraction of its value this way?

And no, I do not plan to flip it for a fast buck. I value it greatly because I think it is 100% authentic. If someone can clearly point out why I should think it isn't real or is hopped up, I am willing to listen to their arguments. But they must be substantive and logical. Not just that someone thinks they know better and that I am just another stupid German helmet collector that should go back to the German forum with the other ignoramuses because I clearly don't understand the deep and subtle differences between the two cultures. Or whatever the hell.

I might add here that I spent several months living in close quarters with Japanese fishermen on the high seas (Bering, N. Pacific) on cramped vessels and had to learn Japanese language and customs to do my job and get along with crews, so I have some understanding of their culture and mentality. I really don't think that has all that much bearing here but It is part of my life experience and one reason why I am drawn to Japanese culture and history. My interest in German items stems to some degree from living in Norway for twenty years and experiencing reminders of the occupation and war regularly and digging helmets out of the woodwork there.

[nutmeg]

Bravo, well said.

First off, there are many commonalities between collecting Japanese, German or helmets of other nationalities. They can be dated to some extent, there are different shapes, liner types, emblems, size and maker marks, colors, paint colors, nets with or without foliage, and even wire in some cases. Camos are much rarer, but exist. White ones, black ones, some with crude patterns. The Japanese applied mud and foliage to their helmets to camouflage them in some cases. The navy had shipboard helmets in blue or grey just as the Germans, Americans and other nationalities. There are oddball helmets that are rarely encountered, there are helmets for rarer branches or uses (paratrooper for example).

It seems to me that because there seem to be fewer active collectors of Japanese helmets, the discussion gets stifled rather quickly if an experienced collector gives an item the thumbs down. Fakes are more common with German helmets than Japanese, and the former can be harder to identity as such. But there seems to be a much larger community of German helmet collectors (and availability of helmets?) as well. Of course, we know of a few people jazzing up Japanese helmets in order to make a fast buck or just to tinker with them. So skepticism is justified and warranted when unusual or seemingly improbable items are encountered.

At the same time, knee jerk reactions, particularly by experienced collectors, can derail the discussion of potentially authentic items. German, Japanese or otherwise. Particularly when there is no real rationale beyond "I don't like it". Making provocative or aggressive statements meant to offend are not helpful in that context. Trolls like Hambone and Hoss were good at that. Hurling insults at posters that dared present the unusual. In the end, getting themselves banned. Having some kind of an agenda. Telling people they don't belong, etc.

In this thread I have tried to be objective and have tried to understand this cover. I have gotten a translation of the kanji by a forum member (thank you!), a few assessments of the cover (authentic late war navy with insignia removed), and had a world class botanist identify the plant material (a species endemic to island in the tropical Pacific in coastal and littoral areas that favors sandy soils). I have established that these plants were found on Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

In addition, a forum member spotted Nutmegs helmet on another forum and told me. So I posted it up and asked him for more pictures. It is a navy helmet, too, and the vegetation and mud on the helmet look like they have been there forever. The helmet was sourced directly from the woodwork by an experienced collector who has many years of experience.. The pattern of application is very similar to that on the cover, with twining of leaves in a specific style to bind the foliage to the helmet and cover. Clearly the same plant species on both.

This is how we learn. We gather information and compare to similar items and do detective work. We are critical and objective. We use our knowledge, experience, analytical powers and logic. It helps if there is more than one piece to compare with, to examine similarities and differences in context. Period photos can help, too.

To me the evidence points to both of these items being authentic. The burden of proof is now on those that disagree to say exactly why either or both of these are fakes. Just because something has not been seen before does not make it a fake. Fakers will generally try to imitate items that are accepted as real and command high value. At lest with my cover, that seems to be improbable. I bought it on an online auction for almost nothing.

And no, I do not plan to flip it for a fast buck. I value it greatly because I think it is 100% authentic. If someone can clearly point out why I should think it isn't real or is hopped up, I am willing to listen to their arguments. But they must be substantive and logical. Not just that someone knows better and that I am just another stupid German helmet collector that should go back to the German forum with the other ignoramuses because I clearly don't understand the deep and subtle differences between the two cultures.

I might add here that I spent several months living in close quarters with Japanese fishermen on the high northern seas on cramped vessels and had to learn Japanese language and customs to do my job and get along with crews, so I have some understanding of their culture and mentality. I really don't think that has all that much bearing here but It is part of my life experience and one reason why I am drawn to Japanese culture and history.

[zts]

original cover, in the late of war no stamp is normally.