M1 front seam fixed bale vs front seam swivel bale

[akriener]

Digging into M1 research it seems there is a lot of opinion on rear seam swivel bale helmets seeing action due to their late production date. In Chris Armold's Steel Pots on page 90, he has a footnote that states "There is considerable controversy among M1 helmet collectors about the position of the seam where the helmet rim joins. Although unable to locate any data from the period, I am convinced that the seam migrated from the front of the helmet to the rear in 1944 when the helmet rim material was changed.".

That aside, I'm curious as to what the community consensus is on front seam swivel bales in regards to collectability. Obviously this would be influenced by personal preference. On page 94 he notes that fixed bales were used from 1941-1943 with swivel being used approximately starting October 1943. Based on those dates and his estimated migration of the seam from the front to the rear, it is a reasonable assumption that front seam swivel bales potentially saw as much action as front seam fixed bale helmets.

Many collectors I have talked to suggest that an untouched front seam fixed bale is the most desirable. But it's my opinion that collecting front seam swivel bales doesn't make a collection any "less" as compared to others provided the helmet is also complete.

So I ask: Regarding front seam helmets only, which type of bale is your preference and why?

[101combatvet]

I have both fixed and swivel bail helmets. I will buy them based on price and originality.

[Svt40]

I have both fixed and swivel bail helmets. I will buy them based on price and originality.

This.

[zimmerit]

Rear seam swivels were used late as well, despite popular opinion

[Chad1]

rear seam

If I had two nearly identical helmets sitting side by side, with the only appreciable difference being one had the seam in the front and the other in the back, I would pick the front seam one. But beyond that, it would come down to other factors as to which would be more preferable.

If a rear seam helmet was made in December of 1944, it has until September of the following year to be WWII in my book.

This is more generous in terms of time available to "get in the fight" than any TR item made in 1945, though in that case the fight came to them.

[akriener]

I don't even want to mess with rear seams at this point. Preferably fixed bale but open to the right swivel bale.

[Craig H]

Some collectors wont even bother with swivel bales , let alone rear seam . Personally I have both In my collection , but Its clear IMO that fixed bale helmets are more desirable and collectible .

[phild]

You write that fixed bales were used from 1941-1943 but of course you mean made not used. Collectors seem to like items that were used in every battle but remained in “mint” un-issued condition, that has always baffled me. Most say things like “it’s all about the history” but generally those who collect true combat used are not regarded as “advanced” or purist collectors. A rear seam swivel bale helmet that got into the line say in December of 44 in Europe or say in April 45 on Okinawa no doubt saw more action than thousands of 41-42 fixed bales that stayed in the states but without iron clad documentation on a specific piece it all becomes what it represents and condition.

[zimmerit]

If I had two nearly identical helmets sitting side by side, with the only appreciable difference being one had the seam in the front and the other in the back, I would pick the front seam one. But beyond that, it would come down to other factors as to which would be more preferable.

If a rear seam helmet was made in December of 1944, it has until September of the following year to be WWII in my book.

This is more generous in terms of time available to "get in the fight" than any TR item made in 1945, though in that case the fight came to them.

In general I agree with you, but there is no way to tell how long something took to get overseas, only generalities. As mentioned you may have a FSFB made in 1941 that never made it overseas. I typically only buy fixed bales, but there are many Europeans who will tell you rear seams have been found on battlefields in eastern France and western Germany from late 44/ early 45. I have an untouched example in my collection that was picked up at Hagueanau.

[N.C. Wyeth]

Front seam, swivel bale = 1943 manufacture, forward

Interesting conversation, as I just "re-discovered" this helmet in my closet a couple of weeks ago - and as I know absolutely nothing about them, the comments here help me understand more about it. Turns out all avenues to learn more about where it came from have long disappeared - but I have gained a little more respect and appreciation for it, especially so as other members here were kind enough to part with some information in this topic:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru....php?t=1043154

Still not certain what to do with it, as it does not fit into my collecting habits. Right now, I am considering keeping it - and trying to find a correct liner to mate it up with . . . but really not sure what to look for. Guess that will be another lesson some day.

[akriener]

You write that fixed bales were used from 1941-1943 but of course you mean made not used. Collectors seem to like items that were used in every battle but remained in “mint” un-issued condition, that has always baffled me. Most say things like “it’s all about the history” but generally those who collect true combat used are not regarded as “advanced” or purist collectors. A rear seam swivel bale helmet that got into the line say in December of 44 in Europe or say in April 45 on Okinawa no doubt saw more action than thousands of 41-42 fixed bales that stayed in the states but without iron clad documentation on a specific piece it all becomes what it represents and condition.

I did copy what Armold wrote verbatim. But this book is dated...

[Zirnhelt]

Early on I was only interested in collecting fixed bale but all helmets interest me. I surely woulnt turn down an unmessed with rear seam for the right price.

[TheCleaner]

To me it makes no difference. It's the general impression and look of the helmet that draws me. I have had quite a few in rotation but I seem to stick with WWII/Korea M1 helmets that has been used in Vietnam as well. The more layers the better no matter the configuration

[WalterB]

To me it makes no difference. It's the general impression and look of the helmet that draws me. I have had quite a few in rotation but I seem to stick with WWII/Korea M1 helmets that has been used in Vietnam as well. The more layers the better no matter the configuration

I agree. It is like saying what do you prefer, a double decal or single decal WWII German combat helmet? All things being equal, the double decal / FSFB helmet is earlier production, more rare and therefore more valuable. However, there are many average double decal / FSFB helmets out there and many outstanding single decal / FSSB helmets as well, and between those two options, I rather have the outstanding example every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You cant make generalizations like these. Each helmet must be considered individually and has to stand and be judged on its own particular merits.

[huntssurplus]

I collect all variations, front seam, rear seam, swivel loop, fixed loop, as long as it is priced right and WW2 manufactured.

With the book "Helmets of the ETO" it isn't hard to date McCord helmets. And even though you can't tell without seeing the heat stamp, at some point you gain an affinity for what WW2 helmets look like (profile, visor shape, paint, etc). When I first started collecting helmets, I was able to get multiple WW2 manufactured helmets for very cheap simply because they were rear seam. I guess it depends on the collector, but I prefer stuff that was actually in combat as that is more interesting. But without providence, if it was manufactured during WW2, and is at the right price, in my eyes, there isn't much difference between the front and rear seam. Obviously "the right price" means they would be price significantly different, but the bottom line is they are both WW2 era helmets.

I don't really collect helmets anymore as I have a pretty nice collection of them. But it was where I started. That's how I went about collecting though. I think part of collecting is being able to show for multiple variations and such. If you don't collect anything late war then you don't have a complete WW2 collection.

Hunt