Panzer Pioneer Black Wrapper II

[N.C. Wyeth]

Good question . . .

Since you always seem to infer there is some sort of secret "ring wearing" brotherhood with a special handshake, ask yourself why certain people are moderators and why they tend to agree with each other. Do you think we are all married to each other's sisters? Most have met through the forum or at shows. Same goes for many collectors here who live 1000's of miles apart. What do you think the common thread is?

Sorry . . . but since this thread has evolved away from it's original intent, to me, it now seems OK to ask this question: What do all of you think is the TRUE answer to Willi Z's question?

[Leroy]

Leroy, I don't recall anyone stating to avoid the "high-end" items. I just think a potential buyer should exercise much more caution when considering such a piece, and walking away when some indicators of risk are present. Even if that means throwing a "baby out with the bath water". This is the way it is in most areas of collecting. An advanced FJ helmet collector is truly going to give it some thought when buying a DD FJ helmet, or a camo with wire, etc. Personally, that comes with the terrority.

As others have said; we can do much better, and do, in most areas of WAF.

Willi,
Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part, but as Jim Pool just said:"Many of the uniform fake(r)s are small operations with small runs, with limited finances. They bang out a few high dollar fakes, acceptable to pass initial scrutiny, sell them and move on to the next project." Similar remarks have been made throughout this thread and the wraps under examination would be considered "high dollar" (in my estimation). The job a of a faker is to maximize return and that's done, at least by the most proficient, by concentrating on the rare and unusual. While you are certainly right that rare pieces require close scrutiny, I would hope that the same level of evaluation would be applied by every collector to every piece, rare or common, every time, and that while more specialized knowledge is perhaps required on a high end piece, "much more" caution is not. Do I correctly understand you to mean that there is some variability in the "acceptable risk" zone and that the presence of risk indicators would not need to be as numerous on a high end piece as on a a more common item in order to justify walking away? Is that because you believe that fakers will have corrected on high ticket items the mistakes they let pass on less expensive pieces? Would not the stamps on a high ticket piece, then, be expected to be better than on a cheaper piece if that was true? Or the insignia be more carefully selected? Or the cloth be better chosen? Based on what Jim suggests in his illustrations (which, by the way, are very interesting, but I'm not sure always correct, just based on stamps I have seen on some common - and real - fliegerblusen - no offense, Jim!), as well as the other criticisms levelled here at these wraps, the answer would be "no".

The reason we "do much better....in most areas of WAF" is because, in my opinion, in those other areas details are routinely fully explored and not left to speculation or imagination. No one can force anyone else to reveal details, but don't you think that the reluctance to reveal details contributes to the effectiveness of the people who you (and others) suspect of wanting to spread confusion here?

[B. N. Singer]

Since you always seem to infer there is some sort of secret "ring wearing" brotherhood with a special handshake, ask yourself why certain people are moderators and why they tend to agree with each other... What do you think the common thread is?

That they don’t have to wake up and smell the coffee? And of course, their collections do not contain anything akin to the example(s) shown in this thread to prove that point.

B. N. Singer
PS. Willi, if I email you my pinkie size could I beg you to get me one of those brotherhood rings? And the instruction to the special handshake would be great too.

[Ohlau]

Looks like thread going again nowhere.
Supreme council, shake hands,depots full of period materials waiting for fakers, no research....Wonder when moderator push button again.

[Michael Kuligowski]

Of course they can. All they need to do is measure some original stamps and use the photos to replicate the fonts. They certainly don't sew a complete uniform from pictures on the net. At some point they have to handle a real item to make templates.

Will it be exact. Probably not, but how would we know from pics on the forum if the size is okay. All it has to do is look acceptable. We judge whether cloth looks wartime or not from pictures all the time, which is a more difficult call IMHO .

Stamps have been an issue on copies for decades. I'm not sure the ink, stamps, techniques of application, are as easy as we assume to overcome. Many of the uniform fakes are small operations with small runs, with limited finances. They bang out a few high dollar fakes, acceptable to pass initial scrutiny, sell them and move on to the next project.

If you study the stamps used on the questionable wraps you'll notice that the ink doesn't adhere evenly, which required excessive pressure in order to make an acceptable imprint. You can see on the picture below that there is a buildup of ink along the edges caused by excessive pressure. The wartime white ink rolls on evenly and doesn't require excessive pressure. Even the most lightly stamped wartime item using white ink can be seen distinctly when converted to a photo negative. Can this technique be used to evaluate all fake stamps. No. It probably will only work on stamps used by this faker. I also don't think he can thin out his ink to roll more smoothly because I believe it will smear.

Jim


Jim

very good picture compilation Jim !

[Richard P]

Of course they can. All they need to do is measure some original stamps and use the photos to replicate the fonts. They certainly don't sew a complete uniform from pictures on the net. At some point they have to handle a real item to make templates.

Jim,

You just illustrated my point. You have to have original stamps in front of you to measure the exact height. I have seen plenty of photos where I know the markings are bad because I have originals in front of me for comparison, and can see with the naked eye they didn't get it right. If you have a button or something to scale off of, that is different. All you have to do is angle the camera slightly and it will all be off.

Why in the heck would a faker read all this crap to learn some little tidbit, when they can go borrow or buy an original from someone.

I know a guy that had lots of rubber stamps made for his fake squadron patches, he just had them use whatever looked close font wise.

Richard

[djpool]

Richard,

I agree the fakers don't need to make the perfect copy in order to make a living. Unfortunately from the collector perspective you need to provide definitive almost scientific evidence to prove to most folks that a selected item is fake. If the fakers manage to replicate the basics (materials, sewing techniques, insignia, hardware) good enough to pass mustard at least by pictures, it doesn't leave you many things to examine. As far as I can remember the PZ Pi wrap seemed to be made from acceptable materials, used insignia that was acceptable and was sewn in an acceptable manner.

In the end I think the single factor that might have swayed some folks to the "I believe its a reproduction" crowd, is the fact that we have 4 wraps, all to rare units, all stamped in a similar manner, all showing the same type of wear and at least two we can trace back to questionable dealers. Too much coincidence! That unfortunately is how most fakes are exposed. Too many items (common to rare) start showing up that can't be explained. You'll notice that the rollout on many fakes takes place slowly over a long period of time. Even in the age of the internet it takes a while for the community to figure out whats happening. The original tropical sidecaps which got dumped on the market all at once never raised an eyebrow, because longtime collectors were aware of the stash.

jim

Jim,

You just illustrated my point. You have to have original stamps in front of you to measure the exact height. I have seen plenty of photos where I know the markings are bad because I have originals in front of me for comparison, and can see with the naked eye they didn't get it right. If you have a button or something to scale off of, that is different. All you have to do is angle the camera slightly and it will all be off.

Why in the heck would a faker read all this crap to learn some little tidbit, when they can go borrow or buy an original from someone.

I know a guy that had lots of rubber stamps made for his fake squadron patches, he just had them use whatever looked close font wise.

Richard

[Willi Z.]

The reason we "do much better....in most areas of WAF" is because, in my opinion, in those other areas details are routinely fully explored and not left to speculation or imagination. No one can force anyone else to reveal details, but don't you think that the reluctance to reveal details contributes to the effectiveness of the people who you (and others) suspect of wanting to spread confusion here?

Leroy, with all due respect I strongly disagree. When a fake FJ helmet gets posted in the FJ section it is generally met with a complete consensus that it is a fake. And without much discussion. It is the same in most other sections of the forum. No one tries to analyze the metal content of the shell, or the molecules of the paint, nor where the fake decal and straps came from. Or why the markings are fake on a fake liner. It is just a friggin fake. We move on.

I have seen, on other forums on the internet, fake FJ helmets blessed as originals, and mint originals declared to be fake. I remember guiding a beginner collector in the purchase of a mint FJ helmet from an auction. He posted it elsewhere and it was declared a fake. He sold it to me at the price he paid, which was a third of the going price. How does one explain that? Birds of a feather flock together? A conspiracy? A secret club? Or a broken logic curcuit? Or the most important thing I was taught as a kid when I started collecting? Learn very quickly who to listen to in life.....

"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but in the companion of fools will suffer harm."

[Willi Z.]

PS. Willi, if I email you my pinkie size could I beg you to get me one of those brotherhood rings? And the instruction to the special handshake would be great too.

I thought you had one already.....

[Leroy]

Well, Willi, I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I think it's best to just move on.........

[djpool]

No controversy allowed on the FJ forum, right:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=396530


Almost every forum dealing with uniforms has a number of threads like this one. Everyone remembers the famous SS Wrap or HG wrap discussion.

Yes and we don't look at the paint etc, :

"Jerry, what do you know about this helmet shell? I find it odd the way the paint appears on the outside while little appears on the inside. The eagle area also appears odd. Would have to see more to be convinced the paint is original, what little there is left.

As for value of such a shell, I just can't give a good guess. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
Willi

Leroy, with all due respect I strongly disagree. When a fake FJ helmet gets posted in the FJ section it is generally met with a complete consensus that it is a fake. And without much discussion. It is the same in most other sections of the forum. No one tries to analyze the metal content of the shell, or the molecules of the paint, nor where the fake decal and straps came from. Or why the markings are fake on a fake liner. It is just a friggin fake. We move on.

."

[djpool]

This was also a nice discussion on FJ helmets.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=fake+helmet

Heres a recap:

Eric Queen -You all know I am not a helmet guy, but honestly, from what I can see, I can't see any problems with the liner and straps. The manufacturing, stamps, leather, etc. seem consistant with many unquestionable originals I have seen. As to the shell and paint, I just wouldn't offer an opinion without seeing it in the flesh. The pattern is certainly strange, but I have seen stranger. If its a fake, its not an obvious one ( to me at least )

Willi-I guess my conclusion is that I am not ready to say it is a total Czech repro based on the photos. The liner does not meet their normal reddish look. Certainly if Czech, it is the improved model......better pads, lack of the foot on the "1", etc. A hands on look would hold the key.

Peter S-I have to be wary when I see two very rare items come from a relative unknown dealer at the same time. With my current state of mind that just raises some serious red flags.

Willi- Hi Joseph, you make a very interesting observation. I looked at some of my FJ helmets and agree with your theory on the "3". All of mine (that had a 3, sizes 71, 68 and 66) had the flat top. Will have to further explore this theory, since they are correcting the "1". I could not, however, come to the same conclusion on the "6". I could not see a clear difference. I am sure the one you got from Bill is original.

There is also a special thread of 50 pages to help the FJ guys sort out E Bay fake FJ helmets. 100,000 views.

This discussion raised the blood pressure on a few folks:

" The matter before us is whether the Luft blue gray para helmet was ever produced. It appears that most here on the forum say "No, no para helmet was ever produced with factory Luft blue gray paint." (paraphrase)


I guess my point is that the FJ collectors are just as stupid as us Army guys!

Jim

Leroy, with all due respect I strongly disagree. When a fake FJ helmet gets posted in the FJ section it is generally met with a complete consensus that it is a fake. And without much discussion. It is the same in most other sections of the forum. No one tries to analyze the metal content of the shell, or the molecules of the paint, nor where the fake decal and straps came from. Or why the markings are fake on a fake liner. It is just a friggin fake. We move on.

"

[Willi Z.]

Jim, please note that I said "generally met with complete consensus" and why I said "generally". Thanks BTW. I also know how to use the search function to find what others have said in the past....

[Willi Z.]

Btw Jim, that eBay authentication thread ws created in order to not clog the section with all the eBay fakes. Any objective analysis of that thread would indicate that generally there is complete consensus regarding whether the helmet is fake. That thread is a service to the FJ helmet collecting community. How many pages is this thread? How would a Panzer wrap authentication work given the players on this thread?

[CWP]

Who among us is arrogant and haughty enough to assert that they could never be burned by a fake, that they have stopped learning? How egotistical does someone have to become to think that they can pass absolute and final judgement on any item based on a few web pictures alone, and that this judgement should be taken as gospel despite steadfast refusal to provide any basis for this supposedly iron-clad verdict? For the most part, few of us know with any certainty what is in any given collector's collection, where their expertise lies, what other collections they have access to, or what experience they bring to the table generally. And yet there are nevertheless people who pompously claim to have all the answers- a small minority of people, it is true, but a vocal minority.

I'm not talking about people like Mike Davis or Glenn McInnes who are generous with images of their vast collections and who very obviously have a mastery of technical knowledge of the uniform field, but rather of those few posters who rarely or never post photos and are more likely to act like a bully, than to post something that would be truly helpful. I find this thread to be vastly revealing- not on the authentication of uniform items, but on the personalities one is likely to encounter in this often frustrating hobby.