DAK Palm tree hand painted insignia on helmet

[Perry Floyd]

I have several "concerns" over the last one pictured, my opinion though.

[BobI]

I agree with Perry.
Best Wishes,
Bob

[Maple Creek]

DAK helmet liner

Here's a photo of the liner.

I welcome any specific criticisms about this piece. I think that's what the W-A forum is about.

I realize that any DAK decaled helmet will automatically generate skepticism. Also I appreciate that there are at least two things that might raise flags regarding this specimen: the fact that it appears to be originally a DD m-40 (rare) and that the chinstrap is maybe not conventional.

I intend to send the thing to Kelly Hicks for authentication at some point. It is hard to evaluate from photos and a easier to judge hands-on.

By today's standards because of the high state of the forger's art, I would probably immediately dismiss this helmet as a fake. This helmet, however, has been unaltered since I bought it in 1973, and it is difficult for me to imagine a forger taking the time or having the expertise to craft and age a replica like this over thirty years ago.

One interesting thing about the helmet is that it has the names of three owners in the liner. I tried to research "Franz Hartlieb" and contacted the German agency that tracks war-dead, but found nothing.

[Willi Z.]

Just like all of the FJ helmets with bogus painted green devils, comets, etc, painting DAK insignia on camo Heer helmets was the favorite activity of the "helmet enhancers". I have yet to see a DAK helmet that was convincing beyond all doubts. I believe originals may exist, I just haven't seen any that I would feel good about.

Like a medic's camo helmet, when you see a real one it would probably be a "one looker". Just too easy to add the DAK emblem.

[Michael Kuligowski]

Here's a photo of the liner.

I welcome any specific criticisms about this piece. I think that's what the W-A forum is about.

I realize that any DAK decaled helmet will automatically generate skepticism. Also I appreciate that there are at least two things that might raise flags regarding this specimen: the fact that it appears to be originally a DD m-40 (rare) and that the chinstrap is maybe not conventional.

I intend to send the thing to Kelly Hicks for authentication at some point. It is hard to evaluate from photos and a easier to judge hands-on.

By today's standards because of the high state of the forger's art, I would probably immediately dismiss this helmet as a fake. This helmet, however, has been unaltered since I bought it in 1973, and it is difficult for me to imagine a forger taking the time or having the expertise to craft and age a replica like this over thirty years ago.

One interesting thing about the helmet is that it has the names of three owners in the liner. I tried to research "Franz Hartlieb" and contacted the German agency that tracks war-dead, but found nothing.

I am not a helmet guy.. but I can comment a strap used as a chinstrap - its not german WW2 manufacture blanket strap - this is wrong buckle - its too round.
I would be very suspicious when seeing one post war/fake element.. even when its only a strap...

[langemarck]

IMO you can't reject the originality of a helmet , just because of a "not textbook "chinstrap.
if this helmet was found in 1973, with this chinstrap on it, then I think it is possible it was war time replaced.sometimes soldiers had to take what they could find!!
I have one with a CH chinstrap, and that is for 100% war time placed.
just my opinion.

[Dan P]

IMO you can't reject the originality of a helmet , just because of a "not textbook "chinstrap.
if this helmet was found in 1973, with this chinstrap on it, then I think it is possible it was war time replaced.sometimes soldiers had to take what they could find!!
I have one with a CH chinstrap, and that is for 100% war time placed.
just my opinion.

I think the chinstrap looks original. It's consistent with early style roller buckle chinstraps from the early to mid-1930's that were used on the first M1931 liner bands. I believe these chinstraps were used well into the 1940's.

Dan

[Spanish Freiwillige]

I woud be more concerend about the hand painted insignia and the paint finish than the chinstrap

[langemarck]

handpainted insignias will always be questionable, but considering the date of purchase get's the benefit of the doubt for me. I would keep it on my shelf, but will not buy it at this moment, the price would be to high now for taking the risk!
If someone could tell the national shield is original, I would give it a
just my opinion
greetings Ivan

[Dan P]

I woud be more concerend about the hand painted insignia and the paint finish than the chinstrap

I agree, the chinstrap should be of last consideration on this helmet, but I wanted to clear that up so we could move on.

The palm tree/swastika insignia on the helmet Mark purchased in 1973 appears to have been applied using a stencil. I think that's just as plausible, if not more so, then a hand painted insignia since equipment and vehichles most likely had it applied on this way.

I would encourage Mark to send the helmet to an expert like Kelly Hicks for a hands-on. That MAY help to finally resolve this issue. Plus, a COA from Kelly will certainly raise the value of the helmet.

Dan

[BobI]

I think you guys are spending too much time on a helmet that has too many issues. A hands on is always best but from here I would not ask anyone to send this helmet to me. The chinstrap really has nothing to do with my opinion.
The purchase date reminds me of a phrase, "buy the item and not the story". Stories are nice and can be considered after the item has stood the test!
Best Wishes,
Bob

[Maple Creek]

Ty

I appreciate all the opinions. When I get around to sending it to Hicks, or maybe Ken N, I'll post their assessment.

Estimado Bob - The helmet is not for sale. I just posted it because I thought it might be of interest and for comparison purposes.

Cheers,

Mark

[Maple Creek]

My DAK helmet a probable fake

I posted the findings from Kelly Hick's analysis elsewhere, but I thought I'd post it here as well for the benefit of people searching this discussion thread. In addition, I found an old diary from my trip to London in the early 70s that sheds additional light on the subject.

I mailed the helmet to Kelly Hicks for analysis and possible certification. After contemplating the helmet for a few days and after a few email exchanges between us, we decided that the helmet is probably a fake. There were two things in particular that raised suspicions. The first thing was the blistered paint visible on the helmet. This is visible particularly in the picture of the helmet's liner. Apparently, this was an artificial aging technique used by a source in London in the early 1970's. The second thing was the DAK stencil decal, which conformed to a patern used on replica helmets from the same era.

As some people pointed out in this discussion thread, the chinstrap is not a factory original. It appears old, however, so it is possible that it is a period field repair; or it could be a post-war enhancement.

According to the old diary that I found yesterday, I bought this and another helmet in 1972 from Waffen Europe, a London militaria dealer. I had forgotten that the second helmet had come from the same dealer. The second helmet, a German army double decal transitional, also turned out to be a fake. The decals showed the same blistering patern that was used to age the DAK helmet. Hicks said this was probably done with a blow torch.

Now I fall into the camp of the skeptics. I think most DAK decaled helmets were 1970s vintage forgeries, although I suspect that there may be a few originals out there somewhere.

[william r match]

Mark,

I commend your openess and findings on this issue.

I'm sure an original DAK with a palm tree will turn up at some point in time. Too big a theatre of WW2 and too big a temptation: not to have genuine examples.

Billy

[jacquesf]

Here is one, supposedly picked up by a South Afican vet in the 8th army. Any comments. Jacques