"Minty" SS D/D M35

[InfanterieSammler]

...

[Ken N]

A well-known dealer has been trying to sell this helmet but you won't find it on his web site. You may form your own opinion as to why.

The well known dealer that Mr. Wahl refers to is me.

But he is mis-informed and may well have done better to get a few more facts before beginning a thread in such a potentially inflammatory way.

I had this helmet in my hands and these photos were indeed e-mailed by me to another person but the helmet does not belong to me nor am I attempting to sell it to anybody. I do not know where he obtained such information but his statement is completely false.

It is not my purpose here to make any claims or arguments regarding the originality of this helmet, either pro or con.

I have no reason to believe that Mr. Wahl has anything but the best intentions in mind concerning the helmet collecting community but by wording it in such a way and not verifying the whole truth, the allegation is fairly clear. I feel that this allegation is both unwarranted and irresponsible.

[InfanterieSammler]

...

[Ken N]

Ken - Strange that you are not willing to comment on the originality of the helmet one way or another? Why not? We all know these are fake SS decals...Let me ask you this: Did you or did you not offer this this helmet to a dealer from the mid-west last week for $8500? John

Let me answer you this. No I did not. As a matter of fact the pics were sent as a warning.

I'll be glad to discuss this helmet as candidly as you wish once this point has been made: Somebody out there is a liar.

[Erich Wahl]

Ken,

Please explain the following. Below are photos of a Polizei M40 taken before you sold it on your web site a few months ago. Nothing in your description indicates that the liner was replaced. Did you replace the liner yourself and fail to mention it or did you fail to notice that the liner had been replaced when you bought it? Did you advise the person who bought it from you of the situation after I originally sent you these photos?

Item # 390: NEW! M40 Double decal combat police helmet
A nice example of a late war M40 combat police helmet. This M40 helmet is maker/size marked Q64 on the inside rim at the rear. (The Q firm continued to produce the M40 shell well into 1944 and the rear placed maker stamp shows that this helmet was produced post-1943). The original wartime texture feldgrau paint remains 90% intact. The police eagle decal shows very nice detail and rates at 95%. The national color shield shows some wear and tear but still rates at 88-90%. The split-pins show no signs of tampering. The wartime steel liner band has it's maker marks and date obscured by dirt build-up between the liner band and the shell. The leather of the liner is completely intact and shows moderate age and wear . The drawstring is not present. This helmet is in overall very good condition. ** SOLD **

[Erich Wahl]

2

[Erich Wahl]

3

[Ken N]

[quote=Erich Wahl]Ken,

Please explain the following. Below are photos of a Polizei M40 taken before you sold it on your web site a few months ago. Nothing in your description indicates that the liner was replaced. Did you replace the liner yourself and fail to mention it or did you fail to notice that the liner had been replaced when you bought it?


Erich:
In this instance you bring up a completely fair case.

I bought the helmet in question with a liner in it. The split-pins appeared unmolested and I noted that in the description. I think we all know that split-pins can, on occasion be re-bent with little or no evidence. I was fooled by these pins in this instance.

I found out that the helmet was at one time liner-less only when you contacted me by email after I sold it. The buyer was notified about this. I believe that I apprised you of this at that time.

I have made other mistakes in the past as well. There's never been any secret about that....But the leap from split-pins to high-dollar counterfeits is a large one.

In retrospect, I cannot blame you or John for your suspisions. It is dog-eat-dog in the helmet world sometimes and though I have no videos or transcripts to back me up, I am still hoping for the benefit of a doubt.

[Erich Wahl]

I had this helmet in my hands and these photos were indeed e-mailed by me to another person but the helmet does not belong to me nor am I attempting to sell it to anybody.

It is not my purpose here to make any claims or arguments regarding the originality of this helmet, either pro or con.

As a matter of fact the pics were sent as a warning.

So, you don't want to comment on its originality but sent the photos to someone as a warning.

You claim I am misinformed; however, you are not doing a particularly good job of explaining the situation. Please, enlighten me.

[Ken N]

So, you don't want to comment on its originality but sent the photos to someone as a warning.

You claim I am misinformed; however, you are not doing a particularly good job of explaining the situation. Please, enlighten me.

Erich:

It was not my purpose to discuss the helmet in that particular post. But I also said that I would gladly discuss this helmet as candidly as you wish once this point has been made. I see that you have "selectively" quoted me in that regard.


Enlighten you? I will explain fully.

This helmet was in my possession and I took it to a show in KY 10 days ago. It was discussed there among several collectors. I freely showed it and made no bones about it's appearance and my belief that it is not what it appears. Some agreed with me and some did not. A value was discussed based upon it being a real one but not by me and it was not offered by me. It was brought for show. Not for sale. It was showed to people who wanted to see it but it was never placed upon my table.

Later photos were requested from me and I sent them. Along with a telephone conversation in which I again made my feelings known about the helmet. Obviously the photos were forwarded to others. I have no problem with that (or I would not have sent them) Obviously they were sent by somebody to you along with a version of the story and hence this became an "episode".

I don't know what you look like so I don't if you were at the show. If you were not there, then I assume that you have heard the story differently. I can do nothing about that. As I said in my last post, I have no proof to back me up.

The helmet belongs to the estate of a deceased collector. It has been returned to the family. I was not at liberty to destroy it and have no power over what they will do with it.



It is unfortunate that this story has been placed before a public forum in an incomplete version. I say "incomplete" because of my lack of proof. Well, I didn't think at the time that I would be needing any proof so I didn't get any.


That is the full story. If you believe me, then that is nice. But if you and John think I am lying and decide never to buy a helmet from me, then there's nothing more I can do. Simple as that.

[Erich Wahl]

Ken,

I appreciate your responsiveness. But some things about your version of events puzzle me.

Why did you bring the helmet to the show if you thought it was not what it appeared to be? Because the family of the dead collector wanted you to ask for opinions?

Anyway, you photograph the helmet while it's in your possession, take it to this show where some people like it and others don't. Then another dealer miscontrues talk about the price of an original helmet in that condition and thinks you're offering it to him at that price.

Someone (I assume this other dealer) requests photos and in an earlier post you said you sent them as a warning.

If you had the helmet and you weren't selling it then why were you warning anybody about it?

The only other possibility is that the family was selling it. So, were you selling it for them or did you find out that they went directly to this other dealer and you were trying to warn him that he shouldn't buy it?

Again, if you weren't selling it for them then why bother taking it to the show? And why would they let you have it if you weren't going to buy it or sell it for them? This is a bizarre story.

[Ken N]

I like to think that all this is your attempt to be helpful to the collecting community but Erich, I have to tell you that there really is no bogie man here.

First of all, look at the thing. Scary isn't it? But does it not also make quite an interesting conversation piece? If this thing came to you might you not be tempted to carry it with you someplace for "show and tell"? I think that if you were found to be in the possession of such an item, I would not be inclined to taunt and hound you for a precise and carefully worded explanation.

Yes. It was sent to me and I soon informed the family of what it was. It was allowed to stay with me until it became convenient to drop it off with them again. They do not live that close to me. While I had it, I shared it with others to examine.

The word "warning" was used in my post as a one word explanation for why the photos were sent. They were sent to several people. "warning"or "advisory" or "hey, look at this" or "have you seen anything like before?" or any number of different words or phrases. I did not realize that I would be called to account for exactly which one I used.

Instead of dissecting every word and phrase that I throw out there, let's try it this way for just a moment. Ponder this little bit of common sense: Some pretty high-end people in the hobby were aware that I was in possession of this helmet. They'd seen the pics. My trying to sell such a helmet to a dealer is bound to lead to discovery. That's a dead certainty. Moreover, my almost parading it around a well-attended military show is not the way that an "under the table" deal is going to be made, even if I had the inclination. If I were trying to slip one by on John Q Public, why did I send photos through the internet? It is a small world and a helmet of this nature is bound to attract wide attention and gossip. My name is a household word in the helmet community. Do you really think that I think I could keep such a shady deal under wraps considering the exposure I gave this thing?

In short: if you really believe that I am this colossal idiot, then we have nothing further to discuss and you can believe what you will.

I have no control over who may have construed what as what. I can comment no further upon whatever version you have heard or from whom. I am sure you can come up with several alternative theories as to why I did what I did or why I did it in any certain way. Whatever may further Puzzle you about any of this will just have to continue to do so for I am finished explaining myself to you. Conjure up whatever inconsistencies you can. Start your own rumor mill. That's up to you.

[BobI]

I know all of you involved in this post, I think you are all outstanding people as well! In this case I truly feel that Ken should be given the benefit of the doubt. From my experience people with “slimy” intentions do not have 1 occurrence as such, they have a long trail. I know what nasty things many dealers have done and Ken is one of the best, I would trust him! Everything is speculative so let this go.
Best Wishes,
Bob

[Erich Wahl]

Since I know of no e-mail trail (except for the photos) or taped conversations, this is a situation of "He said/She said." And in this case I will be the girl since I'm younger and prettier than Ken.

[ROBB]

Since I know of no e-mail trail (except for the photos) or taped conversations, this is a situation of "He said/She said." And in this case I will be the girl since I'm younger and prettier than Ken.

You Americans are crazy ,you accuse the member of doing all sort of nasties then sign off with an amusing quip.Weird.Rob.