nice M42 camo

[legionario]

Hi!
I'd like to show You one of my camo helmet: it's a nice M42 3 tone, without decal. The condition is good, but unfortunately the chinstrap is missing: I've found the helmet in this conditions, and I don't want to replace it.
So, enjoy the helmet, I'll wait for Your opinion!
Many Thanks!
Michele

[legionario]

other pictures

[legionario]

I cannot read the manufacturer, I think it's hkp. The size could be 64

[cobra-2001]

I think someone has painted it post war. the helmet doesnt look like it was worn in the spots where it should be . the one pin is loose . looks like someone has mess with it inside and out.

[blackadder]

I'm sorry to say I must agree with Cobra above.
I'm not saying its a fake, but from these pics I don't get that good old ooooy-yeeaaah feeling.
Looks more like some kind of ruffin creation to me.
but... better pics might reveal a different story.
so from these pics I'm kind of in the dark

[mayer]

On my tastes, i can't see anythings wrong on this helmet, it has the right wears on the whole helmet, and the patina as well, so i don't mind it at all!

[jerryrehr]

A good solid helmet with no issues in my eyes!

Jerry

[cobra-2001]

I dont see the patina on the bottom edge and on the front edge . It looks like someone has painted over it . I like to see a nice worn edge and I not seeing it . It looks like on the inside was scuffed or sanded but dont see the patina like you see on most helmets except the mint ones .

[legionario]

Thank You all for Your opinions: here You have other pictures

[blackadder]

could you maybe take some pics with the macro function of the camera and make them less bright ? those pics almost glow in the dark

[mayer]

Yes indeed, these pics doesn't give it justice, but still think it could have good chances!

[mayer]

.

[gadaru_kanaru]

I think it's got a good chance of being real.

The wear patterns look fine to me. I don't see any patterns that give the indication of being faked. Helmets survived the war with all manner of wear or lack thereof, from mint to extremely salty and everything in between.

If one will study period photographs of helmets in use and the wear on them it would help prevent knee-jerk rejections based on arbitrary notions about wear patterns needing to be exactly the same and predictable.

"Patina" or lack of is not fool-proof means of sorting fakes from real ones. I've seen fragile objects a lot older and made of less stable materials than WW2 helmets that look like they did the day they were made. Post-war storage can have a lot to do with "patina". A helmet stuffed into a cedar chest shortly after the war will likely have no patina. A helmet displayed on a shelf in the room in my farm cabin where we gather for poker, beer & smokes will have a sweet "patina" in less than six months.

[blackadder]

you have a point... but.
the period foto's will never show the amount of detail we can put in a photograph nowadays.
So its not realy reliable to compare wear from these pics.
as a matter of fact, in most pics you wont even see scratches or such on period photographed helmets ( if there are any photo's taken from helmets alone )
Most portrait foto's where taken in the earlier war years and show less wear en are only often camoed.

[gadaru_kanaru]

Most photos don't but if one studies thousands & thousands of pictures one can pick up some clues.

For example, many people look for wear on the top from when helmets were supposedly placed on the ground as an indicator and are skeptical of lids that lack top wear yet a simple photographic study will show that a lot times if not most times helmets that were placed on the ground or other flat surfaces were placed upright and not on their domes. Thus a helmet could show significant wear in many places yet still have a rather nice, intact dome.

We should always remember that these helmets led diverse lives, were in varying conditions when camo painted, in varying states of repair when taken as souvenirs and faced varying conditions during the decades of postwar storage.