I agree with Giorgio Drew. This helmet should not be discounted outright due to these pics.
If you can get better pics have them done in natural (outside) light focusing some close-ups along the edges to show the wear and transition to the overpaint, and some of the bigger chipped areas.
This is an overspray and although not the norm for a Heer "DAK" trop it could be Italian campaign.
I would expect more wear to the top of the helmet where it would have been placed repeatedly. I see scratched up areas that look like toolmarks. If not for these scratches it would look nearly perfect like it had just been done. I don’t see patina. I would ask for more pictures too. Just my opinion camos are tough at times.
Decal seems off to me and wear and general appearance seems off, looked like too marks to me as well.
It would benefit from better photos.
Having it appear with a fake SS lid also raised my suspicions regarding it as well.
Some other thoughts?
Eric
looks like an NS shell with CAP decal. I see no immediate red flags but caution must always be key when buying anything. I would pursue but, more photos and "in hand " a must to be 100%.
I tend not to like 100% concentric wear on the vent dome bulges as this is something most fake camos have. But, NS and Quist shells have much larger and further protruding domes they can pick up more wear than an EF lets say.
The interior looks ok but the original poster really needs to make a better effort with much more detailed pics of the exterior paint and decal for something as contentious as a camo lid.
One thing I forgot to mention was the vent holes. Definitely a good sign of legitimate wear on camos but we all know this is being faked now as well. With this in mind, I would expect with this vent wear to also coincide with natural wear on the dome as I stated before growing in scope and in some examples coming near the edge of the dome. If this turns out to considered legit by the experts it would be a hell of a helmet. Isn't this a great hobby?
Comment