Hi,
Yes, IMO the clips , the construction and the pattern of camouflage are correct, my only doubt is:
Why the cloth of the cover is damaged for the use, expecially the autumn side where it was at contact with the steel of the helmet, where are the springs , near the clips etc, while the clips dont have any sign of use where normally the clips have more contact when you use the helmet?
And also where normally was fixed the edge of the helmet, the clips are MINT!! impossible in a cover used like this!
We know that the aluminium is a metal very ductile it impossible that there it isnt any sign!
Expecially with this type of damage that seams worn for the use in some points.
I'm sorry but IMO the cover it isnt pre May45.
All the best.
Lorenz
Yes, IMO the clips , the construction and the pattern of camouflage are correct, my only doubt is:
Why the cloth of the cover is damaged for the use, expecially the autumn side where it was at contact with the steel of the helmet, where are the springs , near the clips etc, while the clips dont have any sign of use where normally the clips have more contact when you use the helmet?
And also where normally was fixed the edge of the helmet, the clips are MINT!! impossible in a cover used like this!
We know that the aluminium is a metal very ductile it impossible that there it isnt any sign!
Expecially with this type of damage that seams worn for the use in some points.
I'm sorry but IMO the cover it isnt pre May45.
All the best.
Lorenz
Originally posted by TMurray
Comment