Headwear: Victorian foreign service helmet markings

[Stuart_Bates]

This is my last post on this site - I'm bowing out of this as we are in danger of going round in circles.

Neil,

this doesn't seem a valid reason for leaving the forum. We are all entitled to our opinions based on our collecting experience and research. Your leaving the forum smacks of one who just comes on for an opinion and then having got that, good or bad, exits job done. Rather disappointing if true.

Stuart

[Jocktamson]

I did see the helmet on eBay and was rather surprised the National Army Museum declared it as genuine. However as Stuart and Ed say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That being said the consensus of opinion on Victorian Wars was that aspects of the helmet did not seem consistent with being of Victorian manufacture, and doubt was cast on the authenticity. Ed makes a good point in that if the curator or who ever pronounced it genuine should have produced a photograph or example to confirm it, otherwise Its just another opinion without proof....and to be honest, i would rather take the word of someone who has written a specialist book on the subject and several collectors than that of as Ed says "a well meaning curator" who has probably only a smattering of knowledge of Foreign Service Helmets. There is no need to leave the forum, after all you asked for thoughts on the helmet and got several from knowledgeable collectors, pointing out things that were different or unusual about the helmet and all felt it was not genuine. If you choose to accept the opinion of one person, over several others who expressed concerns about it, then that is completely your decision.

[Neil Bates]

Hello. Ok, I'm going to have to come back on this. As a matter of record my original question was regarding the numerals 80 on the helmet.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The issue which I don't find particularly responsible is the continued denigration of an object which none of you have actually examined. The materials and workmanship throughout this helmet appear consistent with Victorian manufacture. It might be unusual or possibly the only one of it's kind to survive but that doesn't mean it isn't genuine. Some of the comments made on this forum could be considered an abuse of the authors' positions as Senior Members of the forum. I certainly don't find them consistent with the spirit of open minded research which should illuminate sites such as this.

[grumpy]

I did see the helmet on eBay and was rather surprised the National Army Museum declared it as genuine. However as Stuart and Ed say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That being said the consensus of opinion on Victorian Wars was that aspects of the helmet did not seem consistent with being of Victorian manufacture, and doubt was cast on the authenticity. Ed makes a good point in that if the curator or who ever pronounced it genuine should have produced a photograph or example to confirm it, otherwise Its just another opinion without proof....and to be honest, i would rather take the word of someone who has written a specialist book on the subject and several collectors than that of as Ed says "a well meaning curator" who has probably only a smattering of knowledge of Foreign Service Helmets. There is no need to leave the forum, after all you asked for thoughts on the helmet and got several from knowledgeable collectors, pointing out things that were different or unusual about the helmet and all felt it was not genuine. If you choose to accept the opinion of one person, over several others who expressed concerns about it, then that is completely your decision.

I have followed this with interest and am sitting on the fence: not my specialism.

However, to be the author of a specialist book on a subject, any subject, does not make one an authority ....... such authority only comes from peer review, such as in scientific journals. As an example, I have recently purchased and rapidly discarded a book on cap badges of 20th century ......... utter tripe and rubbish, but someone published it without subjecting it to peer review.

I have written or co-written six books, and about 30 articles, and it does not make me an expert ......... far from it.

I am making this point in the interests of objectivity, NOT taking sides. In this area, I know only what I have picked up from reading this and other threads. In the wider perspective, such discussions, between gentlemen, can only do good.

[Stuart_Bates]

Some of the comments made on this forum could be considered an abuse of the authors' positions as Senior Members of the forum.

To clarify: a member is automatically given the grade "Senior Member" purely by the number of posts he or she has made, 200 in this case. It bestows no privileges nor duties on the recipient and certainly does not imply "expert" status.

My opinions were given based on my experience and research over the years and in this case I stick to them. But to continue this discourse would indeed "be going round in circles."

Stuart

[Jocktamson]

However, to be the author of a specialist book on a subject, any subject, does not make one an authority .......

No it doesnt, and i never said anyone was an authority on anything... I said there were several collectors who expressed concerns about the helmet. Where did i say anyone was an authority?... Neil chose to accept the word of one person who showed him no proof, other than to say the helmet was genuine in his opinion, over several others who i feel put forward valid points as to why the helmet was doubtful.

I have written or co-written six books, and about 30 articles, and it does not make me an expert ......... far from it.

Again where in my post did i name anyone as an "expert" in anything, i simply said i would rather take someones word who has written a specialist book about the subject than someone who probably has a smattering of knowledge about something....I would have thought that made perfect sense, so i fail to see why you are quoting me about experts and authorities on the subject?

[Jocktamson]

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The issue which I don't find particularly responsible is the continued denigration of an object which none of you have actually examined. The materials and workmanship throughout this helmet appear consistent with Victorian manufacture. It might be unusual or possibly the only one of it's kind to survive but that doesn't mean it isn't genuine. Some of the comments made on this forum could be considered an abuse of the authors' positions as Senior Members of the forum. I certainly don't find them consistent with the spirit of open minded research which should illuminate sites such as this.

I am sorry you feel that way Neil, but when you asked for opinions on the markings, concerns were raised over them....therefore it only leads onto further debate on the authenticity of the helmet when you post photographs of it which have several other anomalies, i.e ...in my opinion, no provision for a chinstrap is the most glaringly obvious thing as to why no army in the world would accept any such helmet for consideration as a piece of kit. So i read in disbelief when i saw on eBay that the National Army Museum had pronounced it genuine...which immediately led me to believe the person you spoke to had no intiimate knowledge of military headwear at all. I don't think anyone's comments could be construed as an abuse of position, any comments I saw only put forward valid reasons as to why they thought the helmet was not authentic.

[Peter_Suciu]

I'm going to jump in again and state that Riddell has a 1930s patent on that liner system. It simply did NOT exist before then, and there is absolutely NO evidence this liner was ever used in any shape or form before Riddell devised it for American football helmets.

I've authored more than 100 articles on military helmets, and I also happen to have written dozens of articles on athletic helmets, so while I never EVER claim to be an expert or authority on anything, I think I know as much about the connection between military helmets and athletic helmets. Simply put that liner could NOT be from the Victorian Era.

I will add that I have nearly 400 military helmets in my collection, including numerous examples of steel helmets from the First World War, and many from the interwar era. This head band suspension system only shows up in military helmets with the American M1 helmet in 1940, as Riddell worked closely with Hawley, who devised the America helmet liner.

Facts do not lie, and the owner of this helmet has not shown any EVIDENCE that this period to the Victorian Era, nor have any so-called experts been named.

I suggested this was a movie prop, but honestly I don't know where the liner came from. What I absolutely certain of is that this liner is post Victorian Era, and probably dates from the 1940s or much later.

[Jocktamson]

Grumpy when you have time take a look at these

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1358&p=28321#p28321

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2405

So I guess in your words "such authority only comes from peer review" that would make Peter Suciu and Stuart Bates two of the worlds leading authorities on the subject of Sun Helmets?

[Peter_Suciu]

While I won't go so far as to say I'm a "leading authority," I can add that I'm 44-years old and have collected helmets for 32 of those years. I have a personal library of thousands of books, and here is a link to my helmet book library:
http://www.nyc-techwriters.com/militari ... titles.htm

I have just about every book ever published on military helmets. I also have three dozen binders full of articles published on military helmets (not including my own) dating back to the 1970s. I attend major militaria shows around the world, and I know all of the major living authors of helmet related matter. What every serious helmet collector agrees upon is that there is no class to teach this stuff, no course of studies, and instead we learn through study. Stuart Bates easily has the largest collection of Wolseley sun helmets in the world and thus has seen more of these up close and personal than anyone.

I have focused on colonial pattern sun helmets from around the world, while also collecting steel, ballistic, tanker, and even some aircrew helmets. With sun helmets I have British, American, French, German, Austrian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Canadian, Argentine, Australilan, Vietnamese, Ethiopian, Beligan, Dutch, South Africa, etc., etc.

One other area of study of mine has been experimental helmets and I can tell you I've seen a lot of experimental steel helmets and Stuart Bates and I have owned a piece now in his collection (we traded), which is a rare experimental British helmet. So we've had experience with experimental pieces.

Additionally, I have seen examples of military helmets in museums around the world, many of which I have posted photos from on one of my websites: http://www.firearmstruth.com/featuresmuseum

Finally I will say this... there is HUGE money in fakes in militaria. People get burned all the time. The fakers are getting better all the time, and it includes helmets, uniforms and just about everything else. Throw in movie props, theatrical pieces, helmets used by secret socities and fraternal groups and there is confusion. But just because you want something to be real doesn't make it so.

[grumpy]

I call to mind a humorous but partly true definition of an expert:

someone who knows more and more about less and less until finally he/ she/ it knows everything about nothing.

My own little crazy area at age 74 [similarly loading 70 feet of groaning shelves with library, folder after folder, article after article, private communication after private communication] is 2nd Royal Welch Fusiliers in the Great War.

Just imagine what it might say on such experts' headstones ............

Now imagine putting a dozen such people round the dining table: what on earth could they talk about?

There is always the weather I suppose.

Keeps me out of the pub.

[Jocktamson]

While I won't go so far as to say I'm a "leading authority,"

I just posted that tongue in cheek Peter. But since yourself and Stuarts book is the only real reference on sun helmets, others are going to label yourself and Stuart Bates as "experts". But in all seriousness I do agree that nobody likes to buy something believing it's genuine, only to have several others point out things that you unfortunately didn't spot were wrong with it. I can understand where Neil is coming from, he probably feels he is being picked on, although I think no one has posted anything but honest opinions. Even more worrying is the National Army Museum declaring the helmet was genuine. If they have someone in a position of that dreaded word "authority" who can't even spot something as basic as the helmet not having provision for a chinstrap, maybe they should look at revising their job within the museum, ( cloakroom attendant sounds like something they are ideally suited to), not that there's anything wrong with being a cloakroom attendant... before anyone takes offence But if you have, or are collecting anything that is a specialist subject like Sun Helmets all you can really look to for reference is material that's out there in print and the word of other similar minded collectors.

[grumpy]

Re. Museum staff I do so agree.

The Denis Edwards Collection of British Army Trade, Appointment, Skill-at -Arms and Qualification badges at NAM is a prime example.

Uncatologued, unloved, bagged, labelled in a perfunctory way, and shoved in a drawer, requiring a great deal of grovelling to be allowed an hour of closely supervised access and not even allowed to take photographs.

As co-author of the standard reference, I offered to do the cataloguing. Out of the question "we are getting round to it".

As a tax-payer, and indeed someone who subscribed for a brick of the new building [yes, I am that old] I find it outrageous that access is not better.

It is a similar matter regarding sealed patterns "yes we have very many, but not on site and no, you cannot look at them!".

[Peter_Suciu]

I do understand. I've been there more than once where something I thought was real was not. It is NOT a good feeling. I've actually stopped posting some items because I do feel there is an element that wants nothing more than to knock people down. Even if a helmet is 100 percent correct, someone will jump in with the "I don't like..." and after that the item is somewhat tainted.

We must collect for ourselves, and not for validation from strangers online.

So I don't mean to pick on Neil, or anyone else for that matter. However, in this case opinions were asked for and when given this started down the road we're on now.

[ED, in Los Angeles]

The helmet in question sold for 230.51BP or 361.52 US$. A choice Wolsely with flash went for about that amount about a year ago on ebay. A fake pre Wolseley helmet went for about $400+ about five years ago. The seller was banned from ebay but started selling under a different name. The buyer of the helmet posted the info on ebay and sold the fake helmet for around $100 and disclosed the fraud. He still got $100! I just happened to buy several Martini bayonet frogs from the same banned vendor. They were used and blancoed. I think they were used for the bolt action Enfield spike bayonet for ceramonial purposes. I do not think the Victorians stitched their bayonet frogs with nylon thread in the 1880's.