This strikes me like lightning.
And I'm P***** off about this !
Francis, don't be angry! I completely agree that the skull looks very bad. As Jean-Pierre said the bubbles are a very bad sign. And Tony is dead right about museums. Our premier museum in the United States -- the Smithsonian -- has also displayed fakes unknowingly. The only thing I would caution is a trap I have fallen into myself-one that goes like -- this one is original therefore, all originals look like this one. It just is not true, but it is certainly easy to slip into when considering reproductions and fakes. The medal collectors have long experience with this and recognize that there are two sides to the coin. First you could disqualify a genuine article as fake, because it does not look like one original example that is generally accepted by everyone. Second, if a fake article gains a foothold of people approving its originality, over time, it becomes accepted as an original. Some collectors are hesitant even to venture an opinion, because they are not sure -- not positive -- so silence becomes a foot hold of approval even though the intent was to remain silent and withhold approval. I find it very interesting to read what experienced medal collectors say even though I don't collect medals.
Similar to medals many parts of the pickelhaube were produced by different craftsmen that produced different nuances. You get some pretty humorous responses about that. On the one hand, you get those who say absolutely not there were very strict standards, and there was no variance. In the next breath, they point to differences by manufacturers as a matter of pride. In the pickelhaube world I do not think we are very well educated or informed about what the differences were. Medal collectors seem to have this down to a science, but then they disagree. I think the reason why we are so ill informed is that there was a wide range of differences, and we don't even know who all of the manufacturers were let alone in what way they differed. Then as you are trying to determine the differences someone comes along with a fake. And fakes are getting better all the time. This makes things very very difficult for experienced collectors like Tony and Jean-Pierre. People pound on them for opinions and if they make a mistake or are just plain fooled then suddenly the fake has a foothold established. Then it becomes really ratty -- Jean-Pierre said…… it could take the wind out of their sails and make them gun shy. Frankly I think we are blessed when these guys give opinions. Even though they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It is especially sad when someone personalizes the error and disparages the source as a person rather than criticizing the idea alone.
In November 2005 I wrote an article about wappen differences. http://www.pickelhauben.net/articles/Runninghorse.htm
While this is an extreme example that is easily identifiable the same thing applies to the skull. Using that as an example, helmets with a skull came in three versions according to the Neumann catalog. A lower quality, a higher-quality, and one with a real silver skull. The DOV catalog has a split along, real silver and nickel Silver lines. Wunderlich has what appears to be only one choice but it is 25% cheaper! Why? Was there some sort of difference in the skull? We don't even know for the most part, who produced specific examples. And while it is good to identify trends in good originals -- such as the sharpness of detail -- I think it is a trap to think they are all the same. Individual producers received Probe approval from the War Minister. This was far from standard. Just take a quick look at metal helmets produced by Lachmann that are significantly different in shape than other producers. And then some scum ball throws a fake at you and tries to fool you. I will get off my soapbox now and have some more coffee.
/ \
