In Treue Fest

[Chris Liontas]

Gotta tell you guys, I love this thread!!

Thanks a TON for showing this Bavarian helmet

 

[Gustaf]

I have to admit, that I am a bit puzzeled by this helmet, in the past, helmets with small defects have been declared "wrong" when a small feature was something other than standard. Do we need to go back and reevaluate some of the helmets that have been given "thumbs down". Looking at the cross, I would think it is a cast reproduction, made by a very good jeweler, who paid no attention to the coat of arms on the cross.
This helmet would fit (in my opinion) into Tony's rule, if it has to be explained....
There is every possibility that the cross was made for the wearer of the helmet by a local jeweler at the time of his attainment of Reserve, but I doubt that this cross is die stamped, and if it is, I would think that it is not a period item.
Best wishes
gus

 

[Lost Skeleton]

Gus raises some interesting points regarding metal casting. For the collector of orders and medals, this is an area of concern to anyone worth his salt. Castings utilize plaster, sand, wax, or silicone mold impressions of original pieces to produce replicas that are, fortunately, readily detectable when viewed under magnification. The limitations of cast reproductions are numerous, with some of the most significant concerns being:

Cast reproductions display poor detail and relief.

Cast metal shrinks as it cools making the reproduction smaller than its original counterpart.

Imperfections in the mold and air trapped in the liquid metal create voids and pinholes not present in the original die stamping.

Were the Reservist cross on my Bavarian helmet to be a casting, then the original used for the mold impression would be identical. How else could the Lozengey be reversed when the mold is the mirror, or backwards, image? Furthermore, why would a professional jeweler waste his time on anything so trivial and time consuming when these crosses were mass produced by the thousands?

These are close-ups of a cast fake 1939 Iron Cross 1st class; note the poor detail and relief of the date and rim beading:

Pinholes, craters, and file marks:

Now, close-ups of the Reserve Kreuz:

For my money, it's a crisp and clean brass stamping with a silver wash. Look again at how the size and contour fit the convex Bavarian Coat of Arms like a glove. To reiterate, a cast cross would be smaller than an original.

I'm afraid this is where my cooperation ends. I introduced this helmet as untouched, and I have no desire to remove and/or disassemble the Wappen. I purchased the helmet from SSnick, whose father purchased it from a German acquainted with the family of the original owner. Perhaps, Nick will speak up regarding the helmet's provenance.

Chas.

However, use of the mirrored/reversed reserve cross device was not unique to Depaheg. Look at this Bavarian Tschako from Weitze' table at the MAX (not Depaheg):

If Depaheg made these crosses, they must have been supplying them to other helmet makers as well.

Chas

 

[Tony without Kaiser]

In my opinion, this is an unquestionable original which shows absolutely no signs of collector alterations, but has some very unusual (almost bizarre) variations. The small Wappen and reversed Bayern lozenge on the Landwehr cross just make no sense, but there they are, and they appear to be original. Hopefully someone day you will find out why and pass this along. I would like very much to find out.

 

[Gustaf]

The close ups are interesting, but I do not think this is a stamped cross, based on the last enlargment of the lazenge pattern. The center diamond on the left, at the top edge of this lozenge there is a irragularity in the edge that would not be consistent with a stamping. The notion that a casting would have to be made from a mold from a pattern, is not carved in stone, the mold could have been made by cutting, that would explain why the dimpled pattern in the cross is up, rather than down (although this could be a mistake on my part due to perspective)
It should be easy to determine if it is stamped or cast (with out the danger of damage by removing) by using a fine bit of wire with a 90 degree bend on both ends, inserted between the Wappen and cross, then rotate the exposed angled end to see if the cross is hollow.
I can not see how a custom made cross would be a problem, and if it was made by a jeweler, using a cut mold, there would be no shrinkage, as a competent jeweler would know how to compensate for this. As far as the smooth srufaces, with no sign of air bubbles or imperfection from the mold, that would be a part of the casting that would have been surfaced or polished.
One thing that people forget, is that things were not as standardized as things are now, and that variations will be found, and I would not think of declaring this to be bad, if it turned out to be a casting, but I do not think this is normal.
Best wishes
Gus

 

[Lost Skeleton]

The center diamond on the left, at the top edge of this lozenge there is a irragularity in the edge that would not be consistent with a stamping.

Hi Gus:

I"m not sure I can identify which might be the "center diamond on the left," but I can tell you these diamonds measure less than 5 mm end to end, and that I think you're holding their uniformity to a ridiculously high standard. Dies from this period were not cut by lasers, after all. These are cheaply made crosses requiring less labor to produce than an OR Kokarde. Die flaws are well documented in Imperial German awards (the Preußen KvK comes to mind), and it's often times the postwar copy that doesn't display the legitimate and expected flaw. Furthermore, you're evaluating a digital photo with an area of focus smaller than a postage stamp, which is no substitute for hands on analysis.

Have a look at similar close-ups of the much larger reserve cross on my Lieb Regiment helmet:

I think we can agree from the ragged edges that this is a cliché stamped cross, and to my eyes, the quality and uniformity actually look worse.

When the helmet is yours, you can poke and prod it as much as you choose with wire or hammers and tongs, but I know that cross is stamped and fail to see why this issue is of such colossal importance. I doubt anyone would even have noticed the anomaly without my calling attention to it.

Chas

 

[Jerry Rehr]

Well for what is Worth I worked in the casting business for thirty-five plus years and this appears to be a stamped item. A jeweler could make things out of gold or silver in a casting method as the melting point of both metals is low compared to brass. A brass casting foundry would have had to make this if it was cast. A stamp item will have draw marks around the outside of the item. Yes they can be polished out but close examination you will find a draw mark somewhere.
All this is just my thoughts for further discussion.

Jerry R.

 

[Lost Skeleton]

Thank you, Jerry!

I believe this profile view reveals the marks where the stamped brass was sheared. Sorry about the focus; this macro photography is a hit or miss affair.

Chas

 

[Gustaf]

The center diamond on the left, at the top edge of this lozenge there is a irragularity in the edge that would not be consistent with a stamping.

Hi Gus:

I"m not sure I can identify which might be the "center diamond on the left," but I can tell you these diamonds measure less than 5 mm end to end, and that I think you're holding their uniformity to a ridiculously high standard. Dies from this period were not cut by lasers, after all.

You missunderstood what I wrote, I think the irregularity in the edge of the diamonds are inconsistant with stamping, note the red arrows in the photo.

Compair the edges of the diamonds in the left, to those in the right, the last cross you posted is unquestionably a stamped example, stamping creates bends with a radius, not crisp sharp edges, all the edges on the right are smooth and rounded, while those on the left are not.

These are cheaply made crosses requiring less labor to produce than an OR Kokarde. Die flaws are well documented in Imperial German awards (the Preußen KvK comes to mind), and it's often times the postwar copy that doesn't display the legitimate and expected flaw. Furthermore, you're evaluating a digital photo with an area of focus smaller than a postage stamp, which is no substitute for hands on analysis.

I am still convinced this is a cast, and not a cheaply made example, and I think your photos are very well done and show a great deal more detail than can be seen with out a magnifying glass

Have a look at similar close-ups of the much larger reserve cross on my Lieb Regiment helmet:

I think we can agree from the ragged edges that this is a cliché stamped cross, and to my eyes, the quality and uniformity actually look worse.

Actually, the uniformity is much better on the stamped example, as would be expected, the diamonds are all the same size and shape, with the same smooth edges through out the pattern. As to the ragged edge of the stamping, that is to be expected on a stamped example that would be trimed with snips.

When the helmet is yours, you can poke and prod it as much as you choose with wire or hammers and tongs, but I know that cross is stamped and fail to see why this issue is of such colossal importance. I doubt anyone would even have noticed the anomaly without my calling attention to it.

Chas

There was never any suggestion that hammers or tongs be used, it is a simple matter to determine if an object is hollow or not, as to the importance of this, it is not, it is obvious there is nothing to be learned here.
Best wishes
Gus

 

[Jerry Rehr]

Well again I'd like to interject something. Stamping uses a release agent in the stamping process. The stamping process creates a lot of heat and the release agent can build up or be mis-applied and this would cause what you think is a casting mark or a flaw. This happens on die cast method that are consistent with die stamping.
Oh yeah "I got no dog in this fight."
But this is stamped.
Gus how's the farming going?
My Grandson just turned one year old.

Jerry R.

 

[Gustaf]

Hey Jerry,
You raise some good points, but you are assuming this cross is made of brass, there are many aloys that could be cast. Given the size of the diamonds in the cross in question (5mm from end to end) There seems to me to be too much crispness to some of the edges (of the diamonds, not the cross), and if you get a bend in the material that sharp, you end up with a cut, not a bend. The close up of the edge of the cross looks like it was trimmed with a file. If this was my helmet (which it is not) I would want to know more about this, as I think it could be something very interesting, and possibly the most important part of this helmet.
Farming is going great, it was 95 degrees here yesterday, congrats on the year old Grandson.
Gus

 

[Lost Skeleton]

Oh yeah "I got no dog in this fight."
But this is stamped.

Thank you, Jerry.

Chas

 

[Lost Skeleton]

There seems to me to be too much crispness to some of the edges (of the diamonds, not the cross)

Gus:

Are you saying that stamped alloy inherently produces inferior detail to cast metal? I would ask you to examine the "crispness" of this cliché stamped convex U-Bootkreigsabzeichen.

Better still, you may compare it against its die forged cousins and fakes HERE

The cross is brass and covered with a silver wash.

Goodness, for all this verbiage, one might think we're debating the results of the Michelson–Morley Experiment.

Chas

 

[Lowest-Bidder Admin Help]

//Would you two agree to have a few of these postings removed// Or do you want them to remain?

I have no objection whatsoever to Tony's suggestion.

I agree with you that this is an interesting helmet, I think it deserves study, but if the concensus of the members is that they only want to see the photos, then I think it would be best to remove all my posts from this thread. best wishes Gus

I have edited this thread and removed postings that got out of hand by everyone involved.

.

 

[Lost Skeleton]

Bless you, Mr. Incredible. You live up to your name. =D>

 

[b.loree]

Excellent reactions all round gentlemen. Thank you. Some how I missed this discussion on my tours of the forum. All I can say, is that I learned a great deal from the back and forth exchange of information and arguments. To me that is what really counts. Oh...Mr. Incred, you are oK too. Brian

 

[poniatowski]

First, I think the helmet is just beautiful and from what I've seen of this manufacturer's work, it's as good as any other as far as private purchase helmets go.... as a matter of fact, I think the quality is better than some, but that's just me and I've only seen a few including one of my own.

As far as the shield goes, who knows what caused the anomaly. Could have been an apprentice who thought he was creating a mirror image (working from a drawing that was already mirrored).... or somebody might just not have cared. If this was during war time, then the master may have been off in the trenches somewhere... I've seen a lot of variation even in modern uniform regimental crests and such, color, size, quality, etc. So, this small detail which means a lot to us, and probably did to the Bavarians as well, may have been overlooked during war time. Who knows.

Just my two cents (which are worth less than that in today's economy!)

Ron