Kürassier for review- thoughts on this one

Charles,

4 things that really stand out and make me pause.

1) Repainted tail and visor. Bad MOJO.

2) Modern nuts and thick bolts on wappen.

3) Look at the date stamp under the Junkers stamp. First "1" is fat, second one is skinny. Almost all examples I have seen they are both skinny. Maybe a mistrike but unusually sloppy.

4) Raised spine on rear of a M1896 helmet?

Tread carefully,

John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the screw posts and nuts look wrong for the front plate. Any pics of behind the plate?
Yes, the raised spine is out of place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccj
Yes, it would be good to see the back of the plate and the front of the helmet without the plate. I’d be curious if there are slots for loops on the plate or holes for screw posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccj
michiel said:
I think this helmet is original, like it, in my opinion no red flags, nice patina, and convincing markers
Click to expand...
See how a repainted interior and replica liner throws the entire helmet into question. I agree with Michiel. Good example. Creepiest lighting I’ve ever seen for photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccj
The question remains why a helmet produced in 1915 does not have the button 94 introduced in 1894 and a groove at the back of the head, abolished in 1889.
 
Kammerstüke Metalhelm made after 1889 were to have no rear ridge. But for Private Purchase it was allowed. The curious part of this helmet, is the 1915 date, and the chinscales are brass. Not Tombak.

Early Garde Metalhelme used the gilt chinscales from their tall leather helmets. Certainly those would be long worn out, so on a post-1889 Metalhelme they should be Tombak. Look inside Charles you will see any marks if there was other chinscales on an 1894 button. If you’re interested in the helmet, remember that it is probably a restored helmet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ccj
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top