Pub Talk - “Authenticity – Real or Fake? Part I”

Big Red here at me favorite waterin hole, Cohan's Pub.

Pull up a chair, have a pint....

When collectors debate "authenticity," more often than not, what they are really discussing is whether a helmet is "real" or "fake." Interestingly, this debate rarely focuses on the helmet itself, but rather on any customizations such as names, numbers, or painted markings applied to the helmet. Basically, is the applied customization of the period, or is it a modern recreation done with the intent to deceive?

In 1868, during a boom of interest in Biblical archaeology, a man named Moses Wilhelm Shapira opens an antiquities shop in Jerusalem. Shapira's shop struggled to make ends meet until he was approached by an individual who explained that if he changed his shop hours from day to nighttime, the shop could become “made to order.” Shapira begins with low-level forgery by slightly altering original artifacts, but his success drives him to investigate ways he can expand.

The discovery of a stone tablet called the “Mesha Stele,” engraved with a language known as Moabite, took the archaeological and collecting community by storm. Shapira saw an advantage here because little to nothing was known about the Moabite culture or what a Moabite should look like. This allowed him to move into high-level forgery by altering, manipulating, and outright fabricating sculpture, tablets, and parchments. Because his creations initially had no parallels for comparison, his forgeries avoided detection, allowing him to fake an entire culture.

Individuals, like Shapira, become forgers for profit, but over time and with success, it becomes about the glory of the game. The “Game” is the challenge to fool the experts and enter their private inner circle of collecting. Good forgers understand that the game of any sphere of collecting is not just about the collectible but also politics, cash, and envy. Learning which collectors have the financial resources or connections to attain the top pieces, those who don’t have them, and envying those that already do, and the inherent political power struggle within the collecting hierarchy.

The best forgers learn how the individuals within the hierarchy identify fakes and forgeries, their collection ambitions, who they are envious of, and who has the means to spend money. They then manipulate these members' weaknesses to establish themselves as fellow experts within the hierarchy. Thankfully, their success often leads them to become careless or aim too high in their pursuit of glory, which ultimately exposes them. In the case of Shapira, coordinating an attempted sale of forged parchments to England in 1883, his overconfidence led him to set a price tag so high they could not be purchased without financial assistance from the Crown. Ultimately, this drew enough experts into an otherwise private sale, exposing the forgery.

Reproduction markings began innocently enough in the 1960s through the early 90s when there was little to no interest in the M-1 as a collectible. Many of these markings were made to have the fantasy painted piece a collector wanted or for use by living history reenactors. However, in the late 1990s, the success of movies focused on the events of American soldiers in WWII resulted in the first major wave of interest in collecting period-related artifacts like the M-1 helmet. The popularity of these films also led to the desire to obtain customized versions of the M-1. Despite the ups and downs of the M-1 collecting market, prices have generally remained high, and where there is profit, there are thieves and forgers.

Collector's Note: One of the hallmarks of early fantasy and the entire timeline for reproductions is the desire of the buyer to have Hollywood-perfect markings.

Profits drive collecting, and collecting at high profit attracts forgers. A new helmet will come up for auction and sell at a considerable profit, which in turn causes similar items to pop up from the woodwork. Forgers observe these trends as collectors of supply and demand, with collector demand being high and actual availability of personalized helmets being low. Under the basic law of forgery, they provide people with what they desire, and when the supply runs out and the demand persists, they fill the gap with forged artifacts.

Any archaeologist, antiquarian, or antique collector uses comparison as their initial basis for authenticating a historical item. The issue with painted helmets lies in the fact that, contrary to collectors' perceptions, only a relatively small number of helmets underwent extreme customization, and even fewer of these survived to become collectible. The cost of these helmets prohibits the average collector from accumulating enough in a single collection to draw comparisons. Since these helmet customizations are typically unique to a single soldier, the only comparisons available are based on the wear pattern or aging of the paint used. Therefore, the majority of the collecting community views M-1 helmets customized with painted art as guilty unless proven innocent.

The eccentricity of painted M-1 helmets divides collectors who engage in real or fake debate into two basic camps. The first camp uses photographic evidence and books featuring painted examples to draw comparisons. If they do, they believe the helmet in question is real. The second camp argues, "Yes, but fakers also possess those same books and photos," implying that if the painted helmet in question bears a resemblance to the book, it must be a forgery.

Collector's Note: This is the reason a forum post requesting members show pictures of their collection falls on deaf ears.

Online helmet forums, where young collectors frequently post photographs and questions about authenticity, further complicate this situation. The complication comes in on two levels, desire and money. First and foremost, painted helmet gurus on the forum will be motivated to acquire the helmet while minimizing their potential out-of-pocket expenses and maintaining low market prices. Therefore, it serves their best interest to assert that the helmet is counterfeit. This partially explains why the guru, who is adamant about the helmet's authenticity issues, often emerges as the successful bidder.

Forgers only fabricate painted helmets for financial gain, as the addition of false insignia or names does not significantly alter our understanding of WWII or the history of the M-1 helmet. Without a doubt, those who produce fake painted helmets are manipulating history and artifacts, but unlike Shapira's Moabites, the M-1 helmet and the recorded events of WWII are too well-known for modern forgers to alter our understanding of WWII as an event or the M-1 as an artifact. This means the major impact of these forgeries is on the finances of individual collectors when they choose to buy a decorated helmet.

Interestingly, forged items have both context and provenance, and with time, the good ones will become collectible. In the world of archaeology, Shapira’s forged artifacts have attained value as relics of the events of his scheme. Today, examples of fictitious Moabite artifacts are sought and valued by both museums and private collectors. Will there come a day when M-1 collectors assign value to helmets faked by one of the more skilled helmet forgers of today?

 Until next time, I bid ye a fond...