lobster-tail helmet for comment

[Cerjak]

Hi everybody,

Here some picture from a lobster-tail helmet for comment,I'm wondering if could be an English civil war helmet also as usually It will be very nice if we could have
the precious opinion about construction from Allan Senefelder.
This helm is on the road I will post more picture when I will receive it.
Any comment on it will be welcome.
Regards

Cerjak

[A Senefelder]

Cerjak, I picked one of these up about 6-7 years ago when they first started turning up with some frequency and have watched a number of them when they've come up for sale. Based on the one I owned and the one you have pictures my thoughts are as follows. I am somewhat suspicious for several reasons. First, nearly everyone i've seen including the one I used to own had the cheek plates installed backwards, the cut out/indentation about halfway up the back edge of the cheek plates was meant to face forwards and would line up about eyelevel and was meant to make sure that periferal vision was clear ( i've seen these installed correctly on dozens of other cavalry helmets of the period ). Second every one I have seen has the leather lining straps ( the straps riveted to the inside of the helmet for stiching in the quilted liner ) on the tail completely intact, without fail. This is unusual to find normally on armour components but to see it all the time on every example of this particular type with the peaked " turkish " bowl ( mine had a small finial at the top of the peak. I've seen both with and without over the last 6-7 years ) gives me a little pause. Third the seam up the middle of the helmet bowl. Whilst forge welding of helmet bowls from two halves rather than raising the bowl from a single sheet of steel was done as an expidiency to manufacture of munitions armour, it was mostly replaced by the crimped comb method by the begining of the 17th century as it was quicker and required less technical skill to produce. Forge welding a seam like this would not typically yield an entirely visible seam, nor one so nearly totally straight and for a helmet of this late type would have been unusual especially in the quantities that i've been seeing these. Mine had this same seam although not as visible. There are some things I like to see, cut washers and some unevenness to the underside of the rolled and countersunk edges, the wieght at least of mine was good, and the functionallity, other than the reversed cheek plates was fine but when the other features i've noted were added in I was hesitant to make the call on the side of these being original. Its not out of the realm of possibility of course but those features gave me pause about mine and the number of these i've seen over the last decade. My personal opinion only and certainly should be taken as anything more than that.

[Cerjak]

allan

See the following pictures from a similar example find from auction catalogued as Turkish lobtertail hemet Circa 1690 and again one from my helmet .
Regards

Jean-Luc

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

First, nearly everyone i've seen including the one I used to own had the cheek plates installed backwards, the cut out/indentation about halfway up the back edge of the cheek plates was meant to face forwards and would line up about eyelevel and was meant to make sure that periferal vision was clear ( i've seen these installed correctly on dozens of other cavalry helmets of the period ).

A very interesting observation, thanks for that information. I did some checking on other images and it seems that you are right about the ear guard indent always pointing towards the front.

[estcrh]

I have been trying to find examples of this type online but no luck until now. Here is another one with the same look, it it possible that they were restored / reassembled from a group sometime in the past rather than being fakes.

[A Senefelder]

I have been trying to find examples of this type online but no luck until now. Here is another one with the same look, it it possible that they were restored / reassembled from a group sometime in the past rather than being fakes.

Estcrh, whilst this is not out of the realm of possiblity, the consistancy of the occurance of the reversed cheeck plates ( every example of these i've ever seen, including every one posted here ) in addition to the visible seam in both Jeans and the example I used to own as well as the universal leathers always preserved in the tail assmbley and cheek plates but not in the bowl of the helmets makes me suspicious of origin. The uniformity of these occurances is in keeping with modern mass production/assembley line mistakes and gives me pause. This photostream ( this fella REALLY has a thing for zischagges ) has examples with the cheek plates correctly installed http://www.flickr.com/photos/8203475@N02/

[Cerjak]

Dear Allan

Your analyse is realy logical ...
I had again a look in MULLER KUNTER Europaische Helme book's where there is one example with the cheek plates like mine !
Anyway your analys is still logical.

Regards

Cerjak

[Raf]

Similar helmets seem to turn up with suspicious frequency on a certain UK militaria website at prices to good to miss. Here are some pictures that i think tell their own story . And no ; I don't know what the story is but someone will.

[A Senefelder]

The finish on 1,2,4,5 and 6 are the same, in fact based on the pics of the inside, it appears to be a heavy paint over the surface. The zischagge in picture 4 is missing the rivet at the bottom of the nasal that would keep it from being able to slide out accidentally upwards through the slot in moves in. The honking big chunks of leather on the underside of the gorget plates in pic 2 are often a giveaway, intended to give the impression of a perished lining band. Picture 6 is yet another of the helmets that started this discussion, you can see that the check plate, of the same style as OP's helmet and the others shown in the thread is also installed backwards. Picture 3 is " better" than the others, the surface is actually patinated well, but the flatness of the rolled edge along the top edge of the lower visor ( it should be much more rounded ) and the " sprung " appearance of the neck lames ( rather than collapsing, the bottom lames are halfway up under the pressure of the helmet weight sitting on them on the table. This tells me the rivets are piened tighter than they should be ) would have me being suspicious of this one as well.

[Raf]

Sorry , 3 was not from the same source ; uploaded by mistake . Heres another one that is. Note that the missing part of the visor looks as if its been cut away rather than not executed. Strange thing to do . Your expert assessment would be appreciated.Oops -forgot pictures

[A Senefelder]

This one is a little tougher but here's the things that would give me pause. The upper visor,as you mentioned has definitely had part of it cut away, with it looks like a chisel, I use a chisels to make cuts when installing hinges in bracers and it leaves what appears to be the same kind of rough edge prior to file/abrasive work to smooth it out. Second, the chisel work of the roping, especially on the top edge of the the lower visor seems very ham handed, as if they were trying to create the effect of " cabling " ( a term for a broad type of roping done with a round file rather than a chisel ) by using a big dull chisel ( roping was nearly always done with a sharp chisel ), especially when you compare it with that on the lower edge of the opening for the face and the comb which is much better done. That odd, incomplete weld at the back of the comb. Whilst helmets were made by forge welding two halves together, once the technique of crimping the two halves together along the comb and lap riveting at the brow below on either side caught on in the 16th century, it became nearly universal for two piece helmets due to its ease to produce over forge welding. This isn't an automatic dismissal, i'd want to see the inside of the helmet to determine if in fact what i'm seeing is a grind down of an old electric weld, or in fact a forge weld. I'm not seeing any beveled plate edges where I should either which would give me pause. This helmet is also missing at least one additional gorget lame per side as indicated by the empty holes on the sides of the visible back lame in pic 2

[Raf]

I think I agree. Their are some slight contusions of metal on the inside at the base and peak of the comb that could be gas welds but it is genuinely difficult to be sure. As you point out you would expect to find a lap rivit at the peak where the two halves join. Apart from this their doesn't seem to be any other use of modern welding techniques where you might expect to find them . Everything appears to be largely hand raised and shows genuine skill. The problem with all these helmets seems to be that everything is a bit too uniform. The metal doesn't show the uneveness, flaws , inclusions ect you expect to find in an object of the implied date.

So here is something that looks all wrong but I think is right. Described by an auction house as a copy of a seventeenth century funeral helmet . The crown looks recycled from a genuine munitions helmet , the spike looks convincing and the visor has the the comical absurdity that these later funeral helmets seem to have.