lobster-tail helmet for comment

A Senefelder · 20th March 2013, 04:07 PM

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 · 4th April 2013, 02:01 PM

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 · 8th June 2013, 06:02 AM

Quote:

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 · 8th June 2013, 08:30 AM

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 · 8th June 2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 8th June 2013, 04:08 PM

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

estcrh · 8th June 2013, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Cerjak, thats very interesting, is there any text on the helmet pictured in your book.

Cerjak · 9th June 2013, 12:47 PM

estcrh,

This is the text from the book
Regards
Cerjak

4th April 2013, 02:01 PM	#2
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	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 Attached Images

8th June 2013, 08:30 AM	#4
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	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. Attached Images

8th June 2013, 04:08 PM	#6
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	MULLER KUNTER Europaische Helme 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 Attached Images

9th June 2013, 12:47 PM	#8
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	estcrh, This is the text from the book Regards Cerjak Attached Images

20th March 2013, 04:07 PM	#1
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	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.