lobster-tail helmet for comment
 

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

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.

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

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.

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/

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

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

estcrh,

This is the text from the book
Regards
Cerjak

Cerjak, thanks, quite a mystery, I wonder why the authors include such a helmet in their book if it was so obviously problematic?

yes it is strange this book seems serious and the example showed inside came from museum collection !
The full description is :
Müller, Heinrich; Kunter, Fritz
Europäische Helme aus der Sammlung des Museums für Deutsche Geschichte

and I bought this book with the good advice from Michael (matchlock) !
So must be a good book !

The book is very good and well worth the money, but museums do emd up displaying old copies on occasion . I know one armourer, now pretty much retired, who was asked by The Met to register his various marks he used over the years with them as they came very close to displaying his work as original a good number of years back as they believed it to be original until some one in the restoration staff recognized the makers mark on it.

The helmet set/group whatever you prefer to call it ( i've seen them on the market for the better part of ten years I'd guess ) may in fact even be originals, or at least assembled in whole or in part from original elements. The consistan occurance of some thing so fundamnetal to the construction of the helmet as having the cheek plates installed backwards on every one i've encountered, including the example I used to own ( the one that set me to wondering to begin with ) is something that would and did simply lead me to wonder if in fact they were, original, or assembled from old elements for sale ( a common practice in 19th century and earlier 20th century auction houses. I owned at one time an arm and spaulder assembled from the rebrace of a later 15th century arm, riveted to a 1520's-1530's maximillian spaulder, that had been reassembled missing a lame ) or possibly well done reproductions. Any could be possible and my opinion is far from hard fact, but based on my time as a hammerman and collector it was what I was set to wonder.

A 19th century copy ( most probably later I known from some times ) , they seems to come from Germany French area all .... very well made and could put on bad road all the collectors ...

Obiuvsly the french auction house was made a joke , the helmet is clear german, polish or of the east european form .

here an identical I had : (sorry i made copy on the browser )

German Zischagge helmet in the style of 1600 c.ca 19th century - SOLD -

German Zischagge helmet in the style of 1600 c.ca 19th century - SOLD -

Categories: Recently Sold items

here the link: http://www.chinaglialorenzo.com/prod...IBILE+++&cl=1&

BerberDagger, the link says this

Were does it mention 19th century?

" In the style of " is code for reproduction or copy. Typically this referes to an older often Victorian era copy so it will have some age in its own right but it is usually refering to reporduction non the less.

Yes exactly Senefelder, in the style is for non period items but realised with a good manner , could be XVIII - XIX or later copy ...

if you have a look in the english translate site( CHANGE LANGUAGE ON THE SITE ) you can see olso 19th century mentioned.

German Zischagge helmet in the style of 1600 c.ca 19th century - SOLD -

German Zischagge helmet in the style of 1600 c.ca 19th century - SOLD -

Categories: Recently Sold items

Best
BerbeR dAGGER

Senefelder and Berber, thanks for the info, this is what I was looking for, the exact page.

;) :eek: :D

To good to be true ?
 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

A very similar helmet wandered around ebay for a while a few years back likewise labled as a replacement funnery achievement. I have read/heard tell of replacements being made up for funnery pieces that disappeared or became so decompoased over the years as to be no longer workable so its at least slightly possible that the attributation " might " be correct. The bowl appears to be of correct " crimped " comb construction to potentially be original. The ebay helmet made mention of the same thing in the write up about being composed of parts of older helmets. While of the same style, including the pointy bit at the peak of the comb, they are definitely different helmets.