Maximilian close helmetfor ID

[Tony PP]

I like the look of this helmet. Somebody has put a lot of effort in making it. But it gets let down by poorly applied ageing. The exterior marks are as others have said -- Not correct. I would also question the inside patina, from the pictures it looks like it has been rusted artificially. The photographs appear to show bright steel in places under the rust. Next, the visor. Hard to tell from the pictures but the steel looks a little thin, I would also question the burrs left on the inside of the chisel cut openings, not something you would expect from a true artisan. Last bit, the visor construction seems to be overlaid steel plates but the exterior has a shaped but smooth finish. So has this been welded and filed down? Of course fire welding has been around for a long while but this requires heat and hammering but I can see no sign of this on the plates. OK, that's me done--- Age, I don't think it has any. Just my feeling and I am not a expert and have never played with a helmet of this supposed era.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you guys for continuing the discussion in accord with the redirected perspective attending to the fact that this helmet was apparantly labeled as a 19th century representation of a 16th century German Maximillian helmet in a sale.

As a research consultant here on our forum, my concerns are for the accurate and proper notations of examples posted here for discussion so that we might best discuss them accordingly. It is important to place as much information as possible, including any notes and descriptive data already known by the poster as these serve as the benchmark for the discussion. These discussions and the valuable material included in them become part of the comprehensive archives here which help us learn more on the subjects as well as serve as references used widely by other researchers.

Alan, thank you for the note, and I agree, from photos this helmet is pretty impressive, and with your expertise on these, I very much look forward to your more exact assessments when you can.

Jasper, I look forward to your notes as well, and would suggest that we mention the name of the auctioneer here privately only. I look forward to your assistance as well in noting what to look for in authentic examples of these helmets.

Tony, while you suggest you are not an 'expert', your observations are most astute. Thank you.

Marcus, thank you again for posting this helmet, it has given us a great opportunity to learn more on these historic examples, and how we can best recognize both authentic and reproductions, as well as perhaps the netherworld of period or working life composites.

[Raf]

Hi Marcus.
I think the first thing to look for is flaws and inclusions in the plate . Most genuine armour will show some stress cracks , flaws and other imperfections that are part of the material itself and this is something that is difficult to fake. Secondly armour that is either modern or Victorian will invariably have started life as a uniform flat steel plate, as opposed to a lump of material that is beaten out by hand and progressively eased into shape . This tends to produce variations in thickness which exist irrespective of the hammer blows used to shape the piece and can usually be felt by running the plate between your fingers.

As a footnote you might expect an armour of C1530 to have outwardly turned roped edges but this is by no means a definitive guide to date.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Jasper, I look forward to your notes as well, and would suggest that we mention the name of the auctioneer here privately only. I look forward to your assistance as well in noting what to look for in authentic examples of these helmets.

the workmanship is quite poor for an original Maximilian armet, especially the ventail-visor, these helmets were manufactured by top master blacksmiths.
furthermore the damage and dents seem to be artificially applied.

it is IMHO a helmet from the second half of the 19th century or early 20th century.

see attachment for comparison of a suit from the second half of the 19thC. ( style of 1520-1530)

[ulfberth]

16th century metal just has a different look than 19th or 20th C metal, in this picture you can see the difference on the surface of the helmet.
The black spots are not from damage but older metal has more impurities that over time translates in the more visible cracks , black spots and as here delamination.
None of these traces look homogeneous or uniform on 16th or 17th C metal, there is nothing repetitive about them.
In Attempt to mimic these signs of age they use various methods, for instance damages, or chemicals to create rust, the results exits in as many forms, but none have the exact look of the originals.
Once you master to recognize this difference you can start identifying the reproductions.
I suggest you read scams and fakes a lot is explained there
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=scams
IM afraid its not exaggerated, and as Michael pointed out the current scientific dating method is accurate by a 500 years margin.

kind regards

Ulfberth