Maximilian close helmetfor ID

Jim McDougall · 3rd January 2017, 09:42 PM

Marcus, thank you for noting the concerns and comments present outside the discussion here, and I agree, it is best to focus on helmets of this style and original character in examining your example.

There are apparently quite a number of reproduction helms out there available mostly for re enactment and decoration, however these would seem immediately obvious. We must admit that the price realized in this case is incredibly low for an authentic example of this desirable style, so immediately begs the question if is or not.
We always hope to find a 'sleeper' in estate sale or auction, however this is highly unlikely for a specialist auctioneer.

Since here we strive to learn from historic examples, it might have been important to include the description from the source of the example as the discussion would direct to its features and character in compliance with other examples known authentic. If the 19th century description is noted, we should move to prove otherwise.

Thank you for 'staying in' by presenting other examples, and I look forward to others and observations on the elements and fixtures......really want to learn more on these.
No matter what....its quite an attractive helmet!

ulfberth · 4th January 2017, 09:33 AM

Hi Marcus,

thank you for showing us helmets of the same period to compare with.
It does happen and has happened before that auction houses mistakenly label good authentic pieces as 19th C.
That being said, the bigger or more experienced the auction house has, the less this happens.
Looking closely at the helmets presented it seems there are some differences in the impact / pattern strikes .
Most of them have a around dozen of these impact and are different in shape, none have all the same looking impact marks.
The place were these marks visible on the helmets as presented here are in the neck area or the place were a sword blow would have been deflected to in case of a frontal blow.
On the Maximilian Helmet I easily count around 50 impact marks, they all seem to come from the same object the only difference is that some are deeper than others. What concerns me more is that they are structural divided over the whole helmet and appear in places were this helmet would in most cases deflect a hit or blow.
I think we can rule out sword blows completely as many of these strike marks are in the deeper part of the gully or groove.
These impact marks look like they are made by a hammer.
They don't seem to come from a war hammer but rather from the back of a modern hammer.
They have a repetitive similarity,when they were inflected concerning : force , angle, shape of the object and distance , all these circumstances together would be impossible in battle.
In my opinion , the battle blows you see on the other helmets was exactly what they were trying to mimic, but they over did it.
I hate to visualize the situation, a nutcase with other intentions hammering from a distance of 50 CM an otherwise beautiful handmade helmet.
Of course I would like to hear other thoughts as well.

kind regards

Ulfberth

A Senefelder · 4th January 2017, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Alan, thank you so much for responding to the original query concerning date/period on this apparently original example of Maximillian helmet.

Jim, my apologies, im trying to cram in posts in the 10 or so minutes before I leave for work in the morning as I tend to arrive home pretty late. I will try and address this tomorrow morning before I head out.

Marcus den toom · 4th January 2017, 12:12 PM

Hi Ulfberth,

Thank you for your responce, it is much valued. Do you have period armour pictures with more damages for comparison?

As to the auction, i have looked trough there auction archive prior to buying this piece and the only other noteworthy piece of armour was a fluted backplate which reached 10 times their estimate.
Other things like a replica wheellock pistol beeing dated by them as 16/17th century make me somewhat doubt there indebt knowledge, which in all respect is a hard enough.

We know of original pieces of arms and armour beeing molested to add more "colour" to such pieces... problem is that this happened by either people without true knowledge or respect for such items.. thus the colouring outside of the lines.

What i want to say with all of this is that we can not sollely date this helmet on these strange markings. I am far more interested in the construction, the patina inside, and if it is a victorian piece.. how they made it to look like this. Especially the leather strap pieces that are inside the helmet without disturbing the natural (?) patina.

Also does anyone know a way to date the iron, if possible?

cornelistromp · 4th January 2017, 02:49 PM

Marcus,

could you please give the lot description and name of the auction house ?

best,
Jasper

Tony PP · 4th January 2017, 04:14 PM

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 · 4th January 2017, 05:01 PM

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.

ulfberth · 4th January 2017, 05:50 PM

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

4th January 2017, 09:33 AM	#2
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 397	Hi Marcus, thank you for showing us helmets of the same period to compare with. It does happen and has happened before that auction houses mistakenly label good authentic pieces as 19th C. That being said, the bigger or more experienced the auction house has, the less this happens. Looking closely at the helmets presented it seems there are some differences in the impact / pattern strikes . Most of them have a around dozen of these impact and are different in shape, none have all the same looking impact marks. The place were these marks visible on the helmets as presented here are in the neck area or the place were a sword blow would have been deflected to in case of a frontal blow. On the Maximilian Helmet I easily count around 50 impact marks, they all seem to come from the same object the only difference is that some are deeper than others. What concerns me more is that they are structural divided over the whole helmet and appear in places were this helmet would in most cases deflect a hit or blow. I think we can rule out sword blows completely as many of these strike marks are in the deeper part of the gully or groove. These impact marks look like they are made by a hammer. They don't seem to come from a war hammer but rather from the back of a modern hammer. They have a repetitive similarity,when they were inflected concerning : force , angle, shape of the object and distance , all these circumstances together would be impossible in battle. In my opinion , the battle blows you see on the other helmets was exactly what they were trying to mimic, but they over did it. I hate to visualize the situation, a nutcase with other intentions hammering from a distance of 50 CM an otherwise beautiful handmade helmet. Of course I would like to hear other thoughts as well. kind regards Ulfberth Attached Images Last edited by ulfberth; 4th January 2017 at 09:49 AM.

4th January 2017, 04:14 PM	#6
Tony PP Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 26	Maximilian helmet. 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.

4th January 2017, 05:01 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	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. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 4th January 2017 at 05:55 PM.

4th January 2017, 05:50 PM	#8
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 397	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 Attached Images

3rd January 2017, 09:42 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	Marcus, thank you for noting the concerns and comments present outside the discussion here, and I agree, it is best to focus on helmets of this style and original character in examining your example. There are apparently quite a number of reproduction helms out there available mostly for re enactment and decoration, however these would seem immediately obvious. We must admit that the price realized in this case is incredibly low for an authentic example of this desirable style, so immediately begs the question if is or not. We always hope to find a 'sleeper' in estate sale or auction, however this is highly unlikely for a specialist auctioneer. Since here we strive to learn from historic examples, it might have been important to include the description from the source of the example as the discussion would direct to its features and character in compliance with other examples known authentic. If the 19th century description is noted, we should move to prove otherwise. Thank you for 'staying in' by presenting other examples, and I look forward to others and observations on the elements and fixtures......really want to learn more on these. No matter what....its quite an attractive helmet!

4th January 2017, 12:12 PM	#4
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 525	Hi Ulfberth, Thank you for your responce, it is much valued. Do you have period armour pictures with more damages for comparison? As to the auction, i have looked trough there auction archive prior to buying this piece and the only other noteworthy piece of armour was a fluted backplate which reached 10 times their estimate. Other things like a replica wheellock pistol beeing dated by them as 16/17th century make me somewhat doubt there indebt knowledge, which in all respect is a hard enough. We know of original pieces of arms and armour beeing molested to add more "colour" to such pieces... problem is that this happened by either people without true knowledge or respect for such items.. thus the colouring outside of the lines. What i want to say with all of this is that we can not sollely date this helmet on these strange markings. I am far more interested in the construction, the patina inside, and if it is a victorian piece.. how they made it to look like this. Especially the leather strap pieces that are inside the helmet without disturbing the natural (?) patina. Also does anyone know a way to date the iron, if possible?

4th January 2017, 02:49 PM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,057	Marcus, could you please give the lot description and name of the auction house ? best, Jasper