Help Identifying This Helmet

[Gaius Colletti]

I bought what I believe to be a Imperial Gallic H (according to the link to the Legio XX site Matt Amt posted of approved helmets), on ebay (cringing). Everything but perhaps the cheek guards, leaves me to think it is such.

There is a "moderate" amount of rust on the helmet, but I don't think the helmet is ruined, infact I think it gives it a little character, especially once cleaned. I am slightly worried that I may have payed a little much ($48.00 including shipping), but considering the helmet like thise would cost $150+ new, I thought it would be worth it.

The seller clarified at the bottom in the "Questions area" that the measurements were 7" across x 8.5" deep. Much smaller than any of the trooper helmets, all that I have checked out seem to be 26.9" which is way to large for my 23" head size (the trooper helmet dwarfs me head). I know a lot of people say the Deepeeka helms are a little small (like this) so I wonder if this is perhaps a Deepeeka?

Please give me your thoughts, opinions, or expertise. Is this not a bad deal, or is it a piece of junk, and if so why. Any help is appreciated. Thanks guys


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...MEWNX%3AIT

I know some forums have rules against posting links to live auctions (for obvious reasons), however this auction is over, so I see no problem. I am unfamiliar with any ebay rules on RAT, but if so, moderator feel free, or ask myself to remove the link. Thanks again guys

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I'm not sure, but it looks like the 'eyebrows are separate pieces and welded/braised on.
Not sure if it is really an 'H' either as the neck guard is quite flat in comparison and the occipital ridges look very large and rounded.
Sorry mate but looks like a lemon to me.
But there may be others who will disagree?

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

While it is definately not a "Trooper helmet" I really can't say what it is.

My suggestion would be to look at some of the reputeable online dealers and compare photos. Iknow Imperium does a great job of providing a description of products and the history of evidence supporting the repica, but they are way over priced, but a great source for research of replicas all the same.

[Gaius Colletti]

I was afraid of the neckguard too Bryon otherwise all the brass trimmings whatnot, even the triangle on the cheekguard add up. Perhaps it is some sort of "prototype" or someone wasnt paying attention, if the eyebrows are sodered on, which they may well be, I can live with that at least.

Brutus do you have any links possibly? I have looked at armentaria and soul of the warrior, but their pictures are limited, which is surprising, you think they would have pictures from all sorts of angles. It's definitely not a trooper, and has all the nice the little decals like the handle and the correct "crest holder" slots and loops (at least they look correct to me, I'm only just getting into the hobby, you guys are the masters

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Here is the link to Imperium:

http://imperiumancientarmory.com/Helmets...ml#GallicH

However, I think this is what you have... minus the crest.

http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/Gal...000770.cfm

But I could be wrong, they looked the same to me.

[Gaius Colletti]

Looking at the Imperium site, my helmet does look much like the Gallic G that site, minus the cheek guards, and it looks incredibly similar to the Gallic G on your second link as well, its hard to see the cheekguards in the second link, but they look similar to my own. (The auction just ended today, so I have only seen the pictures, just as you guys have)

Thanks for the links Brutus. It is my understanding that only 1 example of the Gallic G (or was it a Gallic G from a certain site) has been found, and I know another type of helmet was found with cheeckguards missing, perhaps it to was the Gallic G?

[Doc]

Matt,

As was pointed out by Gaius it is most certainly a lemon. To begin with, the "eyebrows" are HUGE and go too far back. Most of the helmets with this feature show them ending roughly at the middle of the bowl. They are also too wide and as was pointed out they appear to be separate pieces. The originals had the "eyebrows" beaten out of the bowl. The number of ridges appear to be what would those for a Gallic H. However, the neckguard has too much of a shallow angle and it is not large enough. That of the original Gallic G however, has a neckguard similar to what you are showing but the eyebrows are nowhere as large or pronounced. There is also the possibility that the original Gallic G has two ridges on these "eyebrows" not three. However, Adrian Wink on this forum I believe pointed out that unlike popular belief the original Gallic G may have three ridges when closely looking at the original G photos.

Next is the space created by the earguards. The height is too great. Have a look at the RAT data base for the original Gallic G, F, etc and you will see that the opening for the ears is not that long. In other words the height where the earguard begins near the prothagnid is too far away where it ends at the beginning of the neckguard. The originals have these two heights much closer.

The browband is much too wide. Most of the originals have browbands that are half that. The flange on the prothagnid is too flared as is the flange on the earguards.

Finally as was already pointed out the ridges on the back of the helmet are too pronounced and the rosettes are also incorrect in design and they are too small.

I agree as a starter helmet it's ok IF you are going to do some play or pageant. However, I would not use it in any historical displays or portrayls simply because it is too wrong.

Sorry, I hope this helps you get an idea. Again, the best thing to do is NEVER look at any reproduction. Alwasy look at the originals as the best guide. Sometimes there are things missing on the originals and thus other evidence should be used for a reconstruction. All reproductions or reconstructions are to a certain degree an interpretation and so you should properly interpret what you see from the original not a modern copy.

[Matthew Amt]

Pretty much what Doc said, sorry. One giveaway is the depth of the "stepdown", as I call it, or the difference in height between the front rim and the back (the back edge of the earhole, that is). It should be about an inch at most, whereas on this helmet it's about 3 inches. The stretched-out look of the earguards is your clue, plus the very large rounded ridges across the back.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/GalG1.jpg

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/GalH1.jpg

See the difference? The first photo is a pair of type G's, while the second is an H, but in both cases the ridges are flat and subtle, not standing out more than the thickness of the metal, and the step-down is much shorter. Plus, as has been noted, narrower browband and more subtle eyebrows.

My advice: Stay away from ebay for a few years! By this point you've spent good money on things you can't use for serious reenacting that could have been spent on something usable. Ebay is cheap for a reason! SOMEtimes you can get real bargains, there, it's true, but you really have to know what you're looking at. Alternatively, keep shopping, but don't buy before asking us! But if you stick to known vendors and well-labeled items, you can hardly go wrong.

We've all made mistakes! If you learn from ours, though, you won't have to repeat them.

Good luck and Vale,

Matthew

[Gaius Colletti]

You guys are right, I made a mistake. It could be worse I suppose, the same seller had a trooper helmet go for about the same price! At least this helmet looks to be a decent attempt at an accurate helmet, especially when looking at trooper helmets. As always your expertise is appreciated!

[Magnus]

Matt, what size is your head?

This is about the cheapest, acceptable helmet out there, but I think it fits somewhat large.

https://ssl.perfora.net/www.finditarmory...shopscript

And not every group would say it's acceptable, there are some things wrong with it if you are a purist. I have this helm as a spare, and one of my members has it...I think it's a decent variation of a Gallic H personally, though it appears to be a knock-off of the older Deepeeka version.

[Gaius Colletti]

Magnus, My head size is 23" or a 7 3/4" hat size. The link you posted kept freezing up, but I did see a Gallic G for $100, which is very cheap compared to others I have seen. It didn't list the maker, but I did see they mentioned they carry Deepeeka products. I'll definitely keep that link on hand

[Crispvs]

The auction is over now but it looks to me like the old Deepeeka (pre-2006) Imperial Gallic 'G'.

Regarding Magnus' Find-It Armoury-link, there is a lot of rubbish on there, so you will need to scroll down until you get to the decent helmets, which are all marked as 'Deepeeka'. As always though, find out exactly what you are looking for before you lay your money down.

Crispvs

[Magnus]

Again, it's up to you Matt, but I would politely disagree with Crispvs here. Purists will rank the newer deepeeka helmets as the only ones that are "accurate". But there are others that are acceptable, as the ones we discussed. Especially as a starter helm. All depends on your group's policies and personal preferences.

[Matthew Amt]

My only fear is that if a new guy buys all kinds of bad or marginal "starter" gear, he'll have spent all kinds of money that could have gone towards good stuff. I'd say it's better overall to buy the right thing the first time even if it costs more. Space the purchases out over a year or two, and borrow what is needed from the group.

Now, the marginal items might end up as loaner gear! Every group has at least a couple "votive offerings" or "dunce caps" to stick on the new guys.

Oh, and Daniyal Steelcrafts also has a couple excellent helmets! Overall, I'd always push for the *best* commercial stuff as the *minimum* standard.

Valete,

Matthew

[Crispvs]

I have only ever owned one Roman helmet. I borrowed other people's old helmets or did without for a year until I had saved up enough to buy a helmet of my own from White Rose (this was before we had even heard of Deepeeka). We always used to tell the public that they were looking at a unit which included a few new recruits who had yet to be fully kitted out, but who would be training with the rest of the unit regardless, which allowed us to get around the problem of not having enough kit within the group. I am often asked by new members about cheap helmets they have spotted on the internet and I always advise them that they should set aside the money they would have spent on the cheap helmet and use it as a deposit to which they can steadily add money until they can afford a decent helmet from a reputable source.

As Matthew said, cheap kit which has been replaced by better kit often ends up on the group's van (often as members who bought it originally save space in their own homes by donating their old kit to the group) and gets issued out to new members who do not yet have either their own kit or much knowledge of equipment. Often this kit incorporates obvious inaccuracies which then find their way back into the overall image of the group even though they may have been retired due to those very inaccuracies.

Once substandard kit gets into a group's storehouse of 'loaner' kit it can be hard to irradicate, as people will always stand up to say that there is not enough spare kit to be able to afford to discard items, even if they can be shown to be inaccurate, and gain sufficient support to make getting rid of tat very hard to do.

I have been fighting a battle for years now to get rid of the inaccurate 'Simpkins' pattern sword scabbards which are still carried on our van and by some members of the group. Even being authenticity officer does not give me the right to discard items owned by the group and so instead I have to go by the slow route of trying to change often stubborn mindsets. Here is an example of one of my attempts:
http://www.romanarmy.net/scabbard.htm

It is far better and easier simply to prevent inaccurate items entering your group than it is to get rid of them again once they have found a place to lodge.

Crispvs