Help Identifying This Helmet

[Matthew Amt]

Completely agreed! Actually, we have enough veterans who just like to collect more stuff that by now we have no shortage of spare gear that is quite good. We could come up with armor and helmets for 4 or 5 guys before we had to resort to the old "votive offerings"! (Shields may be more of a problem, hmmm...) Any well-established group is going to see the same sort of thing, even without group-owned gear.

But yes, it pays to say it again--Trying to improve from sub-standard gear is VERY hard.

Sorry, New Matt, I don't want to sound like we're hammering on YOU, here! No, this is just a debate we run through now and then. We have only your best interests at heart. Though if you look good, we look good too, eh?

Valete,

Matthew

[Magnus]

Crispvs, I must disagree entirely with you, and your perspective on this matter I find a bit disturbing.

First, it doesn't matter how many helmets you have owned. If the "new" Matt doesn't belong or have access to a group with loaner gear, then there is nothing wrong with obtaining a starter helmet. It is not for you, or I to determine New Matt's financial situation. Perhaps the $175 + S&H is simply beyond his budget to save. Maybe he wants a helmet now, which is completely fine. If he doesn't want to wait, or can't wait and his budget is $100...

Starter gear is great for loaner gear. And if someone continues to use something that isn't as accurate, what is going to happen to them? The reenactment police going to come, seize their equipment and hand them an appearance notice for the stitch counter court? Maybe they'll be picked on and pointed at on this forum? Please...

The fact that you are an "authenticity officer" makes me wonder about the obsessive nature of your group. To me, stitch counters are like fun "black holes", in that they suck all the fun out of it for others. It has been my experience that it breeds an inherent elitist attitude in what should be considered at all times a hobby.

The fact that you and many others decry such minor inaccuracies on gear makes me shake my head. Eyebrows on a gallic helm too long, or too high by a quarter of an inch. Cheek pieces not quite the right shape, neck guard at the wrong angle by 10 degrees...to name a very short list. The simple fact is the only people who really care to that degree are you and those who take things to such an extreme. Joe public isn't going to know OR care for that matter. He's not going to remember that someone wore the new Deepeeka "N" version of a helmet. He or she will remember the experience they had at the Roman dog and pony show, and then maybe read something about it. Maybe not. Either way it's ludicrous to think that the public will somehow be tainted by gear that isn't quite as accurate as known originals.

Either way, the helmet in question is absolutely fine in my opinion, especially to start out with. It's not anywhere near 100% accurate, but again, that only matters to a handful of people on this forum. And it is simply not in good sense or form to tell someone not to buy something because it doesn't meet their group's elitist standards. That is the biggest downfall with this forum. In the 10 years I've done this particular hobby, I've never been to an event in N. America where such an attitude exists. It's prevalent in Civil War, 1812 etc., and those people are never spoken highly of. Yet here it is on RAT...again.

I'm not advocating people wearing leather segmentata or trooper helmets. We're talking about a reenactment helmet that isn't based 100% on an origianl. Yet it still falls into the realm of high plausibility. We already know there were differences in same helmet types (look at the Gallic F, like the one in my avatar on the helmet datebase for example).

Sorry if this comes across as harsh...I don't mean it to be. But this has been a huge thorn in my foot. The idea of accuracy and how it should apply to people (especially in other groups) who really have no relationship to each other, but happen to "meet" on an online forum. It's simply not fair to advise this or that...often times you truly don't know your audience.

[Crispvs]

Magnus,

I understand the issue of limited funds - it is a problem I constantly struggle with myself. I just don't see the point in spending money on one cheap helmet, only to have to spend more money later on another, which will take longer for those on limited budgets thanks to having already spent out on the cheap helmet.

If 'starter' gear is still reasonably accurate but with just a few of the issues you mentioned, then I don't see any problem with it. We know there was plenty of variation in Roman helmets and I am fairly sure the Romans would not have catagorised them as precisely as we often like to. I don't know if you read my short article on scabbard lockets but I think the degree to which I am a 'stitch counter' can be summed up in the epilogue to the article:


"A good point that has often been made is that at any one time the Roman army must have had around a quarter of a million sets of equipment in service and with what we have to study comprising less than one percent of this, it is often unwise to get too prescriptive about how something was or was not done. Therefore a certain amount of assumption will always have to be used in addition to the strict evidence which has survived, as long as it starts from the evidence and works outwards from there.

This is generally a safe 'fall back' position."

I don't actually have a serious problem with the old Deepeeka Gallic 'G'. Although certain things like the neck guard are very large, they still fit within the known range for helmets of the period. I start to have a problem when helmets feature cheek piece rivets on the bowl which are in entirely the wrong place to make any sense as being connected to the hinge plates, have weirdly shaped neck guards or soldered on eyebrows.

It doesn't really bother me if the eyebrows are 'too long' or 'too high' - our knowledge of Roman helmets has come a long way since Robinson published in 1975. If cheek pieces are so extreme that they are seen as a problem, well, they are not the hardest things in the world to remove and not the most difficult things in the world to replace either.

I am wholly in agreement with you both that starter gear is great for 'loaner' gear. I just think that it is important that glaringly inaccurate items do not end up becoming part of that loaner kit. To give the example of dagger sheaths (which most people here know is my favourite hobby horse) I would see one of the present Deepeeka sheaths as a good 'starter' or entry level item, which I would contend would be something you would be content to carry for the rest of your re-enactment life if you could never afford to replace it. Up from there, for those who care and are prepared spend a bit more, one of Hans Binfield's sheaths would be very nice. Up from there, for those prepared to pay top dollar for the finest possible quality, there is Erik Koenig. The Deepeeka sheath would still be OK though. What would not be OK and therefore should not end up as 'loaner' kit would be the infamous sheath with the riveted on brass plates, which is not in accordance with any evidence so far uncovered. This is the sort of scale I would use. As far as I know, Peronis, my fellow authenticity office, assesses things in much the same way.

Sorry to have dragged this somewhat OT but I thought I should make my position clear. I am not exactly the stitch counter's stitch counter and I sometimes find these people a little tiresome too. I am the person who points out that a dagger sheath should have a rivet passing through its terminal expansion but advises the person to use half a ball bearing and a discreet spot of araldite to sort out the problem, rather than the person who demands that they spend out on a whole new sheath.


Crispvs

[Matthew Amt]

Easy, there, Magnus! No one is trying to impose their own standards on other groups. (Though I suspect many of us *wish* we could all be even better!) No, my goal with the advice I give is to avoid the problems and discouragement that could result if a recruit showed up with equipment which did not meet the standards of the group he was hoping to participate with. Yes, that has happened in my group. And no, that particular helmet would not be acceptable to me. It's not a matter of eyebrows being a quarter-inch too long, it simply has what I can immediately spot as glaring errors. It's not a matter of what the uneducated public can identify or judge, it's simply that there are much better options readily available (including our own spares!), and that my group does not wish to have our standards lowered from where they are.

And as I've said before, my philosophy (and therefore that of my group) is that the ignorance of the public is NOT an excuse to do things wrong, it is our entire reason to do things right.

If the "new" Matt doesn't belong or have access to a group with loaner gear, then there is nothing wrong with obtaining a starter helmet.

I agree. Again, I'm just a little concerned that what he has now won't be good enough in the future. His group might not like it, or he may decide he wants a better one. Sometimes a spouse or parent may object to getting a new one of something--"You already have one of those!" From what I've learned in 30 years of reenacting, it's better to avoid as many of those potential problems as possible.

Starter gear is great for loaner gear.

Well, I'd say it can be used as such, but accurate gear is even better.

And if someone continues to use something that isn't as accurate, what is going to happen to them? The reenactment police going to come, seize their equipment and hand them an appearance notice for the stitch counter court? Maybe they'll be picked on and pointed at on this forum? Please...

As you say, Please... I've seen people get offered stuff to use in place of their marginal gear, sometimes they take it well and gratefully, and sometimes they get discouraged. I've also seen new people show up who have put a little more time and effort (or a LOT more!) into kit which was as good as my own or better--and they were showered with praise, encouragement, envy, and general happiness. It's easy to see which path is the better one for all concerned.

To me, stitch counters are like fun "black holes", in that they suck all the fun out of it for others. It has been my experience that it breeds an inherent elitist attitude in what should be considered at all times a hobby.

I didn't think it was elitist to keep an attitude of self-improvement, nor to assist others in being as good as they can. And to help new folks avoid old mistakes.

Either way, the helmet in question is absolutely fine in my opinion, especially to start out with. It's not anywhere near 100% accurate, but again, that only matters to a handful of people on this forum. And it is simply not in good sense or form to tell someone not to buy something because it doesn't meet their group's elitist standards. That is the biggest downfall with this forum. In the 10 years I've done this particular hobby, I've never been to an event in N. America where such an attitude exists. It's prevalent in Civil War, 1812 etc., and those people are never spoken highly of. Yet here it is on RAT...again.

Hold on, now! We were asked if we thought it was a decent helmet or not. You thought it was. Some of us thought it was not, and that spending money on it might lead to trouble in the future, and said so. We didn't imply that you were a farb or a slacker for your opinion, but you *are* calling us "elitist"--and saying that we're not being fair? Hmmm, come on, now, amice...

The idea of accuracy and how it should apply to people (especially in other groups) who really have no relationship to each other, but happen to "meet" on an online forum. It's simply not fair to advise this or that...often times you truly don't know your audience.

I tend to give advice only when asked. And being an incredibly stingy bastard, I REALLY shy away from the idea that something can always be replaced later! "Anything worth doing is worth doing over"? Not me! Save up a little more money, or wait a little longer, and do it right the first time. "Aim high--at least you won't shoot yourself in the foot."

Valete,

Matthew

[Magnus]

Sorry guys, I knew my post was going to come across as being sharply worded, I hope I didn't offend too much.

Crispvs, well worded post. I understand better your position now. Thanks for the clarification...It is far too easy to misinterpret intent and meaning based on text alone.

Matt Amt...what can I say...just a difference of opinions I guess. I still love you lol.

[Matthew Amt]

Nah, no offense taken! Your mother and I are just worried about you, and wonder where we went wrong, hee hee!

Vale,

"Pater"

[Magnus]

LOL!!!

[Gaius Colletti]

Sorry I did not mean for this thread to turn out like this. I am just a college student, with a limited income for the time being. Unfortunately I am not aware of any Roman groups or organizations in my area. This helmet, though I was hoping would be more accurate than what it ended up being, is "alright" given my finicial position. From what I can see it is a huge upgrade over my dumpy trooper helmet (I can't look at the thing anymore with the visor being mounted way too high, and the cheekguards which almost inclose my face, and the spade shaped neckguard, someone really went out of their way to make this piece inaccurate, even when they are constantly denounced for being so innacurrate, they still don't try and make it less so).

I paid $48 for the helmet, including shipping. As much as I would love a brand new Deepeeka Gallic G or H helmet, I do not have the extra $50-100 to pour into one. I understand that the ear slot comes up too high, or are too wide, and the brows certainly are a little large come to think of it, but it is reasonably accurate I think, though I certainly wouldn't flaunt it, knowing that much higher quality helmets are available. When I do graduate this summer or fall, I will certainly get better gear when I get a better job. I completely understand Matt Amt and Crispus' problems with the helmet, and I respect their opinions, especially since they have higher quality helmets, I can't blame you guys for "disaproving" of this one.

Crispus, I don't suppose you have pictures or other evidence to support that this might be an older Deepeeka Gallic G? I certainly have seen pictures of what I believe to be the same helmet on the web, but was not labeled by any particular maker. Deepeeka is the only manufacturer that I am completely aware of (I'm sure others exist) that makes similarly sized helmets (7"x8.5" although another picture he sent me, seems to be 7"x9.25 if that helps). As always, I appreciate everyone's help and insight! Thanks guys!

[Crispvs]

Sorry Matt, but I don't have any labelled photos but I am used to seeing them up close, as two or three members of my own group have owned them. Here is a small selection of pictures of my group. Each is described from the point of view of the viewer rather than from in the ranks:

Soldier fourth from the left wearing pre-2006 DPKA Gallic 'G' (I am the one third from the left).
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/ph...e3_jpg.htm

Soldier fourth from the right wearing pre-2006 DPKA Gallic 'G'(I am third from the right and Celer, who also posts here on RAT is the soldier on the right)
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/ph...e2_jpg.htm

Soldier second from the left wearing pre-2006 DPKA Gallic 'G' (Byron [Gaius Julius Caesar] is the soldier to the right and I am the soldier seen next to him in the back row)
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/ph...nt_jpg.htm

Soldier third from the right (front row) and on the extreme left (back row) wearing pre-2006 DPKA Gallic 'G' helmets. I am second from the right in the front row.
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/ph...02_jpg.htm

Soldiers third and sixth from the left both wearing pre-2006 DPKA Gallic 'G' helmets
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/ph...02_jpg.htm


I hope this helps a little

Crispvs

[Gaius Colletti]

Thanks for the links Crispus, it certainly does look like a pre-2006 Deepeeka Gallic G, now that I have seen those pictures, but I won't know until I get it

[Gaius Colletti]

Update, I got the helmet today, and I would like to give a special thanks to the Matt's (Amt and Magnus), mineral oil and the correct scotch brite pads are near miracle substances for getting rust off. The helmet fits great, (If I had ever seen one of these helmets in person, I would have never even touched that trooper helmet, I can't imagine what the more accurate helmets are like in person!).

With the skull cap it came with, it fits like a glove, the cap was glued on (very bad or very old glue, I'm not sure) and a few flakes of paint are missing I noticed when I took the padding out to wash it. Magnus mentioned before to repaint the inside, but with what kind of paint? Just you're everyday spray paint, or rustoleum, something else?

I know these questions somewhat follow up on my other thread, about tying a helmet, but that thread had gone well off topic. I know with some other forums, moderators prefer to keep the posts relevant to the title, so that when people do a search, they find exactly what they are looking for. I'm still new here, so I though I would play it safe, and post on this thread, which pertains to this particular helmet

[Crispvs]

There is some evidence to suggest that the Romans may have glued the linings into their helmets so the fact that the lining was glued into your helmet is not necessarily wrong. Although I use a separate arming cap myself, I know a number of people who have padded linings which are permanently glued into their helmets and have been for years and as far as I know they have experienced no problems with this.

Regarding paint, I have never had paint on the inside of my helmet and have never found that to be a problem. I do know some people though who have decided to paint the insides of their helmets and I believe they have preferred to use Hammerite (normally sold in hardware or car accessory shops as a rust proof paint or undercoat). It may go under a different name in America.

For rust proofing the outside of your helmet, some people use a spray-on lacquer, but some years ago now I decided to experiment with methods the Romans themselves might have used. I found that a very thin layer of pig fat (obtained in my case from my grill pan after grilling bacon or pork sausages) over the surface of the helmet, particularly over any sharp angles, the eyebrows and the occipital steps works well. I spread it very thinly with some fat on the end of my finger and the visual effect is just a slight dulling of the shine on the helmet rather than the greasy, messy effect many might imagine. I have found that this keeps the helmet fairly rust free for two to three months, even when rained on. After this I normally put another coat on, as by then much of the fat has been rubbed off. I did experiment with fat on my body armour as well but found this was not successful as most parts of the body armour get frequent rubbing from arms, weapons and my cloak, which ensured that the fat was rubbed off again very quickly.
When this photo was taken I had put a fresh coat of fat onto my helmet that very morning. As you can see, when spread thinly it is not obvious. I don't notice any smell either.



For securing your helmet, you should find a ring on the inside of each cheek guard and one riveted to the underside of the neck guard near the occipital region. Take a length of leather thonging and pass it through the ring under the neck guard and then pass each end through one of rings inside the cheek guards. Pull down on both ends once your helmet is on, to bring the thong to a suitable tension. Most people tie the ends in a bow under their chins once their helmets are on, to give a secure fit, although there has been a suggestion (based on an interpretation of a wooden object found with a helmet) that the ends may have been passed through a bead or something similar, which could be slid down to loosen the helmet and slid up to secure it. Caballo here on RAT has tried this method with a small piece of hollow bone and reported that it worked very well. I am planning on trying it with a hand made glass bead sometime in the next week or two to test the possible use of these beads in a military context.

[Magnus]

Ditto to what Crispvs said. Though I've never tried bacon grease lol...I take it that it won't go bad? I'm surprised you don't smell like a pork rind lol. I also like the smug look on your face in that photo. Like you know you are rocking a beard, and the ladies love it!

Matt, I'd keep the liner seperate. If you're going to do any events in the summer, and you're going to sweat in it...it's nice to wash it occasionally. I can remember some of my old stinky baseball caps that I neglected to wash. Not nice.

[Crispvs]

Magnus,

I've never noticed any problem. I filled a 35mm film cannister with fat, which I kept with my kit (with the lid on obviously) and this lasted me for about three years worth of shows. I was quite surprised, but the fat did not go rancid in this time. Perhaps it was that, with the lid on, the cannister was airtight - I really don't know.

In any case, digs at fort sites have consistently produced large numbers of animal bones, strongly suggesting that soldiers enjoyed a fairly good meat intake, which would mean that fat would have been quite easy for them to obtain. As I said above though, I still haven't worked out a suitable way to keep my armour rust proof. Perhaps a fat soaked garment worn over the armour? That would really surprise the public! Of course, it may not have seemed as important to the Romans to be able to show off the plates of their armour as it is for us.

Crispvs

[Gaius Colletti]

Due to the helmet cap being seemingly custom made for this helmet, when I washed the it (the cap not the helmet:-)) and put it back in the helmet, I was able to put the helmet on and off without the cap being moved around too much, infact I actually had a little difficulty pulling the cap off interestingly. I most likely won't have to glue it on, and I do plan on washing it frequently.

I found this link, showing the differences between the old Deepeeka Gallic G and the new Deepeeka Gallic G, and it also claims that RAT members helped influence Deepeeka to change the helmet, which I thought was worth sharing. I am more and more convinced after this site that my helmet is an Old Deepeeka Gallic G (with the exception of the eye brows, the only things that don't match up). If any of you were interested: http://www.armae.com/Actualitesetmanuels...ic%20G.htm

Crispus the pig fat was very interesting, it makes sense, though I would have never imagined it would still be so practical with all the other oils out there now, and its good to know that the Roman soldiers ate meat more than some sources would claim (I've read before that typically Roman soldiers ate me so infrequently, they actually disliked it ???).

At Magnus' behest, I have been using mineral oil, which I have liked so far, though I am curious, does the pig fat make the helmet slipery and does it rub off easily when you handle the applied surfaces?

I already have something in mind when I mount the "loop" on the neckguard, in order to tie the helmet, what kind of "loop" do you guys recommend for the cheek guards though, something small I assume? And should it be attached where the chin pieces meet? or towards the bottom of the cheekguard so it doesn't rub on your chin?