Here's something that I've been thinking about lately.
In this hobby of ours, too often opinion, folklore, and conjecture masquerade as fact.
Last night I went through my collection of helmet books. I was disappointed, though not surprised, that only one of them cited primary sources and gave attributions. That book was Tin Lids, by Roger Lucy.
Many of those who trumpet their expertise on the subject, don't adhere to the basics of research methodology, that is, they cite no sources for their assertions. Anecdotal accounts from "vets" are a poor substitute for primary sources...memories change, facts and details become fuzzy, conjecture trumps actual memory. This is not to say that first-hand memories are valueless - they are good supplemental material, but they are no substitute for documentation
I'm looking at my collection of helmet books very differently now, and some, because of the author's lack of scholarship, or damaged reputation, have been rendered little more than pretty pictures bound in glossy covers. Pretty pictures of helmets which may or may not be legitimate.
Many of the biggest names in the hobby (though all too often they have reduced the hobby to little more than an investment opportunity) eschew primary sources, and instead, anoint themselves arbiters of what is known, or what can be known, about the subject of helmets...and presto! their conjecture becomes gospel, endlessly quoted, re-quoted, and self-quoted, in a circular manner. Also noteworthy is that some leading authorities in the hobby have lost their reputations due to their willing participation in the promotion and sales of counterfeit and faked helmets.
As a beginning collector, it is very important not to be dazzled by an expert's resume. Without citing primary sources they are merely peddling their opinions. Personally, I find conjecture an incredibly tedious waste of my time. When you seek out information, embrace your skepticism, and avoid getting "star-struck" by the heavy-hitters in the hobby.
Of course that applies as well to the information that you glean from this blog. Seldom do I cite sources, but equally seldom do I dabble in conjecture. I tell you what I know or what is self-evident, I qualify any opinions as just that, do a walk-around of photos, and provide "action shots" for context.
I also invite "comments and corrections."
In this blog, and in all of my helmet videos, I state up front that I am not an "expert" but only an experienced beginner. As of this year, I have been actively collecting helmets for fifty years, starting with a Japanese type 90 that I found when I was stationed on Guam in 1972 (here). Despite this longevity in the hobby, I am still learning and trying to learn.
Without scholarship, this hobby becomes merely folkloric; and for me, that makes the hobby less fun...and if a hobby isn't fun, then what's the point of it all?
Keep collecting, keep investigating, and keep having fun.
See you next time with another cool helmet from the collection.
Mannie
