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
3 comments:
Another gem of a commentary. Thank you Mannie
Hi Mannie! You won't be surprised to read that I agree with you 100% on this, especially the business of 'some people' posing as ultimate arbiters of whatever. But. Yes, you knew that was coming, didn't you...
Here's my thing - apart from the most famous types of helmets produced by the most famous countries it is hard going on impossible to find primary sources of information. I have a particular interest in Portuguese, Swedish, and Swiss steel helmets, and there's no way possible I can access primary info on any of these for several reasons. I have to make do with the best info available from people who at least *seem* to have done proper research (the World War Helmets website people are good examples of this) and then mentally cross-reference it with anything else I have read or observed from my collection and see how much stands up and may *probably* be true. I am at that point willing to pretend some expertise but usually add in the caveat of "as far as I know" to allow for error and omission. The thing is that we're dealing with information which *if it still exists at all* is in other countries in a different language, so not that simple. The best practice is to read widely - and I include the internet, as the idea that anything published in a physical book 'must be true' is hopelesly optimistic in an age of little editorial factchecking and selfpublishing - and use your own observational skill to see how it applies to the object in question. Don't assume anything!
I also have a bit of a fascination with modern composite helmets, and you'd think that info would be more easily available; no, it isn't, apart perhaps from useless to a collector technical ballistic stuff and manufacturers salespuffery.
Its an endless learning on the job game, helmet collecting.
This reasoning, my friend, is the reason I use your website as a reference. No fluffy BS, just what you know/believe and some good pictures too. Like you, I prefer documented sources when I can find them. I also speak/read more than one language (including German) so I can sometimes find an original source in another language. For instance, the very famous Ludwig Baer books on German helmets started out as a German language book and was followed up/expanded over the years, but includes many original sources from the Bundesarchiv. Such references trump the accepted "knowledge" of the know-it-all collectors every time in my opinion.
Thanks for a great site and I hope you keep doing this for many more years.
Post a Comment