www.MG42.us

How accurate is IMA's repro armor for the MG 08? Does it require "hand fitting"? Thanks

Alan

It will depend on what armour pcs. you are getting.

My past experiences with their Top-Water-Jacket-Armour was that it was not accurate for rivet-profile at the front, and the notch for the front water-jacket-pcs was slightly off to one side. It also tended to limit "travel" for Left and Right limits....and something about depression at the front I seem to recall.

Their Front inner-sled-armour was way off from originals........and they didn't make the large outter shield.
The large outter-shields with sight-doors were made up by Rick Keller of Great-War-Militaria about 15+ years ago......they measured about 2-1/2' high by about 3' wide....and very heavy.

Regards, RichardS in MI.
US Army, Retired
Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net

Looking at the water jacket armor. If it is way off I wasn't going to waste time. Thanks for the info.

Alan

This has been discussed before but I wonder if the experts can put to bed once and for all the differences. I assume IMA do not pass off their armour as original and it seems there are others who have made this MG08 armour too. I am looking for a sort of 'check list' that when viewing a piece of 08 armour I can determine whether fake or repro. Original markings, patterns, sizes, dimensions will help, whether repros are marked anywhere to show 'genuine copies' etc etc. These are expensive items and it might help many others being fooled into original v fake. Especially on auctions. I think collectively we know the front shield pattern that fits over the water jacket foresight - see other thread, but main jacket armour and shields are of particular interest........to me anyway
Mark

Yes IMA calls it original... original to them maybe.

As far as the front jacket armor, I think its very hard to tell original from repro. Most repros lack the front sight screw slot but not all. Fit tells a lot but can't really tell this before getting it in hand. Basically unless is got a Manufactures mark, I consider it a repro until otherwise known. Its just getting very hard to tell the difference. So unless its very clearly original, I am not paying top money for it as there are so many repros by so many people.

As far as the jacket/shield armor:
It seems to be the first give away is a shield that is screwed to the jacket cover. Next is the "wings" under the shield part of the armor. Repros stick out to far and limit gun traverse. The best give away is poor mating of the clamps under the jacket. German jackets have small gaps in the belly straps. Repros have wide gaps and don't fit right. The screws and nuts tell much too but all this connecting gear is often missing. Again much of it is just having it in hand and seeing the quality and fit... which makes it hard to buy on the internet...

I just decided to go with repro armor from the start... losts cheaper.

Blanksguy wrote:
The large outter-shields with sight-doors were made up by Rick Keller of Great-War-Militaria about 15+ years ago......they measured about 2-1/2' high by about 3' wide....and very heavy.

Regards, RichardS in MI.
US Army, Retired
Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net

Thats interesting. I didnt realize Rick made repros of the outer shield armor. I am guessing you mean as a repro of the armor that is completely different than the large armor ima has or did he make the shields ima has? I have an original set of armor and the outer shield is nothing like the ima stuff. it is much wider, and has spring assisted peepholes. (one slot to the right of the gun and a round hole on the left for the optics to function. The left and right sides are rolled forward and is the style seen in a bunch of period photos. Is that the style Rick made?

"Rick" didn't have many of the larger "outter-shields" made due to costs, size, and the ability to only sell a few.
They were made one-large-sheet-of-steel......with the swing-over-doors/peep-holes, and the doors for these were of the same metal-thickness. They fit well into original inner-shields....but could require some minor fitting on some sleds and/or inner-shields.
Rick's outter-shields were also larger than IMA's version of an outter-shield.

You are in an area of the country where "Rick" could have shipped a set to.....or brought back by someone visiting his GWM-Store while they were at the WWI-Reenacting-site.
Post a photo(s) of it.
The only "original" large outter MG08 Sled-Shield that I know of was up in MT in a museum.....was originally "dug-up" in Europe in the old WWI battle-fields......and I believe that "Rick" help with the missing reproduction covers for the peep-holes.
Like the information in "Devils-Paintbrush" about only very few surviving WWI as they were only used early in the WAR......and no one would carry around a 70+pound shield as a War-Trophy.

The shield that I had, was sold to some collectors down in Texas while I was living in Oklahoma (around 1992-4).
The outter-shield that Dolf-Goldsmith had on his MG-08 many years ago, appeared to be one of "Rick's" reproductions.

If you look at the photos in the photo-book (titled something like) "Live-Firing-Machineguns of WWI".....the water-jacket armour was reproduction made by IMA's overseas workers......but the original prices was acceptable at around $350 if memory serves me correctly.

As far as making a "point-by-point" listing of known reproductions........it would be easier to have people just take clear photos and post them here.

Regards, RichardS in MI.
US Army, Retired
Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net

Thanks for the reply. I dont have any pics of mine at the moment. When I get a chance I will get some and post them. I am not currently in the same city as it and not sure when I will be where it is to get pics. I was not concerned about the authenticity of mine, just curious about the style of the repros. The museum that had mine before I got it had painted it and filled in the pits with some type of spackle. The knobs and covers are all there, but the springs dont retain any tension anymore and the covers just flop around. I agree with what you said about carrying it. I didnt even want to unload it when I originally got it to my house.

Cell phone and poor light but here are some quick pics of mine. Cant do anything about the website cropping the pic though.

Without more information, this looks like a duplicate of what Rick-Keller (GWM) was having made back 15+ years ago.

Not trying to start anything here so please take the next bit of informtion with a "grain-of-salt".....there are people out there that can "age" just about anything with weathering, hammers, torch, etc. .......to really tell the difference you would have to look under what the Museum sold to see if the modern "roll-marks" are there, and un-touched modern steel-sheeting/plate was used......which "sand-blasting" would remove these tell-tail indications, paint-remover would leave most.
I really don't want to get into this portion of the discussion.......
........looking at the photos of the example provided, there seeems to only be damage/nicks, etc. at the edges with the major portion (the inner-areas of the plate) basically untouched but painted.......possibly more information could be obtained under the paint or from a notorized statement from the museum (?)..........and he wasn't a reenactor invloved with WWI reenacting now or during this time period ....correct (?).

Regards, RichardS in MI.
US Army, Retired
Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net

This was not a reenactor and I wasn't implying I had doubt as to the authenticity of this piece. I have done research on this one and am confident in its pedigree, just sadly it has a healthy layer of spakle or body filler of some sort all over the flat surfaces. Looks like bondo actually. There is a chip at the corner where it was dropped and the mess is about 1/16" thick. I plan on removing all the paint and filler to see what it looks like underneath but the area I can see where the chip was is quite pitted. Either was dug or outside for a very long time. The flat surfaces were made smooth with filler but the edges appear rough which at first glance looks like it was cut out with a torch, but upon closer examination you realize the whole thing is just that rough and pitted. I guess they tried to guild the Lilly so to speak, and did so with a gallon of bondo. I guess sandblasting is now the only option unless something else will remove body filler.

Just for info i snapped a couple of pics this morning while home for the holiday. the first one is the corner showing the thickness of the body filler and the surface underneath. the second is a spot on the back of the door covering the optic peephole where they could not apply the filler showing the texture that i am guessing is what the entire shield looks like.

This is not the first time I have seen body filler used to improve the look of a pitted, ground dug original item. The air cyclone seperator on my WWII motorcycle was treated the same way, and was replaced with one that was in better condition.

Yes, I have seen a couple items that were made more "acceptable" to look at after they were dug-up.

On a similar note.......I came across two of WWI German Sniper-Plates (armour-shield with door and rear-support) out in my garage from a purchase years ago that are in a little better condition......will probably dig these out for photos and sale shortly if anyone is interested.

Regards, RichardS in MI.
US Army, Retired
Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net

So what is the best way to deal with pits, short of welding it up. I don't think welding is really something that can be done on this big of an item. Assuming we are painting it and its not a direct gun part. We are talking shields or mounts or something like that.

Metal spraying, which is expensive but could be used for reclaiming the surface. Building up the surface and then grinding it back flat.

Bob Naess

Bob, I had never heard of that but watch some on You Tube. That is very interesting but yes probably to expensive for the parts in question.

I removed some paint this weekend from the shield and the entire surface is pitted as described. You know though, its not that big of a deal. I am going to remove all the filler and paint and reprime with the pits as they are. I had rather have it truly what it is than appear to be something it is not. Honestly any decent metal shop could make an exact copy of this one without any pits cheaper than restoring this one if thats what you were going for. I however am not looking at making it something it is not. If you clean it up too much and make it look to slick, then everyone thinks its not an authentic shield anyway. Dont get me wrong, Im not doing this because people doubted its authenticity. I just never liked its overly perfect apperance. I will post some pics again after it has its makeup removed. I for one feel that trying to make everything appear as new often results in losing the history of some of these items. The more rare an item, the less it should be molested in my opinion.

I have a pitted Sokolov Optical shield for the 1910 Russian Maxim thats pitted pretty bad. Its not real rare, so I would rather have it look a little nicer. I don't want to use something like Bondo thats going to chip off like we can see with your shield Jmann. I was thinking of trying something like this liquid steel:
http://www.onlyomega.com/Tech%20Sheets/ ... 0Steel.pdf
I guess I need to make sure I can sand it down but something like that...

Years ago I was restoring a Dodge 3/4 ton WC 51 there were a couple of parts that were badly pitted....
one of them was the stearing wheel I used a primer/filler paint.... with each spraying I did a light sanding
when done the metal rods looked the way they were supposed to look.....this coating method works and
in the years I had the truck it did not crack or chip....
I think if a restoration is done not to decieve it's not a problem ... the problem is when it is done to add major monetary value.. and it is not disclosed to the buyer. of course when an item passes through many hands in 10 or 20 years who's to know when the inhancment was done or who forgot to tell the next owner....