While I live in complete ignorance of Tibetan helmets, I'd have to say that to my uneducated eye, there are anomalies that lead me to doubt that the helmet in question is of significant age.
The improper lacing of the plates is apparent, but could be excused as an inept reassembly after having dismantled the helmet for "restoration".
The designs on the bowl of the helmet appear rather fresh, and the riveting seems modern. It seems to lack any sort of patina stemming from use.
All that said, while it may not be new, it seems to be satisfactorily Tibetan, given the source. "Fake" is a term I'd only use if an object was deliberately misidentified for larcenous purpose; the artifact is what it is, and does not seem to lie, or to bear deliberate false witness about itself. That said, I have no knowledge about how it may have been represented at an auction site.
|