The first reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was met with worldwide acclaim and was both academically and culturally influential.
It stayed on display for more than 20 years, during which time it became an iconic object of the Middle Ages.
In 1951 the helmet was displayed at the Festival of Britain, where an exhibit on Sutton Hoo was curated by Rupert Bruce-Mitford.
That same year Life dispatched a 25-year-old Larry Burrows to the British Museum, resulting in a full-page photograph of the helmet alongside a photograph of Maryon; five years later, on the strength of his restorations, Maryon was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.
Images of the helmet made their way into television programmes, books, and newspapers, even as the second reconstruction was worked on.
Though the lasting impact of the first reconstruction is as a first, reversible, attempt from which problems could be identified and solutions could be found, for two decades Maryon's reconstruction was an icon in its own right.

With the helmet on public display and as greater knowledge of contemporary helmets became available, the first reconstruction, Bruce-Mitford wrote, "was soon criticised, though not in print, by Swedish scholars and others."
An underlying issue was the decision to arrange the fragments around the mould of an average man's head, possibly inadvertently predetermining the reconstruction's size.
Particular criticisms also noted its exposed areas, and a neck guard that was fixed rather than movable.
Though envisioned by Maryon as similar to a "crash helmet of a motor cyclist" with padding of about ³⁄₈ inch (9.5 mm) between head and helmet, its size allowed for little such cushioning; one with a larger head would have had difficulty just getting it on.
The missing portion at the front of each cheek piece left the jaw exposed, there was a hole between eyebrows and nose, and the eye holes were large enough for a sword to pass through.
Meanwhile, as noted early on by Sune Lindqvist, the projecting face mask seemed odd, and would have left the wearer's nose vulnerable to blows to the face.
An artistic reconstruction created in 1966 by the British Museum and the Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey, under the direction of C. W. Phillips, attempted to solve some of these problems, showing a larger cap, a straighter face mask, smaller eye openings, the terminal dragon heads at opposite ends, and the rearrangement of some of the pressblech panels; it too, however, came under criticism by archaeologists.

A final issue raised by Maryon's construction was the use of plaster to elongate the crest by approximately 4 ¹⁄₂ inches (110 mm).
The crest had largely survived its millennium of interment, perhaps given durability by the inlaid silver wires.
The need to replace missing portions was thus questioned; it was thought that either the reconstructed crest was too long, or that original portions had been overlooked during the 1939 excavation.
When the ship-burial was re-excavated in the 1960s, one of the objectives was thus to search for more fragments, the absence of which could be treated as evidence that the crest had originally been shorter.
The first reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was met with worldwide acclaim and was both academically and culturally influential. It stayed on display for more than 20 years, during which time it became an iconic object of the Middle Ages. In 1951 the helmet was displayed at the Festival of Britain, where an exhibit on Sutton Hoo was curated by Rupert Bruce-Mitford. That same year Life dispatched a 25-year-old Larry Burrows to the British Museum, resulting in a full-page photograph of the helmet alongside a photograph of Maryon; five years later, on the strength of his restorations, Maryon was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. Images of the helmet made their way into television programmes, books, and newspapers, even as the second reconstruction was worked on. Though the lasting impact of the first reconstruction is as a first, reversible, attempt from which problems could be identified and solutions could be found, for two decades Maryon's reconstruction was an icon in its own right.
With the helmet on public display and as greater knowledge of contemporary helmets became available, the first reconstruction, Bruce-Mitford wrote, "was soon criticised, though not in print, by Swedish scholars and others." An underlying issue was the decision to arrange the fragments around the mould of an average man's head, possibly inadvertently predetermining the reconstruction's size. Particular criticisms also noted its exposed areas, and a neck guard that was fixed rather than movable. Though envisioned by Maryon as similar to a "crash helmet of a motor cyclist" with padding of about ³⁄₈ inch (9.5 mm) between head and helmet, its size allowed for little such cushioning; one with a larger head would have had difficulty just getting it on. The missing portion at the front of each cheek piece left the jaw exposed, there was a hole between eyebrows and nose, and the eye holes were large enough for a sword to pass through. Meanwhile, as noted early on by Sune Lindqvist, the projecting face mask seemed odd, and would have left the wearer's nose vulnerable to blows to the face. An artistic reconstruction created in 1966 by the British Museum and the Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey, under the direction of C. W. Phillips, attempted to solve some of these problems, showing a larger cap, a straighter face mask, smaller eye openings, the terminal dragon heads at opposite ends, and the rearrangement of some of the pressblech panels; it too, however, came under criticism by archaeologists.
A final issue raised by Maryon's construction was the use of plaster to elongate the crest by approximately 4 ¹⁄₂ inches (110 mm). The crest had largely survived its millennium of interment, perhaps given durability by the inlaid silver wires. The need to replace missing portions was thus questioned; it was thought that either the reconstructed crest was too long, or that original portions had been overlooked during the 1939 excavation. When the ship-burial was re-excavated in the 1960s, one of the objectives was thus to search for more fragments, the absence of which could be treated as evidence that the crest had originally been shorter.
Sutton Hoo helmet