Obviously maille should be riveted. I make a bit of riveted in my spare time (what little of it ther is ) and thought that I had just about gotten it to the point where it would be acceptable for LH..... untill someone pointed out to me that:

1: I wasn't making any "double nailled" type maille

and 2: my maille does not have the correct "D" shaped cross section. I cut my links with the overlap in place rather than forcing them through a funnel contraption to get the overlap, so when I flatten them the cross section is a sort of oval with a flat top and bottom.

This sort of bugs me, I think I'll post some pics of my stuff in a few weeks when I get my digi-cam. fixed and you guys can tell me what you think.

First of all, riveted mail is not all the same.

Double riveting is rare. Section of the wire varies radically. Some is round and flattened at the overlap, some is semi flattened, but flattened more at the overlap, some is almost like lock washers. There is no "one way" to make correct riveted mail. Don't let the 'experts' on the AA tell you otherwise.

It sounds like you are making it fine. I know of one website where the guy shows all the steps he takes in making very nice looking riveted mail. I'll see if I can find it.

BTW, Bob has some of my riveted mail and he thinks it's ok for his group, unless he's changed his standards.

------------------
Cheers,

If so, he does make some nice maille, I made a pair of punch tongs similar to his and have had great success with them. If this isn't the one you're thinking of, than I'd be more than pleased to learn more.

While we're on the topic, Is anyone aware of any sort of documentation for the prevalence of the different sorts of riveted? ie. x amount of double nailled vs. x amout of flattened overlap vs. x amount of entirely flattened? Or are there simply to many variations to make that sort of comparison? I'd like to be making the commonplace rather than the exceptional.

Thanks

Yes, that's the page. I think it's a very valuable resource.

I'll try to look up the citations of riveted mail types in my library, tho' it may take me a while to get to.

------------------
Cheers,

I have happily owned Historic Enterprises mail for over a year. I think it more than fine for the purpose - Jeeze - it really works ! The alternating rows of rivited and solid links are a phenomenon of earlier mail, double rivited mail was a rarity historicaly, albeit the finest examples were porobably thus, and existing shirts of European mail attributed to the 15th c. contain rings that are closed by both pin rivits and wedge rivits.

I have priced out Erik and Steves mail - superlative work. A standard with wedge rivits - a standard, mind you would run in the niegborhood of $600 + . Double rivited links would probably run you as much as a raised helmet, for a comparitively small piece. Someday I'll get a standard with brass edging, and maybe mail sabaton patches with decorative brass links in an overlaying pattern a'la the Trinity chapel St. Michael, but that sort of thing is a lower priority.

Most re-enactment mail is butt-linked, and H.E.'s mail is reasonably priced. By the time you got the a-historical zinc coating off of Museum Replicas rivaling rivited shirt, you will have more than the price difference invested in time and effort. Besides, you can get loose links and rivits for repais , tailoring, or projects.

No - I am not a paid schill for Historic Enterprises, but I am rather frugal with my money and time. The product for the money is probably the best alternative out there. I do allow butt - linked mail in my company, so long as it is correctly tailored, weaved, of the correct materiel, and of the correct guage and link diameter to most closely approximate the look of a historical shirt

It's a tough one, because in a primarily-mail era, it could be more cost prohibitive for a suitable harness than for a full harness of very nice plate. Why? The technique is rare, the good producers even rarer, and the technique itself makes (relatively) quick production almost impossible, so the availability is also very low.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glen K:
It's a good question that I've discussed with some buddies, especially cause I'm "sorta" in a ~1197 Templar group...

---

Really? Where? In the U. S.?

Robert Coleman, Jr.

Recently we have gotten information regarding an Indian riveted mail company called International Steelcrafters. Most of the people in the tournament company I'm forming are going to acquire their stuff for that reasonably authentic 12th-13th century look in mail. I'm more than happy to send their information if you like...

I will send an e-mail to find out more of your group...I'm very interested.

Robert Coleman, Jr.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't.

We have riveted mail in stock also. http://www.historicenterprises.com/arms_and_armour/rivetedmail.html

We offer the following:
Hauberks
Aventails
Mantles made with small rings in the collar area
5/16" ID ring fabric
3/8" ID ring fabric
3/8" ID loose rings for making your own or doing repairs/alterations

There has been some comment on the Armour Archive about the quality of this product which is not made by International Steelcrafts. The quality is MUCH improved from the initial batches from my manufacturer, and I feel the batch just received two weeks ago is better than Int. Steelcrafts. He also doesn't plate the steel with anything.

Bob has some of my mail and seems to like it.

I have International steelcrafts products available to me also, but their wholesale prices are high. Be careful, duty and shipping can be expensive from India. Duty is always charged on this end, so don't believe any exporter that tells you it's included.

Thanks for the heads-up! Hadn't taken that into consideration.

Robert Coleman, Jr.

Here's a pic I just found of our Templar buddies from MTA. Marching ahead of Labelle. http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=275757&a=2939556&p=18199676

One of the Templars had some very nice riveted mail he was working on.

I'm also in this guy's album - Parade 4. I'd just gotten the Arms, gauntlets & Pauldrons fron Jeff H the day before. Explains the grin. (Have another plug, Jeff) Now for legs...

Buran said:

"Roughly speaking, alternating welded/riveted links seems the most common historically."

I'm sorry, but the historical examples of riveted mail do not bear this out. The Wallace collection probably has more examples of mail than any other museum.

Welded rings are a ridiculous concept at best. It's nearly impossible to forge weld iron wire with medieval technology.

Of the 19 articles of mail in the Wallace collection, only one example has punched (whole) rings in iron. A pair of mail sleeves, supposedly from the 15th-16th century. These could be sleeves remaining from a hauberk, or possibly a later thing made for fencing in say the 17th century.

All the other examples in which punched (whole) rings are utilized (and there are only 5), the rings are brass, not iron, and are added as trim.

I don't think this is conclusive evidence that punched (whole) rings in iron are typical of medieval mail.

No doubt the reason that brass whole rings were used is because brass is much easier to punch these rings from, while iron is quite difficult. Drawing wire for mail is much easier than making the metal into a plate, then punching it to make rings.

------------------
Cheers,

Anyway, as far as welded rings, the example I'm thinking of is in the Royal Armoury at Leeds, and there are certainly more. To be certain, its steel is well rusted, but one can clearly see a row of riveted rings alternating with a row of non-riveted rings. This much is for certain. The rust keeps us from telling whether those rings are welded or butted, but who would alternate riveted rings with butted? This would be a waste of the smith's precious time, yes? Every scholarly work I have read on this subject deduces that these are welded rings. Now I know it's hard to get thin wire to welding heat without burning it, but it is not impossible.

Something to think about.

Either way, though, it's also clear that if this was a common technology, it certainly WASN'T by the later 14th century. And of 15th and 16th century mail, I don't know of any shirts that aren't all riveted.

For those interested, I have an informal writeup here.

Stephen atte Smythe
Edited to fix UBB mess-up

Jeffrey:

While the evidence for punched solid rings remains sketchy (at least for ferrous metals), there are numerous examples of solid ferrous rings.

The evidence seems conclusive that most mail items were composed of all riveted rings.

I believe it is E.M. Burgess, among others who notes that prior to 1400 it seems that maille was most commonly constructed using alternating rows of riveted and solid rings. After 1400 it seems more common to find garments made with all-riveted rings.

Because intact maille garments that date to pre-1400 become difficult to find, this may be a difficult conclusion to support. However, the one 14th century garment I was able to handle at the Royal Armouries in Leeds last November was a coif of alternating rows of riveted and solid rings. My analysis, using a digital microscope and computer, revealed that the garment did indeed have "European" style wedge rivets, a fact that the Royal Armouries was uncertain of. The wedge rivets, in conjunction with the alternating solid and riveted rings, seemed to convince Mr. Richardson, Keeper of the Royal Armouries, that the article was, in fact, a 14th century European coif.

"Roughly speaking, alternating welded/riveted links seems the most common historically."

I'm sorry, but the historical examples of riveted mail do not bear this out. The Wallace collection probably has more examples of mail than any other museum.

In fact, it was at the Arms and Armour Study Day at the Wallace Collection last November where David Edge, curator of the arms collection, gave a presentation which all but put to rest the debate on forge welded rings. His work, along with metallographic work done by Dr. Alan Williams shows without a doubt that some solid rings were in fact forge welded. In fact, all metallographic analysis on solid ferrous maille rings today supports forge welding. There is no metallographic evidence for punched rings in maille, that I am aware of. There is supposed to be a document published by a David Sim in support of punched ferrous rings in Roman era maille, but I have not as yet read it.

It is interesting to note that the overlap of the forge welded ring mentioned in the above lecture was not overlapped as are riveted rings (overlapped top to bottom in the plane of the ring). Instead, the overlap seams to have been OD to ID.

Welded rings are a ridiculous concept at best. It's nearly impossible to forge weld iron wire with medieval technology.

As rediculous as it may seem, it was, in fact done, as the available evidence shows. I know that it is certainly possible to heat-weld even modern low carbon steel wire today. I was able to do it with a propane torch and two sets of tongs. To accomplish this, I held the ring on the opposite side of the ring overlap with some needle nose pliers. With this in my left hand, and another small pair of pliers in my right, I thrust the ring into the flame of the torch. I allowed it to heat up, and then I dipped the ring into a fluxing agent (borax). I then thrust the ring back into the torch flame, bringing the ring up to a bright orange temperature, which of course melted the flux. I then removed the ring from the flame and with my right hand squeezed the ring overlap with a second small pair of pliers. This was sufficient pressure to weld the overlap together.

While I used a propane torch, a forge could very easily have been used. Also, the slag present in medieval wrought iron acts as a natural fluxing agent. Thus medieval wrought iron (wire or otherwise) I am told forge welds beautifully, much more easily than modern "pure" steels.

I don't think this is conclusive evidence that punched (whole) rings in iron are typical of medieval mail.

Being "typical" and being an "SCA fallacy" are two entirely different things. I think we can safely say that solid rings existed in period maille. I think it is also safe to say that at this point in time all metallographic evidence supports forge welding as the means to produce those solid rings.

As for how common solid rings were in maille I can only go by published accounts of experts, having only a limited exposure to the genuine articles myself.

No doubt the reason that brass whole rings were used is because brass is much easier to punch these rings from, while iron is quite difficult. Drawing wire for mail is much easier than making the metal into a plate, then punching it to make rings.

As you note, this is one of the primary reasons against [u]punched[/u] solid rings. Why go to the trouble to work ingots into plate and then turn it back into rings for maille? The beauty of maille is that even small amounts of iron can be hammered or otherwise worked into wire, and even small segments of wire can be fashioned into rings. Of course, as I said above, all evidence now seems to support forge welded, not punched, solid rings.

It is interesting to note that forge welded rings were used in Eastern maille even into the twilight years of maille. I own two Indian garments that likely date to the 16th-18th century. They also contain very obviously forge welded rings. You can see pictures of some of these rings here:
http://www.forth-armoury.com/photo_gallery/coif/welded_rings.htm

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

[This message has been edited by mailleman (edited 04-10-2001).]