With all due respect, this line of reasoning would have you still driving the beater you bought in college for fear someone would crash into your expensive Mercedes. I can't justify *not* buying something for fear of what *might* happen to it.

How would better made or higher quality armour survived the same situation?

Several years ago when Jeff still fought in the SCA, a 300lb beserker charged him, knocked him backwards over a hay bale and then fell on top of him. The armour was slightly bent, and Jeff was shaken but otherwise unhurt. *Because* he had good armour he was 1) able to walk away 2) only had minor damage to his harness. If he has been wearing typical metal sports equipment I have no doubt he would have had at least some broken ribs and would have gone out on a stretcher.

Last May Jeff took a header off of Bella and landed directly on his shoulder. Because his armour was well made and fitted him the only damage sustained was where his spurs ripped the saddle. He had a concussion and some sore muscles but his armour was fine. If he was wearing typical metal sports equipment, he would have been hurt much worse, and I'm sure the armour would have been damaged. If he had been wearing his helmet, he wouldn't have had the concussion.

I have thought about ditching the whole collection, <snip> and getting 1 Italian harness 1450-1500 with all the pieces of exchange including 2 helms, all in tempered steel. I'm guessing all four harnesses would probably make the down payment!

I believe Consumer Reports states that you are more likely to walk away uninjured from a wreck if you're driving a Mercedes than if you're driving a Plymouth Geo.

I think Bob Reed's line of reasoning is that he'd rather save up for the Mercedes than have 4 Geos. Fortunately, armour can be purchased one piece at a time, unlike a car.

IMHO, any of these arguments can be applied to other reenactment equipment:

• Proper wooden chests vs. military footlockers

• Cheap cotton clothing vs. wool and linen clothing

• Modern tents vs. proper canvas tents

• Director's chairs vs. X-chairs or benches.

• etc.
  

Please note that I AM NOT singling you or your group out for comment, these and what follow are general comments of my opinion.

Many of the groups represented on this list operate on the idea that it is "better to do it right the first time than have to replace it later". This tends to run counter to other popular groups who believe it is better to have something inexpensive to start and then "build up" to better stuff. There are arguments to be made for both sides, and I think a lot of it depends on where the bar is set for the the group you participate with.

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to this position, I think it's a matter of personal preference and inclination.

Just my 2d.

Gwen

The shoes and my bearskin cape and completed scramseax will be added later this week.

Bjorn the Norwegian/Bascot the Breton

To briefly sum up the original point I was making on the other thread - armour is an eventually expendable item, and it is eminantly repairable if damaged.

As an example, I would point out the only wrapper amongst the harness 'stored' at the sancuary of the Maddona Della Grazzi. It was folded and scrunched up to allow it to be stuffed into the armet it was supposed to be worn with - the people putting it on the papier mache and pole armatures originally not knowing how it was supposed to be put on. It made a full recovery with small effort, having been restored to it's original form and is back in place on the harness it was found in. 'Nuff said about that.

Here is the main body of what I wrote - to quote myself - "Any armour - to include carbon steel tempered armour - can be dented and smashed - it just takes more effort to do so. A lighter guage hardened piece will behave as a thicker guage mild piece - which is the primary advantage gained by having a tempered suit - it can be as thin as a real one.

What I do is to present as authentic an appearance of an armoured man at arms/knight as I can to an audience. My stuff is seen close up, and to have a lesser quality reproduction would be to perpetrate a fraud on the audience. The combat we participate in for the audience is a carefully staged demonstration illustrating various sequences from Fiori or Talhoffer, and the gear as a result is less likely to recieve severe damage. Re-enactment combat is also a little less strenous on gear than SCA or Jousting combat. Obviously I can and will fall of my horse in harness.

Regardless of this, I feel better about my appearance doing what I am doing if I have an authentic harness in every degree possible. Armour can be (and has been through the ages) repaired, and I think it makes a more authentic appearance to have a field harness that is to the highest degree of authenticity, that looks like it has been lovingly maintainted, used, and even repaired , than to have a number of components of lesser authenticity in pristine condition. If repair is impossible, then replace I must - with a piece again of the highest authenticity I can obtain.

I feel strongly enough about it that I am in process of replacing my entire torso & arm harness at this moment with more authentic armour."

I am intimately familiar with the effects of horse slobber on armour, having been introduced to the phenomenon by Messr Socks of the Red Company, and the tradition being carried on by Normandie of the insatiable curiosity (at least Socks didn't play with my buckles and straps).

I think our difference in philosophies regarding harness stems from what we are trying to show our differing 'audiences'. You and your troop are showing the pagentry and excitement of the lists. You are showing them the flashy side of chivalric sport, and to do so you can get away with a piece that looks good from a short distance, with the more important pieces being of a higher quality. Most importantly for you is the 'flash' of it - your showing knights in shining armour, which there is nothing wrong with, it's just a different aspect of Medieval life.

I on the other hand am trying to present an accurate picture of the members of a lance on campaign. Hell, I do not even portray a knight, just a Gentleman of the upper middle class. To me, the wear of the harness as it gets used, the eventual pitting of the inside calf of the greaves on its exterior surface from horse sweat, this is the sort of wear that shows a working field harness. So long as it is carefully maintained, then this adds to rather than detracts from the impression.

I want the look of my harness as it goes through it's working life to have the look of a veterans rifle on campaign - well used, but maintained lovingly in top condition. My harness is seen very close up, and I cannot compromise in quality and honestly say that it represents a plausible picture of what I'm supposed to be representing.

The knight in the lists and the soldier on campaign are two different sides of Medieval life. Neither is a 'better' picture of the medieval 'knight', just different pictures of different things. Were I doing what you are doing, I would sell off a lot of my lesser harness and get in contact with Mac or Jeff for your spring steel harness, but thats me. You have to do what seems right by you. Your gear gets a lot of use and abuse, and you don't have squires and valets about to maintain it's splendour for you - I can sympathise with you.

That makes perfect sense. Now on to the part "maintained lovingly in top condition." Let's talk details here.

No, we aren't SCA, and we are striving for as much authenticity of experience as we can muster. I think Chef nailed the differences pretty clearly.

"Are you keeping your gear well-waxed? I have heard that Renaissance Wax is pretty hardy stuff."

I polish my stuff with a white rouge on an industrial buffer after any corrosion or before any important event. The shine generally lasts through the Pennsic War with only wipe-downs with WD-40. Falling in the horse arena is different, though.

This will be (probably) my last post till Sunday, as we are getting ready to head out.

Bascot,my primary care for the metal of my harness is oil - Howes penetrating oil to give a plug, and Jeff recommended it to me. I think it does a better job than WD-40,I always have an oily rag fairly handy "on campaign".

Out at my first Red Co. event to date, we were in the foothills of the mountains in So. California. I thought it would be pretty mild even though it was well into November (Boy! Was I wrong!). It rained, drizzled, misted, snowed, and even hailed a little over the course of the event (it was of course bloody cold - AM said it was like living inside of a cloud)).

My only recourse to protect my gear was an oily rag, I wiped it down fairly often, and I did not have any problems at all. The worst to happen to it was Socks holding on to the wing of my couter with his lips unbeknownst to me when I was beside him - it still has extremely light pitting to this day at that spot - no rust, but you can see where the metal had been attacked. I don't scour at all unless I absolutely have to, which isn't very often, maybe once or twice on a couple of pieces. In oily rag applied as soon as possible I trust.

Of course, I haven't been falling off a horse into urine soaked arenas. When I do, i'll let you know the solutions I try.

I had heard that WD 40 actually wasn't very good as a long term rust inhibitor.

No, actually, it's pretty lousy. It leaves a kerosene film and it probably causes rust after it breaks down. But it is available at any convenience store and consequently gets used alot. When I display my armour in the living room, I leave it with the white rouge.

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

What I do is clean armor at events with a scotchbrite pad and WD-40 after every wearing or public fondling. When when I get home, I wipe it down & put on renaisance wax. Some of the armor is painted on the inside & that seems to help. (authentic? propbably not) Of course, my stuff hasn't been subjected to environments more extreme than rain & human sweat.

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

As in auto? I used to use a liquid car wax on my armour, although I haven't for a couple of years. It worked pretty well, plus, you could let it dry and not polish it off until right before an event so as to look extra-shiny, which is what I did before I played King Arthur "once upon a time".

No, as in furniture. Try Johnson's. Yellow and red can. about $5.

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

Just wondering, since it seems so important to you that the armour be chrome-bright at all times. Jeff tends to favor a less brilliant finish.

Of course not. Not in my time period. I doubt they could get much past a steel wool finish. By your time period, I'm sure they could and occasionally did polish to a mirror finish. Why bother with all the etching, blueing and gilding on scratchy-looking steel?

The better polished the armour, however, the less surface area exposed, the less chance of rust. I polish my stuff like a mirror after the season's over and store it like that. Next spring, a light buff where ever there is a problem, and I go to the first event looking like the wedding scene in Excaliber. Then I wipe it down with WD 40, and it turns grey but generally stays rust-free until after Pennsic.

I started this thread to discuss maintaining Bob's new armour in an equestrian environment, not to advertise myself as a living make-up mirror! Now if I get hired to do a school or library where they are expecting glitz-I give them what they want. I will try Jeff's suggestion, since I'm out of car wax anyway.

Is looking "bright & shiny" important to me? Yes, I get a kick out of standing above the lazy slobs who throw their armour & sweaty gambesons in the same sealed modern gym bag, and who's stuff is a nasty brown. No self-respecting man-at-arms would have let himself be seen like that in a tournament. And I refer to other Ren. Faire groups, as well as the SCA.

------------------
VERITAS IN INTIMO
VIRES IN LACERTU
SIMPLICITAS IN EXPRESSO

Add Reenactors to the list of people with different approaches as to how well polished and maintained their armor ought be. I'm one of the fussy ones who cleans it religiously in camp after every wearing or public handling. I almost always get harassed about it by the guys who claim that rust is authentic for being on campaign.

I also tend to stay out of the rain and away from "Sparring". Call me effite, but I plan on having my gear looking good for a long time.

I have heard that ashes may be an appropriate period cleaning medium. Any references or experiences with this? It seems plausable and replicable. Not that I'd use it on everything. I'll stick to the scotchbrite pads, but maybe cleaning some simple piece of armor with ashes in camp may be a good activity. Or maybe a ash/oil paste?

”I get a kick out of standing above the lazy slobs who throw their armour & sweaty gambesons in the same sealed modern gym bag, and who's stuff is a nasty brown. No self-respecting man-at-arms would have let himself be seen like that in a tournament.”

I agree. Sweat is really corrosive, and I just don’t buy the idea that gambesons were never cleaned. I think this is part of the “medieval people were stupid, filthy trogladites” line of reasoning which I reject utterly.

Our guys don’t like out and out rust, but a mirror-bright polish isn’t one of their favorite “looks”, probably because they are soldiers, not tournamenters. Bill really seem to favor the “dented and scratched” look as fulfilling his idea of the equipment of the career soldier.

Jeff generally waits until after the event to dismantle and throughly clean his armour. He likes a bit of rust and “horse snot smears” here and there while he’s “on campaign”, as he says “I want it to look like I use it while I’m at an event”. I suspect that he will specifically ask the guys for really “used” looking equipment and a lot of maintenance going on in camp at our next event, which is supposed to happen the day after Twe

JeffJ, sparring is supposed to prevent you from getting hit by increasing your skill level. If you avoid it, you’re never going to get better. Our guys LOVE to spar, using just leather gloves, bucklers, helmets and wooden wasters. Jeff is really the only one who spars in armour, and that usually just because he hasn’t taken it off yet. I don’t think sparring necessarily means you have to have your armour dented, but I suppose that depends on who your sparring partners are.

”I have heard that ashes may be an appropriate period cleaning medium. Any references or experiences with this?”

At events Bill will sit for hours at a time polishing his armour with fine dust and pig grease. I suspect ashes would be a fine substitute for the dust. Bill says the grease gets worked into the metal, and he has little or no problems with rust on armour that has been so treated. Since he buffs the treated parts with a clean cloth, no, he doesn’t smell like rancid fat. I suspect that so little is left on the metal that it isn’t enough to smell.

I’ve noticed a similar cleaning effect on chain mail. I have a a piece of riveted mail that I use it with tallow soap as a pot scrubber to clean my greasy pots. It started out rather rusty, but I noticed after the first time I used it at an event it was really clean, and it has remained clean. Somehow, it seems that the fat acts on the metal to remove the rust and inhibit further rust. It worked so well that I even asked Jeff if it was possible that mail shirts could have been cleaned with tallow soap and hot water instead of the sand-bath we’ve all read about.

Gwen

Doing a demo with blunt steel or wasters
with someone I've trained with, is one thing. It's "sparring" with guys I've never practiced with, who carry saw-edged overweight steel clubs disguised as swords & have evil gleams in their eyes as they look at my unrusted, undented armor who I'm wary of.

I think finish of harness is largely a matter of station. According to Gerry Embleton in his new book he says he has seen an armours original surface twice - both small bits that were protected by an overlapping plate, and in both cases the finish was a mirror polish.

That said, most of the harness surviving is harness that is of higher quality and made for people of station - it was kept because it was pretty.

In regards to Bascots original question, it is interesting to note that Philip the Fair's jousting harness was tinned overall. His surviving field harness was polished bright with gilded highlights. My theory is that falling in a tiltyard leads to the very problem Bascot struggles with, and tinning is a decent solution - even for the heir of the Holy Roman Empire.

My own opinion is that people of station like officers and knights should try to keep their gear reasonably polished (noy mirror bright), as they would have had servants that would have seen to it. Poorer men at arms and professional soldiers should probably have more of a satin finish, or they should have harness that is varnished black, firescale black, browned, or painted for ease of maintanence. Anybody portraying a rich knight or minor lord should go for the mirror polished look, and anybody with the lucre to portray a honest to god lord ought to have a mirror polish at the least, and probably ought to have some of their harness gilt, and maybe have something really special done in the way of decoration.

My two groats.

It is akin to rolling your maille around in a barrel full of sand. Nice clean, shiney rings.

Peter Fuller does fine work. I have several items of his I am very happy with. It is hard to "rate" armourers - especially as it is so difficult to match the form of the real thing properly, and armourers have certain periods of equipment that they excell at.

I find the best armourers are ones who have
A. Artistic tallent
B.the raw ability to move the metal the way it has to be moved and to visualize the process
C. And most importantly, have had the opportunity to examine the real thing up close, and better yet have handled it

Altogether, there are probably only a half dozen armourers on this continent who would fill the bill, and some of them are not the largest names out there. Jeff & Mac & William Radford are at the top of my short list. Peter is on the list as well. He was the conservator for the Glenbow museum I believe, so he has had the chance to handle real pieces of harness. Peter will not raise a helmet, as he is not happy enough with his experiments in raising to offer them for sale. His attention to detail is what it ought to be, and he is one of the few armourers I recommend to people who wish to portray men at arms.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that the very few armourers out there who truly make historical harness are all at different stages of development of their eye and skill. Every time one approaches a problem in amouring - the swell in the bowl to the 243rd sallet you have made, they get a little better each time - at least the real tallents do. What I find interesting is that each of them bring a little of their own flair to a project, and leave a little of their artistic vision in it. I think if you were to study a series of sallets from armourers in my "top list", you would start to be able to pic out the Mac sallets from the Hedgecock sallets from the Radford sallets.... but I digress. At this rate I'll start talking about top notch reproduction armour as being affordable art.

I hope this helps.