What time period would this fit for, if any? Is it even an accurate reproduction? I really like the look of it, but do not want one if it will not fit my persona.

Thanks!

--------------------

This is the only one of its kind anywhere, and it's EXTREMELY doubtful if anything like it really existed in period.

It's very frustrating, because the armour on which this item is displayed is taken as the archetypal example of late 14th century transitional armour and really it's a terrible composition of heavily reworked elements, most of which aren't even close.

--------------------

I figure that the closest thing to it is a Brigandine, though I have heard of velvet-covered breastplates, but know nothing more than that rumor of their existence -- Does anybody out there know more of them? Anyway, a Brig is shaped and tailored (got that nipped in waist so it looks like the Corrazino -- where'd that name come from?). It is fastened up the front with those studly-looking buckles (later used in Battlestar Galactica), and can be covered in velvet or silk (saw one in the Doge's Palace armory, Venice, which was -- I think -- not a reconstruction, and it was a greenish-gold silk over something stout, like canvas, with evenly spaced gilded domed rivets -- very nice).

There are other threads here in the Forum dealing with Brigandines, which have a much more finished look to them than do the earlier coats of plates. Check out the photos in Embleton & Howe's Medieval Soldier, or the photos of the Company of the Wolfe Argent's Brigandine. That may be more like what you're looking for, and is decidedly authentic.

I will continue to follow up on the Brigandine threads...does anyone happen to have any patterns for a brig?

Thanks!

--------------------

and I was going to have a corazzina for torso armour and now I hear this..... I'm more that a little upset about this since I really love the look of it, but so be it.

Any suggestions on what might be a spiffy replacement for it? I was wanting to avoid the segmented breast only because it is often times over done but I'm at this point open to suggestions.

Thanks

On page 75 of Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight, center right of the page, is a depiction of a silver altar piece in Pistoia Cathedral, Italy, attributed to 1376 which shows what appears to me to be the same type defense.

Ah yes, the silver altarpiece. I don't know, it is tough to say. That may well be a form of fitted jupon. It would seem that most of the coat of plates and brigandine family (which the Corazzina would fall into if it existed) had strap and buckle closure. This laces up which makes me think it is a cover rather than a defence.

I think the problem you run into is the looseness of Medival terminology. I get a kick out of seeing many of our contemporaries come up with or try for ridged classification systems naming types of defence. AIR, the first mention anywhere of Corrazone is also the first mention of a brigading 'corazzonea brigantine' is how it comes out.

There are extant later (and plenty early 15th century fragmentary ones found at Chalsis) that had large plates integral - whopping big lung plates that make a rudimentary upper breast plate, and even centeral large plates from the collar covering the collar bone. The Higgins has what seems to be a quarter pannel of three overlapping lames to a skirt (peplum, fauld, whatever) of one of these things, with the original fabric attatched.

So my conclusion is this is an early defence of the brigandine family. It is a pity that Bashford Dean looked at these fragments with the intent of the collector coming up with a "whole defense" for a pleasing display, rather than an attempted study of the bits of fragments that seemed to go together. He took whatever knowledge we could have derived and threw it away when he took a jumble of bits from different defences to cobble together this one. AIR, he may have even split an extant breastplate to get the famous 'globose' form of this one. Plates do not overlap, so the 'defence' is merely a piece of pleasing art than a true armour - but then the MET is an ART Museum - not an armour museum, and we peons ought not forget that, or the board of trustees will remind us I'm sure.

--------------------

I'll try to post a good reference to the altichiero pics when I get home next week. They are very informative.

You should also look at the velvet-covered breastplate now in Munich. Isn't this in Arms&armour of the medieval knight?

Also, look at the excellent bronze statue of St. George, dated 1376, which is in a public square in Prague. Very good detail. I know this is widely published.

"I don't doubt that the aforementioned Met piece isn't correct. I wouldn't dismiss the style, however, on the inaccuracy of one "example" of it."

I don't necessarily dismiss the Met cuirass as representing a style that didn't exist. I do however feel that this type of torso defense is not practical for a fully armoured combatant on a horse. I would like to point out that the large plates or “fauld” of the Met cuirass is not suitable for use on horseback, as it does not ‘collapse’ as a fauld of horizontal strips, or allow the wearer to spread his legs around a horse. I call your attention to the cuirass pictured on the page in AAoMK just after the ‘silver’ altarpiece. This is of similar date and yet has a fauld of horizontal strips riveted to the fabric covering. This cuirass is currently in Churburg in northern Italy, and doubtless is untouched since its use in the late 14th century.

In the "Silver" altarpiece, the single figure who wears what could be seen as the Met type of cuirass is also on foot and carrying a rather large shield (In AAoMK, center panel, far left figure), so IF we assume that his cuirass is a depiction of a similar style to the Met example, its intended use is probably in infantry.

Alternatively, the division line down the center front of the garment is flanked by two rows of staggered dots/circles, which most likely indicates spiral lacing as seen on tight fitting jupons worn over armour in this period. I agree with Bob R. in that what we’re most likely seeing in this altarpiece is a jupon over a cuirass or “pair of plates” of globose form, with no plates in the hip/fauld area. Perhaps the figure is wearing a mail shirt under his cuirass, as was customary in many regions in this period. We should also remember that altarpieces are allegorical, and artists often discarded reality and portrayed figures in fashions/armour that was considered “antique” to the time or just invented things they thought looked interesting.