what is your opinion?

to me it seems that modern armour is more refined in some aspects than its model. besides the fact that modern is over safe in some areas.

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

The sports armour is indeed heavily influenced by safety standards. Helmets are very large to allow foam to be layered inside. They have tie down straps for the visors and hockey chin straps with lacing coming out the sides of the helmet and tying in the back.

If someone tries to get away from the face grill look, they end up with extra extra tall eyeslots.

Also there is an amazing mixing of materials, cultures and time periods in one set of armour.

But that is the 'sport' armour.

Actual reproduction armour can be made from wrought iron. Though I don't have the link with me at work, it is still sold in sheet and bar. We may be over polishing the armour too much. Perhaps more research into methods and standards desired by the original warriors is needed. Our modern mind-set is heavily influenced by our times. Something I have noticed is the number of vervelles on a helmet, as well as the number of daggings on a camail are not as numerous as the originals.

There are finally a few skilled armourers producing very accurate riveted mail for the renactment community. It truly makes such a difference.

Just my 2p opinion.

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

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

He showed me and I was stunned as the only visible difference was the hammering and forge blackening on the inside of the work. Absolutely incredible.

Incidentally he was working on a number of items that you just don't see mentioned in books. One was a mail standard but interwoven with velvet, i can't remember what period he said it was but it wasn't very late, certainly not beyond 16th c.

Sorry back to topic.

I have also handled a few originals and I feel that often even the very good reenactment armour, helmets in particular are just too heavy or at least the metal is too thick. Mind you get what you pay for. if you want a single sheet helmet well get your wallet out.

regards

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

The sallet of Siegmund of Tyrol(1485) weight 7,26 lbs.(someone can comfirm?)
Another german sallet of 1480 weight 6 lb 14 oz.
An open faced sallet (1490-1500) in the collection of the Tower of London weight 4 lb 12 oz.

My german sallet is made with 12ga(skull) and 14ga (tail and visor). It weight only 6 lb 7 oz.

I have an Italian sallet made of two welded pieces of 14ga with a visor of 16ga and it weight only 4 lb 12 oz.

I think that for "welded" reenactment helmets, 14ga and 12ga helmets have more historical weight and probably more historical thickness. At least for the second half of the XV century.

For raised helmets, this is another thing...

Sorry for my poor english.

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

I have handled real ones and reenactment ones of various makes and there is a great deal of difference.

My very first reenactment sallet was too thin, or at least it was not hard enough. later ones were thicker but not as hard, ie not made in the same way as the originals. The better armourers will endeavour to make them as accurate as possible given the usual conditions of materials and above all what people will be prepared to pay for a 'proper' sallet.

Your English is very good so you have no need to apologise.

regards

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

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

I will only input on high quality reproductions, which are externally very close to the originals, as this is really the best comparison. Modern "sports" armour in many cases only shares a name with authentic armour, or high end reproductions. Even the bast sport armour has modifications to occularums or visors as has been noted, as the wearers want to compete in their rules set which requires the modifications, such as to their knees, or the wrist of their gauntlets, or the size of their occularum (not having the option to lift their visors and fight in that way their historical counterparts did due to safety considerations). Lets not consider sport armours at all, even the very highest quality, but only those used in reenactment proper, and so do not require modification.

There are a handfull of armourers in the known armour working world who get really close with their reproductions, some frequent this board, or have frequented it in the past, and there are an unknown but presumably small number of armour 'restorers' who are far less well known, but can make a forgery that can fool 'expert' assessors of their work. Their work ends up in collections of collectors of antique armour, and museums, so they have no bearing on the topic.

The chief limitation of modern high quality armourers (the Radfords, Macpheresons, ect) is the clientel and the clients taste. The best armourers can make a very accurate reproduction (wieght, exacting form, method of construction, even varience of thickness across the piece, and they can make it of wrought iron if you chose to have it done), if you have the thousands to spend on a helmet, for instance, or the tens of thousands to spend on a harness complete. The clients taste on the other hand dictates limitations to them. Here is a listing in brief of the imposition of the client on the armourers work -

1. They demand a symmetry not present on the majority of originals, giving more of a machined look than a handmade look to the finished product.

2. They want invariably a reproduction of a piece made for a nobleman, most often someone high up on the ladder - in part, this is due to the majority of well published antique armours falling into this catagory, in part, due to taste of client as these are more pleasing to the eye.

3.Even those who choose to have armour replicated more in line with their portrayal tend to demand a finish on a piece unlikely for the portrayal of the reenactor - I call it "Knight in shining armour syndrome".

As mentioned above, these limitations are limitations imposed by the client, on the armourer - who has to make a living, and who to do so must cater to the client.

These limitations imposed also create the penomenon in reenactment of reenactors on the high end of striving for accuracy (cause these are the people willing to pay the best armourers for the best reproductions) having archers and footsoldiers wearing harness of a quality they would not likely have worn, with a larger percentage of them having a high polished surface than would have been the case in reality. There are very few bits of russetted, black from the forge, painted black or painted, or tinned armours on middle class reenactors portraying common soldiers - far fewer than would have likely been the case in reality, both from traces of survivals of munitions armours, and from inventories and other documents. Everyone wants a 'nice' piece, after all, they are spending lots of money to get it - we are all guilty of this to one degree or other. I wish on the other hand people would examine some of the 'nice' pieces in existance, that are in line with what they are portraying, and with traces of finish other than a high polish - the hobby could only improve from a larger inclusion of such pieces, and a discipline of self-limitation, not to show up being the pikeman wearing one of Sigismund the magnificents or a Matsch of Churburg, or a Friedrich the Victoriouses hat. The Churburg had a score of 15th century footsoldiers helmets and breastplates in the armoury, and some published to some extent, and yet they are the rarest of things to encounter as reproductions in reenactment, to my experience at least.

Since we are talking about high end reproduction armour, I won't go into the phenomenon of people wearing awful to awkward "reproductions", only resembling slightly in passing originals, as people who cannot afford a man at arms harness of reproduction quality insist on portraying 'knights' and 'lords' (and the phenomenon seems to be as common in Europe as it is in the US), walking around in gear that is awful as a reproduction, but bears the high polish of course.

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

Talk about 15th century munitions grade armour, rough-from-the hammer or russeted. Any hints on books or websites to see some material from this category?
I actually am going to try my hand at the manufacture of plate armour (and yes, I have collected quite a few tools and books both on armour and their manufacturing techniques, just to avoid any "Buy ToMAR first and make spaulders" suggestions), and I am going rather to make "a good reproduction of bad armour" instead of another bulky Sigismundoid mutation.

But, so far the only proper source for armour of the said category seems to be contemporary art. So, any bit helping me further in my research would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Ivo

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

Some of the same breastplates, plus a few more not in the Churburg are published in Boccias work on the suits of the sanctuary of the Maddona della Grazzi.

"The Medieval Armour from Rhodes", Karcheski, has a number of munition pieces. Mann in an old Archaeologia (1930s) has an article on the Chalsis finds, which a number were munitions pieces.

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

Thak you chef, I know these books (and own a few of them), and I have come accross quite a few munition pieces.
But...I couldn´t find any rough from the hammer pieces except for the black sallets. What I am after is infantry stuff. Is there anything out there? Or do I have to pick smple pieces and just leave them rough?

Regards

Ivo

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

I don't think you would be far off at all by picking a simple Italian export piece, and leaving it rough from the hammer. If the piece is worked under heat in a forge, it should have the proper finish when done.

I have in my collection of photos a shot of one that is likely unpublished - it is a barbute in Vienna (a very open one, not one of those corinthian or T opening pieces) that happens to retain it's original finish. The finish of the piece is that it is well planished, but it is clearly not polished, and remains 'black'. I think it likely that a number of the simpler munition pieces had the very same finish - the policy/thought in many early museums/collections was that medieval armour ought be polished, or the only conservation against the inroad of rust was to polish it away (a better thought, I think, as to their motivation) - pieces with that sort of a finish would only take a decade or two being subjected to the occcasional vigorous polishing to remove rust to leave them polished - any scaleing would likely come off quickley.

Expensive suits were subjected to such mistreatment as well - several attributed to Henry VIII are missing or have damaged heavily their original finish.

More modern methods of conservation have preserved some original finishes that are still extant - the most commonly published being the previously mentioned German sallets.

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