At this point, I'm ready to make one using my regular doublet pattern, with only slight modifications and attempt to make it look as little like armor and cut as much like a regular doublet as possible. I'm willing to make this leap because it appears that the garment was actually useable on a daily basis - as a regular article of clothing. I make this presumption on the basis that the Paston documentation involves it saving the wearer's life when he was stabbed during conduct of legal proceedings. While medieval trials seem generally more lively than some today, (THIS one excepted [URL=http://www.filecabi.net/v/file/killer-attacked/wmv[/URL] ads not work safe ) it's hardly seemly to go into one wearing an overtly obvious set of armor. Even if one is properly wearing a gown over it.

First off, does anyone have any references to a Doublet of Fense that I might not have seen?

Secondly, is my logic seemingly sound?

[ 11-15-2005: Message edited by: Jeff Johnson ]

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

I don't think you can make an effective doublet of fence, as detailed by construction method in the Howard books, that would not appear to be armour. You can dress it up by putting fustian or damask as a cover over it, but you cannot make it behave like a normal piece of clothing - it is going to be stiff armour.

Regarding the assumption based round the Paston account - I don't think it is sound. What happened occured during the middle of the Moleyns feud, and it was a commonplace occurace in that time and place for armed retinues to interfere with courts, to intimidate juries and witnesses at the least. The doublet of fence would merely be reasonably comfortable armour to wear, in an environt that was not as full blown as a battlefield, for extended periods. In other words, I believe Paston was expecting trouble, and came prepared if anything occured to not be struck dead on the spot.

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

The issue is what the pattern/layout ought be. Am I making too much of a leap by making it the same layout as a doublet i.e - just covering the upper torso, rather than mid-thigh like we've come to expect a jack to be? A doublet leaves a whole lot of torso exposed, but it would undoubtably be more comfortable, especially when sitting, since the cloth will be stiffer than an articulated brig. Or, would it be more reasonable to cover the torso to the upper thighs, as a brig might? Just because they callit a doublet, is it reasonable to assume it should it be laid out as one?

Sucks having minimal documentation. If someone else in the group had this little info. on a piece of armor, I'd tell them not to do it.

I see your point about Paston Sr. being prepared for trouble. Ditto on the alderman - he wore his DoF when preparing defenses.

[ 11-16-2005: Message edited by: Jeff Johnson ]

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

Just my opinion.

As for how obvious it is; Paston Sr's dagger assault incident suggests either incompetence or ignorance that the quarry was protected. Else why stab someone who looks like he's armored in a place where the armor is?

The challence with all cloth armors is that almost all of the actual construction detail documentation for what is commonly accepted - english jacks, is likewise flimsy. While various household accounts and writings are filled with them. Such as a narrative of Richard III's coronation entourage of 5,000, of which 3,000 wore cloth armor.

Maybe we ARE seeing DoFs in art, but not recognizing them as such because they are well-tailored and subtly wrought. perhaps there are some with less that Howard's 16 layers. There could be 8-layer DoF's. How often do we even see doublets? and especially the construction methods thereof? We've seen the inside of ONE doublet, and that one wasn't fully-lined. Men who aren't metal-armored or workers are almost always wearing gowns. Who knows what't really under that gown? Who knows if the commonly-adopted patterns for doublets are even any good?

What's our best documentation on Coth armor construction? A surviving slightly-later dated surviving German cloth armor and Memling's St Ursulla. Chroncles & such show lots of shiney-bits, but precious little cloth armor. Because of this lack of documentation, any cloth armor construction is a huge leap, yet it's getting made.

PS: I'm having fun with this rhetorical excercise, because usually I use the "If you can't document it, don't use it." approach.

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

Also the term doublet whilst synonymous with pourpoint does suggest a doublet rather than a coat or jack (et). There is no reason not to assume that the doublet of fence was not an especially heavily made doublet.

I am minded of an arming doublet that was made for an old friend*, pretty much using the layering described in Howard's account and it looked like a doublet as it happened except that you couldn't wear it over another doublet, ie it was a piece of itself.

So do you see this as an additional garment to an underlying doublet or just that a doublet of fence?

*Gwen for Alan P but Dave Key used it a lot, it was not quite right but the layers were dead on and it didn't look bulky at all, however it was a foundation garment for armour.

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

What makes me think I could make a DoF as thick as I'm discussing and be mobile and low-visibility is that my very first arming doublet WAS of a regular doublet pattern (I set the sleeves poorly, so it was restrictive in the arms, but have learned since then).

Anywho - this arming doublet was about a half-inch thick at first. Most of this thickness was padding, which I later removed as unecessary under the armor. Because of the aforementioned sleeve issue, It's been replaced (by a far-spiffier AD from Gwen )

I figure if I make one with the linen layers, it'll be about the same thicknes, but a bit stiffer. It'd be a replacement for a doublet, (not overtop) and have all of the design features of on, plus a couple of features like a port-piece. The shell would be of a good-grade fabric. Fustian is recommended, but we'll see what I can get. Fustian sources is a whole 'nother disusson.

I would like to discuss the matter of "blacke linen", but that too is another thread. So...

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

a remarkably high doublet, if doublets in general are pointed to hose (as they should be) then it the doublet should meet the top of the hose at around the hip bone level. Higher doublets appear to be very late 15th early 16th c.

Anyway best of luck with the project

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

I agree with Jorge that a belly-button/natural waist length doublet is too short ... again the date is critical though as hose move upwards from hip to waist through the C15th.

Remember that when discussing Jacks etc. the linen was best broken ... that's one reason for rotten linen being used as it made it supple ... but less effective and hence banned ... but it illustrates the fact that the linen does become supple with use/wear.

Also Jacks are most certainly not one-style ... Scottish acts of parliament make clear distinctions according to the other armour worn and the Howards list different styles (even if without anything to help us understand what the differences were ;-( )

I'll see what I can dig out ... sorry not been able to post for a while owing to work.