My list of inaccuraccies we should accept without too much argument runs;

- Language. We can all speak modern english without qualms, even if our personas really should be speaking medieval French or old English.

- Physical ability. A Professional longbowman practices so much it's causing physical changes in his skeleton. We don't need to take it that far, but we should be able to shoot well, albeit with an 80lb bow instead of 120lb.

- Professional skills. We don't have to be able to ride or fight as well William Marshal in order to portray him....though if we're doing a mounted sequence, we should be able to ride well enough that the audience think we can.

- Calluses, musculature levels etc. We aren't going to have the callus levels or (in most cases) muscles that our personas should have - again, these people are working their muscles to the point of causing skeletal change.

Admittedly, the last time I went for a physical exam, they told me I'd also done the same, and I do have calluses from sword and rein on my fingers, but I don't have anything like the pads of callus somebody working at manual labour all day does.

We should at least be in reasonable shape if we're portraying soldiers or whatever, though - the one thing that really winds me up is obviously out-of-condition students with no muscle tone running around saying they are "knights".

- Weapon safety criteria, ie my swords have a more rounded tip than the real thing, and 3mm edges rather than sharp etc.

- Restrictions of some combat moves that couldn't be done safely.

- Non-visible dental work.

- Body odour. OK, you could simulate Queen Elisabeth having a bath every year, whether she needed it or not, but it's going to repel the public.

I'm just comparing this discussion to the flame wars that erupt on the SCA-Garb list whenever someone mentions not wearing glasses.

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

I don't want to get too personal here, but I don't smell of anything but WOODSMOKE at events. Even riding and fighting all day, all Jeff smells of is horse and smoke.

I use scent-free products when I wash our clothing after an event, and I pack either lavender sprigs or cinnamon in the chest with my clothes. I bathing in the tent every night and put on into a fresh smock before climbing into bed. Jeff does the same thing, bathing and then donning a fresh shirt to sleep in. In the morning I usually put on the gown and headcloth I wore the day before, changing both every 3rd day. I usually change my apron every other day, using one side one day and then flipping it over for the second day's use. Jeff airs his doublet and arming coat out at night, and often will wear the same pair of hose for the duration. The hose smells like horse and smoke by the end of the event, but I don't really find those smells objectionable.

Neither of us use deodorant while at events, and I've never had anyone mention that I stink, and I don't notice that I do. Maybe it's being out in the fresh air, eating freshly prepared food, not eating things with chemicals in it-- who knows why, but we don't have an odor problem.

Based on what the records say about personal grooming, bathing and health, I'm going to disagree with you on the "yearly bath and subsequent body odor" angle here. I think it's one of the falacies of the middle ages, although I'd allow that by Elizabeth's reign it probably *was* an issue.

Just my opinion-

These are all acceptable to me.

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

If I could get a tent made of linen or hemp canvas, that I knew would be pretty water resistant, not ungodly heavy, and reasonable in cost, I'm there. So far, I'm willing to deal with my tentsmiths marquis (complete with some machine topstitching), which I painted with latex paint from Home Depot. I did design the tent and its paint pattern myself after studying 1460-70's references.

On the other hand, I handstitch all my horse tack, use medieval style buckles etc, etc. Again, this level of detail is pretty easily attainable without ridiculous expense or extreme difficulty.

When I begin to wear mail with my 1470's harness, it will be riveted (the stuff I import), though certainly not as nice as E. Schmidt makes or Steve Forth sells. If I can get to the point of wanting to spend the $$ on their stuff, I'll do it.

I suppose it's a matter of priorities; We know we can't be 100% accurate, so we "choose our battles" and put our effort on the things that matter the most.

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

That said we basically go along the lines that appearance and function are our top priorities, e.g. a reconstruction must have the same appearance and functions as the original to the best of our knowledge.

The next priority (which also ties in with appearance above) is to use materials that are as approximate as we can get to the original materials used. If we can't use these we go for an as "close as we can get" compromise with a similar natural material.

The last priority is construction methods. It would be great if all of us had the time, money and skills to use the original construction methods but the reality is that most of us can't. Therefore butted mail, machine stitching, etc. are all acceptable.

If the end result is such that a knowledgeable observor can't fault our equipment from a reasonable distance then we're happy. For public displays this is a distance of approximately 10 feet. For a 'living history' event with our peers this is more like touching distance. We're not at this standard yet with all of our kit (especially horse harness) but as we replace older kit with newer kit we're slowly getting there.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Callum Forbes ]

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

URL=http://www.jousting.co.nz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callum Forbes:

If the end result is such that a knowledgeable observor can't fault our equipment from a reasonable distance then we're happy. For public displays this is a distance of approximately 10 feet. For a 'living history' event with our peers this is more like touching distance. We're not at this standard yet with all of our kit (especially horse harness) but as we replace older kit with newer kit we're slowly getting there.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Callum Forbes ]

---

hey all from Anne-Marie

ah yes, the 10 ft rule.

it all comes down to WHY you play this goofy game. If you're doing it for a public, the 10 ft rule (or 1 ft rule or whatever) applies just fine.

me, I'm doing it for MYSELF. I havent yet figured out how to get 10 ft (or even 1 ft!) away from myself, and so "it looks ok" doesnt work for me, alas.

Each group sets their own bar. And each individual then can choose wheterh to make their own personal bar higher or not.

me, I dont wear glasses at events, and I wear them pretty much all the time normally.

There are some concessions I make for modern undergarments that I dont need to detail in this co-ed forum .

I eat way more fruits and veggies than my medieval counterpart would have, probably.

There are certain herbs used in medieval cooking that I will not use due to their pharmacokinetic properties.

I'm a few years shy of 40 years old and have all my own teeth, and am in excellent physical condition. Sorry, I'm not willing to change of that to fit more in the bellcurve for my demographic in the middle ages!

I have a modern haircut, but am very careful to keep it properly hidden at all times, even if just running to the facilities in the middle of the night.

at events, if I have a migraine, sinus problems (those mowed fields really get me), etc, I have no problem using modern medications. I know the side effects of that stuff!

You get the idea. I do the best I can. I take care not to mess with other peoples enjoyment of the game by blowing their medieval mindset, and do as much as I can to keep from blowing my OWN medieval mindset as well .

just my version...again, YMMV
--AM

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

The cavalry detachment I'm part of actually got a kind of "special dispensation" for the first couple of years, when we got cut more slack than most over our kit standard - since our personas are all stinking rich by the standards of that period, it was acknowledged that we'd need some time to put that sort of kit together, and nobody is actually going to get close enough to us to see - we don't take part in LH displays.

We're now pretty much out of that period, and most people have kit that would pass the general society standards for smebody of our social rank, though some items still need upgrading.

Our tack is still not authentic - it comes with the horses, which are hired from Janet Rogers. We'd like to upgrade that some day, but it wasn't our top priority, and it's difficult to do when you don't know which of Janet's horses you'll get for any given event. Maybe one day...

The important thing is that we recognize these limitations in our own gear, try to remove them as we are reasonably able, understand that others may not be as advanced in their endeavors, and help each other to do so by sharing sources and tips, (as persons on this forum do).

Glasses - I wear contacts. However, in one encampment, I was having problems with them and was faced with the choice of near-blindness accompanied by headaches or taking them off whenever the public was in camp. Fortunately, the camp was understanding. Am saving $ for Lasic as a christmas present to self.

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

Mileage varies widely on this, of course. As a general rule, what I care about most is that an object outwardly resembles very closely - near identically preferably, in shape and general appearance an original object, as when new (I'll put my own wear on objects thanks - that is always more convincing than artificially "distressing" objects by whacking them with bicycle chains, etc.)

It does not matter to me if the craftsman who is making them item is wearing bluejeans and using power tools in a modern shop, so long as the end result appears to the naked eye to be a convincing copy. There is a fellow who occasionaly frequents forums like this, who's obsession is wrought iron. He generally berates various groups efforts, or calls us a pack of phonies because as a general rule we use mild or high carbon steel for armour and buckles - that is his thing. He said in passing on another forum that he had a wrought iron mail shirt, which was butted mail. In my mind, the form of the object being inaccurate cancels out the virtue of the material used. Why go to that length of trouble and not finish the effort? It makes him happy though.

It makes me happy to have a good copy in mild steel or high carbon steel, as that is what the armourers who can most closely copy the forms of armour use. I am delighted to have an armet that is raised in mild steel, but would be very unhappy with one made out of wrought iron with a carborised surface if it looked as if it were banged out "with no more skill than the local dent pullers" to paraphrase something Gerry Embleton wrote.

When I make simple furniture, I use American red and white oaks, whichever I can lay hands on in the biggest planks, but I prefer them to be quartersawn.

When I can afford to get the most exacting copy of an item, I do. We have a couple of wood bowls and a costrel from a fellow (Robin Wood) in the UK who has gone to the extent of taking blacksmithing classes to forge his own tools, before he even learned how to turn on a pole lathe. Even at this exacting degree of reconstruction, it's an item made by a modern fellow, who often wears glasses, and many times turns under an electric light.

Nothing can be perfect, if it were, it would be an actual object in like new condition. The question is where we all draw the line. The thing that amuses me most is that often people who cry the loudest on boards like this, rarely, if every show the kit they exactingly made with their own hands. The complete, overall impression.

Many people in some American clubs look down on those who purchase items of their kit instead of making them themselves. My argument is that I will make it myself if I can make it to an acceptable standard of accuracy and form - i.e., it is a close copy of an extant object or one in a picture contemporary with the time I am portraying. If it is not within my ability to make a close copy, I go to the man or woman who can. I would rather wear a high quality reproduction made by someone else, than wear a poor one made by myself - hence I go to the best professional armourers I can find. I often make my own things to sit upon, or to put things in.

Thats a more than long enough ramble on this subject by me.

Oh yes, as a general rule, Jeff Johnsons is a good one (although not listed in this thread - yet "The more attention grabbing an item is, the more closely examined it will be, the better the reproduction should be."

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

Have you noticed Joan's tag line?

"Why pay someone to do it right when you can screw it up yourself for free?"

I know she means it ironically, unfortuntely some groups take this as gospel and forge ahead on the theory that making it one's self (regardless of skill level) is infinitely preferable to paying someone else to do it.

Which is why those folks look like modern refugees/hippies/Mardi Gras attendees instead of copies of medieval people.

People who have no trouble forking over money for a car, or a bicycle, or a saddle, or a TV will dive headlong into making a suit of armour having had no more metalworking experience than squashing cans for recycling. As Bob says, those same folks will sneer in distain at a beautiful suit of armour made by a professional with 20 years experience and research under his belt.

I just don't get it.

But I digress......

If you go to the 14th & 15th C., the armour and maille is way beyond anything I'm going to be able to produce. The clothing styles are far more exacting in detail then the simple wool and linen Dark Ages tunics and trousers. Other than leather work or furniture, I pretty much have to buy everything.

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

I'm not against people trying to make things, really I'm not, and I'm sorry if my observations sounded like a blanket condemnation of home handypeople. They weren’t intended that way. You of all people should know I don’t stand against beginners trying things themselves, you being an avowed beginning sewer and recipient of a 15th C. doublet pattern from me...

I was mostly addressing the folks who dive into a project that is far beyond their capabilities and create a disaster instead of a replica “thing”. Bob chose a buckler for a beginning metalwork project, not the Avant harness, and that IMHO was a wise choice. 20 years ago I started my costume career with T tunics, not full blown Elizabethan, also an appropriate place to start.

There is no question in my mind that learning to make things oneself for whatever reason is a valid pursuit. I think that some folks just don't do the research you suggest (and I second) and dive into a project which they don’t understand and which is technically way over their head.

You say "If you know the form and function of an item you should be able to easily determine the level at which it needs to be made". Hence, it should be clear that a novice metalworker should not chose as their first project the Roggendorf suit by Helmschmidt, but should follow Bob's more prudent approach and start with a munition grade buckler.

The conclusion that I would append to your statement is that once the level at which something needs to be made is determined, that level should then determine the project's suitability as a beginner or advanced level project.

I an currently reading a book about embroidery by Kay Staniland. I'm just working through the beginning where she outlines how medieval guilds created skilled artisans though the practice of taking apprentices at a young age. The idea is that these skilled craftsmen are the product of years and years of practice in their art, beginning in or just after childhood. That bit of information coupled with Bob’s comment turned into my verbal musings on undertaking projects in general and a bit of side commentary about the “don’t buy it make it no matter what” crowd. Sorry if it sounded like an all or nothing statement.

As usual, my comments are just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

I do a considerable amount of sewing as a small business (and have been making kilts for almost 8 years), but still find myself lacking when it comes to 15th century garment making. I have spent almost a year researching period artwork before beginning my coat/gown. I still hae yet to perfect a pattern for hose, and am about to call in a professional (Gwen: read--you may hear from me in the near future--I'm about to give up).

The one thing I know I can't do is carpentry, so that's one that Chef has up on me. While I spent many months apprenticing to a 'professional' armourer several years ago, I still admit that I can't make much when it comes to armour (I have one pair of gauntlets that I made 6 times before they were right). I guess what I'm trying to say is feel free to try things--just learn to do it correctly--it takes a lot longer to unlearn bad habits. When all else fails--call the professionals!

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

much depends on your social station as well!

a lower class or middle class person may not have had as much "store bought" stuff like shoes and clothing, but then their stuff wont be as nice as the stuff made by professionals.

It is my considered opinion that your average medieval person would not have worked metal, wood, ceramic, cloth, etc to outfit themselves.

If they KNEW the trade (there's a reason many trades were called "mysteries") well enough to produce a working object, chances are they could sell said object or trade it for something else they COULDNT make.

There are TONS of extant examples of medieval crap. Badly made pieces of garbage that you wonder how they managed to function at all (my favorite is Marks example of a brooch that is a piece of metal roughly bent around, rivetted and a pin put on. or that finger ring that's a straight pin bent around).

Stuff doesnt have to be perfect ot be medieval. However, if your portrayal is a bourgois poser, you probably wouldnt be caught dead in such such.

Put your mind in the medieval mindset. MOdernly, its cool for people to know lots of crafty stuff, and to have the leisure time to do so.

Medievally, its tacky to engage in trade, you have guilds guarding the secrets of their trades, and status is everything.

or at least that's my spin on it....
-AM, who buys some stuff and makes the stuff she can do a middle class level job of.

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

Don't forget the old saying about a shoemakers family being poorly shod. Actually, middle class people would by most everything, unless they were in the trade.

People down on their luck would buy used goods, or repaired goods - there were brisk trades in such items, people cutting apart doublets and turning them, etc.

If you were lower class, then I'd buy into the do it yourself deal. Servants of middle class families, beggars, the urban poor - these are the people who would be doing that stuff, and they'd still get in trouble for it if caught in the act. Guilds were jealous of their rights.

We portray the middle strata of society - but these strata are not equally divided. 1 in 10 fits into the second estate (running anywhere from sliding off the scope into obscurity, to the aristo's), but probably only 2-3 in 10 falls into the strata we portray 4 at the outside. Nobody portrays the masses of Peasants and Urban poor.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Nobody portrays the masses of Peasants and Urban poor.

---

oh, I dont know, Bob....havent' you been to Pennsic? all those poor poor Children of God, with no decent clothes to cover themselves?

what other explaination is there?

--AM, feeling her oats this morning!

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