The Armour Archive

Okay so i know nothing about the site with this pic (below), but they show a breastplate that works differently than those i've been shown up to now. The ones i've been shown to make have the upper plate be the "bottom" plate so to speak and the plates underneath it to overlap on top of it, with each next piece lower being on top of the one above it.

The one they show here however is opposite of that - the upper plate here (with the buckle) is on TOP of the one below it, which is on top of the next one down.

My question is...is this authentic? Was armour made both ways?

I don't know, but I like the style of the pauldrons?!!

The last I had heard was that this is indeed thought to be an authentic breastplate, not simply a backplate converted into a breastplate at a later date.

The general goal should be to learn from and copy original pieces - either those that have survived or original depictions of pieces from the time.

This isn't.
It resembles armour, but the details are.... suspect.

That breastplate in Phily is really pretty.
It is the only one anywhere in the world that looks like that. I have heard some less-than-complementary opinions as to its actual originality in that condition. Like... maybe it was a backplate that was reformed in the 19th c. to look like a breast. It is certainly built just like backplates.

So, start with "no" as a basic answer.

Wade

it strikes me as extremely iffy.
there may well be the odd one, and those with an iffy provenance, but the overwhelming majority are not like that.

infact, as a general summary, the only thing that strikes me as looking right-ish about that entire harness is... its made of metal, and a person is wearing it.

I have been told by someone who had handled the piece that it was of a weight consistent with a breastplate. I guess I would expect to see larger rolls at the arms and neck, though...

Let's keep it simple and not try to pick on the Phily breastplate. I think we can all agree:

The original armour posted didn't reasonably reflect any armour that was ever made to any close degree.
15th c. breastplates formed of 2 or more pieces (at least) almost exclusively overlap with the bottom overlapping the top. Certainly all of the examples in Churburg, Mantova, Vienna and all other well known, well documented pieces with provenance work that way.
So, if you are trying to learn what was done you should start with that assumption.

Reasonable?

Wade

P.S. we can pick on the Phily breastplate separately, and not exclusively. When we were playing with A-21 (the gothic on horse in the Wallace) Toby said that there are some very reasonable suggestions that the breastplate was remanufactured from early 16th c. breastplates and wasn't actually originally anything like that form. My feeling is that the Phily one went through a similar 'improvement' along the way, so we should start study with pieces that have cleaner provenance as we learn.

Another example of plates underneath.

From this thread
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=132306

(forgive me, my first attempt at posting an image to archive)

OK, that is 'underlapping' but it is really waist lames and not a large piece covering a lot of the body.

They did to underlapping waste lames. Very common end of the 15th c. up into the early 16th c. I have some.

Wade

I'm so glad i asked. "Underlapping"! What a great word for this. Thanks to you all for the input. Underlapping breastplates makes sense to my eye for functionality, but it seems there is far too much doubt about its authenticity. I will for that reason avoid it for now until i learn more. I want to keep as authentic as possible.

They told me when i joined here i have to pay per question/answer. So what do i owe you guys? lol

Answers are free.

On rare occasions they are even useful.

Since you are asking about overlapping breastplates, this is one that you should be interested in studying This may have been something like what the thing you posted was thinking about imitating:



That is an elegant and authentic armour.

Wade

That is beautiful, thanks. That pic is too small though - tell me what suit that is and i will find a larger pic for studying. I LOVE that helm.

That is the Avant harness, made by the Milanese workshop about 1445, housed in the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow.

ETA:
http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/v ... 8&i=391397

Images:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/N ... armour.jpg
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ ... 93965e.jpg
http://strelci.webzdarma.cz/galerie/Avant_Armour_02.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/N ... _terms.jpg

Got it. Thanks! Question: the lowest piece of the right pauldron almost appears to be "on top" rather than underneath. I have zoomed in on the pic and simply cannot tell for sure.

It seems so. The line diagram also depicts it in the same manner. In fact, you can see the rivet on the back of the harness, clearly showing the lowest lame of the pauldron being "on top".

Yes i see that also in the diagram. I see there are only 3 faulds in back whilst 4 in front and they are hinged on one side and strap-n-buckled on the other like the breastplate. I assume when donning this that the wearer closes the breastplate upon himself first, then closes the faulds and then buckles everything. And it looks like no gorget - just an upward-flared top edge at the neck of the breastplate.

Right, on this harness a mail collar, or standard, is used rather than a gorget.

So is that aforementioned paudlron piece held up by only one rivet? I see the rivet you mean in the back but i see no clues in the front. The rivet in back is located almost on top so...only one? goodness.

I am also seeing something interesting with these vambraces; they both open in the same direction to the right. I mean the buckle on the left forearm is in front, whilst the buckle on the right is in back. Very interesting. I would have never guessed at doing it that way.

I would assume that the front articulates on an internal leather, and the rivets are hidden...like it seems the faulds are.

And you're right about the vambraces; I'd never noticed that before. I suppose it is asymmetrical, like the rest of the armour, to match it's purpose. Though I notice that the hinges on both vambraces are on the elbow-fan side.

ETA: Ah, yes. There is a small rivet at the bottom of the last lame. Two, actually. One right behind the leather strap, and another right on the medial crease. Those are both rivets for internal leathers.

Ohhhhh of course i see them. I saw them but ignored them since they are so low by the rolled edge. I assumed they would be up high but they are needed to be low in this case since that bottom plate is on the outside rather than underneath. That makes sense.

What does not make sense to me now at all is what you just pointed out about the vambrace hinges. Why would the hinges be symmetrical whilst the buckles are not? Weird. I like unpredictable things like this - fun to find the logic in it.

Have some photos of the Avant harness to get some better ideas of what it involves - mostly of the back end I'm afraid. but reference is reference:


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8116.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8117.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8118.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8119.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8120.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8121.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8122.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8123.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8124.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8125.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8126.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8127.JPG


Highres: http://3dfolio.com/jge/DSCF8128.JPG

Suzerain - thanks for the pics. I like the funny angles.

And that is a great armour. Really one of my favorites ever.

Wade

it was rather a case of getting photos of all the obscure little angles that you dont normally notice.

not as obtuse as my reference photography of a maxmillian harness in ayrshire a while ago...
Maxmillian upskirt pics.
Kinky

Thank you! I'm very grateful for these excellent pics.

Like so many I have seen over the years, the original armor pictured is yet another that is nice and bright, and shiny.....and wrong.

It may not be wrong in big ways, and obviously the breastplate working out as it works up is not wrong, but the entire piece just isn't right. I rarely look to other armorers, except for ways to make something work. Especially in the SCA, I have seen way to much that is someone's copy of someone else's copy. By starting with an original piece and making your own copy, I think you will be happier in the end. You may not get it entirely right, I know I haven't, but then it becomes your interpretation, and your skill, rather than someone else's interpretation.


Good luck.

wow,astounding pics of a suit I have been trying to reproduce forever-thank you!

But to answer the origional topic........The vast majority of breastplates made for horse combats were designed to resist penetrations by the lance. And a spear hitting you will force you backwards.

So underlaps were very bad in an upper portion..since they then provide an ideal situation for the lance tip to slip in between the plates-gutting you like a fish. Overlaps were different. The tip had more of a chance to skitter over thier surfaces. There was less of a purchase offered.

Bender, that's an excellent explanation. Makes sense. I suppose, hypothetically though, that a very aggressive jouster who consistently tilts hard into his work, might prefer under-laps.

This idea then leads my imagination into an almost sci-fi foray of creative vertigo; imagine the whole torso area is fluted such to direct a skittering lance point away to the rider's right. It would be quite asymmetrical. (I wonder what they did to armorers back then who came up with crazy ideas like that?)

Look up some garnitures designed to be used in the german "rennen"

(jousting with real lances) They were quite insane. I suppose the armorers made out quite well.

I'm pretty sure that the helmet shown with the Avant harness does not belong. It originally came with an armet not a barbute. Just something to keep in mind.

That Phily breastplate just looks wrong to my eyes in so many ways.

I wondered if it was a Victorian rebuild Jason. There was a huge craze in that time period for decor bits for castle style interiors. Huge numbers of fakes were created then.

I don't know if I would call it a fake. Many times only bits and pieces would survive that were later put back together incorrectly to furnish, like you said, decor bits. The tassets look to be in the style of 17th century armour, so maybe it was cobbled together or created then? You would need to study the piece really closely to tell for sure.

the barbute with the Avant harness is, indeed, incorrect for the harness. it is, however, certainly not a "fake", but a barbute with an impeccable pedigree which was also in Churburg armoury, and had been in the posession of the Von Trapps since at least 1460 or so. The barbute was added to the Avant harness during its sale in the 1920s, but its provenance is not in question.

the armet which it should be associated with Churburg #20 is most likely Royal Armouries collection # IV.498 (which I've shamelessly stolen a photo of and attached...), which bears the same armourer's mark - that of Giovanni Corio - as a number of the elements of the Avant armour. The armet's wrapper is missing, presumed lost.

It should also be noted that neither gauntlet is accurate, the right gauntlet is from another harness, and bears the marks of the Missaglia workshop, and is too large for the Avant harness. the left gauntlet was produced by Charles Bartel in anglesey in 1928, when the harness was in the posession of William Randolph Hearst, and mirrors the Missaglia gauntlet.

Suzerain wrote:the barbute with the Avant harness is, indeed, incorrect for the harness. it is, however, certainly not a "fake"

I think bender was talking about the Phily breastplate and that it might be fake. At least I think that is what we were talking about.

Yes,I was talking about the breast plate. Something with that many underlapping holes would have been a death trap, in anything but a parade armor. And most other extant examples have much smaller piercings........and are featured in the suits of high nobles who never really fought. They just called the shots.

I highly doubt that you would have seen Sigismund risking his wealthy neck in a melle.

But that much eleborate gingerbread would have been just the ticket for a Victorian collector who wanted to impress with it's intricacy.