The Armour Archive

I know this kit has been discussed to death, because the effigy is so good. But I was wondering, what type of greaves is Sir Reginald wearing? Metal? Hardened leather? I see no rivets for splints.

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/20 ... 1%2006.jpg


Clearly, in the effigy the metal has been rendered in Gold, though the painting is probably later (perhaps it is not?) but it appears to be leather on the greaves, rarebraces and vanbraces. And splinted cuisses.

Is this correct?

Thanks,

Glaukos

When I look at the effigy I see the bascinet matching the black of the reres, vambs, and greaves. One can assume that the helmet is likely steel, therefore the other black parts could be steel also. The gold portions may just be gilded to match the gold in the heraldry. Of course, without knowing the history of the effiigy, it may be possible that the effigy has been incorrectly painted at some point after it was created. Either way, I really feel the gold is merely aesthetic.

I don't have anything really solid to offer.

The similar arms Jeff Wasson made were all steel.

The result was really cool looking.

At least for the arms, that would seem to be consistent with other effigies and brasses of the period. What appear to be steel greaves had been around for a while too.

Wade

I see the greaves and arms on this one as all metal, particularly since the bascinet and helm are also blackened.
Even if the paint on this one isn't original or following the original colors, the alternating brass/black color scheme can be found elsewhere in 14th century sources. In a book I have, there is an image from the Mullhouse altar in Bohemia showing jet black limb armour with brass couters, poleyns and spaulders.
Alternatively, perhaps the Cobham effigy greaves were originally painted to represent splinted greaves, like on the similar looking brass of Sir Miles Stapleton .
I see so hinges or creases on Cobham's greaves like you see on many other effigies, so that is a possibility.

The paint is modern. It was heavily "restored" in the 19th century. That is why it looks so good, as Glaukos put it.

Here's how it looked around 1864: link. No sword, smashed greathelm, no fingers, partial garter, etc.

Looking at this angle, I think I can see a crease on the greaves, but I'm uncertain.
http://www.themcs.org/garter2.htm

I notice immediately that no effort was made by the sculptor the detail the maille anywhere on the effigy.

Therefor I vote that its a somewhat cheap job, done with just sufficient details to satisfy the customer or his family, and seams were largely skipped over.

Yes, there are some rivets- but overall there is a lack of fine detail that sticks out to me.

-Badger-

I don't think the color paint really means anything -- otherwise, the sabatons would be (apparently) untanned leather or copper.

Remember the Black prince's gauntlets were brass or some other copper alloy. Depictions of various harness parts in brass are not unusual in 14th century art.
Ironbadger, it's probable that the effigy was originally painted to fill out more detail. People are now realizing that historical sculpture in general was often colorfully painted.