The Armour Archive

Not wanting to steal any of Mac's thunder ('Dusting off the cobwebs'), I thought I would start a new thread. I am working on a restoration project, and have to replace some missing fauld lames. I had a good sized chunk of the 'Real Wrought Iron' stuff out of the U.K., but not near enough to pattern and cut the lames in my usual way. I was thinking that I would need to cut them as straight as possible and forge them the rest of the way, when Signo asked,
"Hi Mac, have you ever tried to cut lames straight and then arch them (while still flat) ? This is one of the first thing that a old blacksmith taught me, and it's quite easy. Probably the extra time needed to do this is more expensive than the metal you can save?" I did a face-plant. Of course they did it that way! The old 'platers' didn't come out of the tinsmiths or silversmiths, but from blacksmiths. I really need to spend more time with them. This is a pic of the lames so far, forming a typically belled-out 'Maximilian' fauld; the material started about 0.085" thick, and a quick reading off the bottom lame in the middle about a third of the way up was 0.065".

I am definitely looking forward to how this thread will progress!

So I am guessing you compressed the material at the top of the lames to create the arc that you needed, rather than thinning the bottom edge to stretch it?

Could be 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Very cool though!

James,

An interesting point as well. I often wonder how many things I have been doing like this that have other options. Is this an early 16th century breastplate?

RPM

Probably late 1510's to 1530. I can't tell a lot from the tiny piece of the breastplate he posted.

So, yes, early 16th c.

Wade

coreythompsonhm wrote:I am definitely looking forward to how this thread will progress!

So I am guessing you compressed the material at the top of the lames to create the arc that you needed, rather than thinning the bottom edge to stretch it?

James will have to tell you what he did.
When I have played with this I normally stretch the bottom. That allows me to "thin" the underlap. It is also fast and easy. When I got overly aggressive, I can do the same to the top to straighten it out a little more, or when I concentrated the bend a little much and ended up with a "droop" in the top edge, I drew the metal up to where I wanted it. I still haven't done this for fauld lames. I should someday.

Wade

Wade, do you find that you have to start with appreciably thicker metal to do this, or is the thinning of the underlaps reasonable enough that you stay with the same gauge you might have used for curved lames?

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:Wade, do you find that you have to start with appreciably thicker metal to do this, or is the thinning of the underlaps reasonable enough that you stay with the same gauge you might have used for curved lames?

I go thicker. But I go thicker on things normally than many do.

When we worked on John's gorget this way, we went thicker than he wanted, but not actually thicker than the original on which it was based. I moved up to .060 from the .050 he was playing with. I don't think that we lost a ton of thickness in the end - at least not where I didn't abuse it. I wasn't being careful. A 50 pound power hammer with a cross pien can do some damage to a piece of .060 1050 pretty quickly.

I tend to do this kind of work when I am in a more hack/slash/grind mood. It lets me bang the piece out, whack it into shape and then grind it into submission anyway.

John can probably give you an un-biased opinion of how I did his lames. It might be entertaining to get an outside opinion.

Wade