The Armour Archive

Mac wrote:Start with whatever sticks out the most, heat it up and smack it down. Do the same to the high spots to either side of where you just worked, and repeat the process as needed. You can leave that "raising hammer" in the rack, a round faced hammer what you need here because the process is not directional. So long as you don't actually form any wrinkles, you can proceed as rapidly as you like.
Mac

Wow! That sounds like the way I would have described the process. Normally I am less careful and more freewheeling than you are, but I like the vibe.

You do want to make sure your round faced hammer doesn't have any corners, but I tend to take those off of most of my hammers anyway. My "favorite" hammers aren't quite like Mac's, but there are lots of similarities.

I have seen this process done cold, but it isn't worth the trouble. I like heat.

Wade

schreiber wrote: I'm resolved to do one of these in the next year.

Next year?! Why not start now?

schreiber wrote:It actually looks even easier than raising flat, since you already have two points of the curve to set on an appropriately sized stake, and if you have the right ball it'd be little more than just pounding it down until you connect with the ball.

It is easier. Much easier, really. If the can/house is the right shape in the first place, you almost can't screw up. You just knock down the high spots until it looks like a helmet.

Mac

Pitbull Armory wrote:Thanks for posting this stuff Mac,

Bless your heart,


Ty

Pb

My pleasure, Mr. Bull. Take the ball and run with it.

Mac

Ernst wrote:From what I've found online, Euskara pronounces the double L as IPA Lambda, a palatal L. Put the bottom of your tongue on the roof of your mouth and say L while rolling your tongue forward.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/basque.htm

I wish IPA made more sense to me.... Is that like the classic Spanish double "L" ?

Mac

Alec wrote:
Welds: Both sides then ground flush before starting the forming work?

I try to get good thorough welds in the first place, with just a little bit of filler metal coming through to the inside. . I then go the the inside and run the torch over the weld and try to "erase" the edges. If the inside is smooth, there will be no trouble, but if there are any discontinuities between the base metal and the weld line these might turn to cracks. The outside gets ground to remove all discontinuities, being careful not to make the weld any thinner than the base metal.

Once the weld is properly prepped, it needs to be "conditioned". The weld is heated to bright redness and hammered vigorously on a stake that supports it well. This does a couple of things. It smooths out the angle between the two plates. It smooths out differences in thickness. It refines the grain structure of the weld and the adjoining metal. It tests the weld. This last is important. It a weld shows any sign of failing during this process, it will need to be mad good, and it's better to find out about it as soon as possible.

If a weld holds to together (and it should) under its first hammering, that area can be compressed further. This process is repeated all the way along the weld line. By the time the weld has been compressed to its final curvature, it will have experienced two or three cycles of heating hammering and cooling. This will improve the grain structure. It will also become more or less difficult to find, which is what you want.

Forging a weld like this is the most abusive thing the weld will ever see. It goes without saying that welds that hold together for this process will not fail in use.

Alec wrote:Circumference: In visualizing your template's translation into the helmet's final shape, it seems to me that if the template fits the head circumference of the wearer, then the final helmet should too -- that the shaping process will not dramatically alter that dimension. Is that correct?

This is basically true. In practice, though, if you use a "core" like I do, you will not be able to get your head all the way into the template. I suppose you could cut out most of the base of the core, leaving enough material to keep it stable. This might be enough to let you try the templates on for size.

Alec wrote:Stakes: What shapes did you form this over

I will post a pic of my favorite piece of RR track, etc tomorrow.

Alec wrote:Hammer: Was most of your hammer work done wit the flat face of that Basque beauty? It seems that the face would be best suited to the push the corner in step as your not trying to push the metal in just one direction.

I use the found face. In fact I use round faced hammers for most raising. The edge of a well dressed hammer acts much like a crosspeen, and the center of the face plannishes the marks of the previous blow.

(ascend soapbox)

I think we put too much faith in what we have read in books on silversmithing. We are not silversmiiths, and we are not accountable to them. I am grateful to the silversmiths, the coppersmiths, and the blacksmiths for what I have learned from them, but I am moving on, and I hope others will join me. Whatever tools and techniques work for us form the cannon of the modern armorer's orthodoxy.

(descend soapbox)

Mac

Here are the pics I promised of the stake. It's a big old piece of main-line track that's been ground to an "ox tongue" shape. I took a few hours and a certain investment in abrasives, but it was well worth it. This is one of the most important pieces of steel in my shop. It's one of those rare "go to" tools that works on many different things.



The same, with a ruler for scale, in case you want to make one.... and you should.



A couple of different ways the bascinet fits on the stake.



This is another stake I have used on bascinets. I can't remember if I used it on this one or not.



Mac

Mac, I think one could have a discussion on its own as to how faithful the B.P.'s effigy is to reality; how much do we know about its making? Regardless, after having looked at every bacinet on public display in most of the major armour collections in Europe (had the Wallace example in my hands one afternoon), that point on view looked right to me. It was less oblong than yours (which is a dam' sight closer than mine), but still obviously not dead round.

More like the Russian L + b (soft sign), which sounds different from their plain L.

Set your tongue to make "L" and sound it -- quite a lot of room in there between your tongue and your hard palate, right? Now what you do is lift the middle of your tongue toward the roof of your mouth, still sounding L, until it goes weird and sounds a little nasal. That's the sound. Following it with a vowel as in "Bellona" ends up sounding a bit like the Spanish LL, with a funny un-Spanish accent. So saying it in Spanish isn't going to make you sound too heathen. In my mouth it sounds a bit like how a Frenchman might pronounce the brand name, a "Y" sound begun with a ghost of an "L" at the beginning.

What manner of stake is that last one Mac?

You hinted at making barbutes with this can method. Interesting. I was thinking, when the technique was first widely 'published' last year, that it might also be a reasonable way to sneak out a great-bascinet. It would take a few more panels, but I think it could be done. Am I daydreaming about a pie in the sky?

and your two top panels...when preparing them, do they get pre dished, or simply rolled to go together to form a cone-like shape?

This is a method, like many others, that allows you to get a shape from which the desired result can be manufactured more easily than starting from a flat sheet and raising. It is applicable to many rounded 3-d shapes. Some are probably more applicable than others.

The first time I did the "can" method was (perversely enough) to build a cup hilt for an SCA rattan stick. Less aggressive versions of the "house" method would work to get a starting shape for a very fully shaped breastplate.

Is it worth the trouble? It depends on the desired final shape and how you like working. It definitely takes hours and hours out of the process of making a helmet. The possible benefit is smaller if the depth of the piece is smaller.

So - could you make a great bascinet this way? Sure. I see no reason that wouldn't work completely reasonably. You could make a 16th c. close helmet this way, or a morion too. It just may or may not be the easiest way.

We are discussing it because it shows an alternate way to think about how you can move material to achieve a desired end result.

Wade

P.S. Oh - and I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that we think that this is the way armour was built in the 14th, 15th. or 16th centuries. It is merely a way to use the materials and tools we have to achieve a result that mimics their results.

wcallen wrote: Wade

P.S. Oh - and I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that we think that this is the way armour was built in the 14th, 15th. or 16th centuries. It is merely a way to use the materials and tools we have to achieve a result that mimics their results.

So it is fabricating but not reproducing. It seems no more evil and achieves a more accurate shape than shaping 2 helmet halves, welding a center seam and a back, grinding and calling it done. I'd guess that 90% of the helms on the field could benefit from some heat and hammer work after welding. The down-side is heat and the capital investment in OA torches. I'd love to do this sort of work but I think an OA rig still costs more than the most expensive helm I have ever bought and my little MAPP torches are good enough for spot fixes but not full production.

I believe that Mac has a similar can/house/cone system for 14th cent elbows but it is his secret to share and probably deserves a seperate topic (hint hint)

Sean

Sean Powell wrote:
So it is fabricating but not reproducing. It seems no more evil and achieves a more accurate shape than shaping 2 helmet halves, welding a center seam and a back, grinding and calling it done.
Sean

Certainly not. I personally think that almost every helmet (with the exception of early pieced ones like Barrels and spangen things) is built in some way that doesn't replicate what they would have done. If we want to get picky, I haven't seen one that was made using hammer mills....I don't personally feel that any specific fabrication is worse than others. Welding first or last, still welding. Using sheet, still using sheet.

Wade

Aussie Yeoman wrote:What manner of stake is that last one Mac?

It is cut from a piece of RR track and welded onto a bar. I use it to get into the areas of a bascinet between the temple and the point.

Aussie Yeoman wrote:You hinted at making barbutes with this can method. Interesting.

I have used this a number of times to make barbutes. One of my (stalled) projects is to make the "pefect barbute". If you would like, I can trot out some templates and a couple of helmets in various states of completion.

Aussie Yeoman wrote: I was thinking, when the technique was first widely 'published' last year, that it might also be a reasonable way to sneak out a great-bascinet. It would take a few more panels, but I think it could be done. Am I daydreaming about a pie in the sky?

Like Wade said earlier, you can use this for anything. You get your best mileage for the trouble by using it form complicated volumes. A great bascinet would be a fine example. The "trick" is reducing it to a series of curved surfaces from which it requires the least work to get where you need to go.

Aussie Yeoman wrote:and your two top panels...when preparing them, do they get pre dished, or simply rolled to go together to form a cone-like shape?

They get hammered against the anvil during the curving process to give them a bit of "life". I do this while it is still easy to do. Once starting cone is welded together, the top three inches of the helmet is basically done. This method is all about getting to a good shape as conveniently as possible.

Mac

Sean Powell wrote: So it is fabricating but not reproducing. It seems no more evil and achieves a more accurate shape than shaping 2 helmet halves, welding a center seam and a back, grinding and calling it done.

Bingo! A piece of armor should be judged by what it looks like and not how you got there. As far as welding goes... it's a cheat. If you're going to do it at all, you might as well take fullest advantage of it.

Sean Powell wrote:I believe that Mac has a similar can/house/cone system for 14th cent elbows but it is his secret to share and probably deserves a seperate topic (hint hint)

Remind me in a bit. For now, I have all I can do to talk helmets.

Mac

wcallen wrote: I don't personally feel that any specific fabrication is worse than others. Welding first or last, still welding. Using sheet, still using sheet.

Wade

This! You don't get any extra points by starting with a big ol' piece of sheet steel. Raising from the flat is an interesting exercise, but it probably has little in common with how helmets used to be made.

Mac

The sallet that Patric Thaden made for me several years ago was done in this fashion.

Don't for get Tableau's thread Building a Milanese Sallet - progress

Mac wrote:Next year?! Why not start now?

Yeahhhhhh........
......Ever have a moment in your life where something happens and all of a sudden your brain can't stop screaming "I have got to GTFO of this state as soon as humanly possible"?
I think I can get a pass this time.


That, and I also have to finish off two helmets, make myself some new legs, and finish designing/ constructing a tiny footprint treadle hammer based off of Joe Klann's mechanical spider linkage.

Thanks Mac,

In my mind I was imagining a wave of metal that had to be raised out to the edge of the piece.

I have used this a number of times to make barbutes. One of my (stalled) projects is to make the "pefect barbute". If you would like, I can trot out some templates and a couple of helmets in various states of completion.

Well, gee, Mac, now you've offered, I feel it'd be rude to turn you down.

What do you mean by 'perfect barbute'?

lorenzo2 wrote:Thanks Mac,

In my mind I was imagining a wave of metal that had to be raised out to the edge of the piece.

That's the beauty of the system. All the violent work is quite local, and the overall shape and proportions remain the same. With the bascinet, the only thing that gets raised to the edge is the forehead.

Mac

Aussie Yeoman wrote:

I have used this a number of times to make barbutes. One of my (stalled) projects is to make the "pefect barbute". If you would like, I can trot out some templates and a couple of helmets in various states of completion.

Well, gee, Mac, now you've offered, I feel it'd be rude to turn you down.

What do you mean by 'perfect barbute'?

I try to get some pics in the next couple of days.

The perfect barbute is....
--authentic looking
--sized to fit most people
--strong enough to take abuse
--light enough to be convenient
--suitable for SCA use
--suitable for living history use
--fast and easy to build
--über sexy

I thought I was making good progress on the project, but I got distracted... and then injured.

Mac

Mac wrote: This is another stake I have used on bascinets. I can't remember if I used it on this one or not.



Mac

This is a piece of railroad track? that is a huge investment in grinding time. To my eye, it looks kinda like a sabaton toe made frim 1/2" thick steel, photographed from below. My eyes: they fail me.

Aussie Yeoman wrote:
This is a piece of railroad track? that is a huge investment in grinding time. To my eye, it looks kinda like a sabaton toe made frim 1/2" thick steel, photographed from below. My eyes: they fail me.

Oh Yea! I see it now. It's like the toe of an effigy, where the sculptors leave a sort of buttress of stone for support.... Alas, no, it a tool.

Yes. There's a bit of grinding there. It's a good tool to have if you make bascinets, though.

Mac

Aussie Yeoman wrote: This is a piece of railroad track? that is a huge investment in grinding time. To my eye, it looks kinda like a sabaton toe made frim 1/2" thick steel, photographed from below. My eyes: they fail me.

Having seen it in person: This is from the top of the track creating a T portion. The rusty portion is the web of the track. The shiny portion that looks like the corner has been rounded back actually flares towards the camera and away first. That makes the shiny portion on the right more like 2" wide at the base and kind of tear-drop shaped of that makes sense.

Sean

It does. I can see it in my mind now and even rotate it. Is it symmetrical about the long axis or lopsided?

This would have to be about the fastest way to make a creditable looking Kastenbrust. That, and/or the Kastenbrust becomes the fastest finished breastplate to look properly historical by using this technique.

Aussie Yeoman wrote:It does. I can see it in my mind now and even rotate it. Is it symmetrical about the long axis or lopsided?

Symetric as I recall. My memory is to be trusted about as much as my spelling.

Sean

Aussie Yeoman wrote:This would have to be about the fastest way to make a creditable looking Kastenbrust. That, and/or the Kastenbrust becomes the fastest finished breastplate to look properly historical by using this technique.

We have discussed that in the past. Yes. You couldn't just weld it up and be done with it, but it does very easily get the volume in the right places.

When I made one I went for a form more like the one in Vienna, so I raised it. But that is a somewhat degenerate form of the Kastenbrust.

Wade

Aussie Yeoman wrote:This would have to be about the fastest way to make a creditable looking Kastenbrust. That, and/or the Kastenbrust becomes the fastest finished breastplate to look properly historical by using this technique.

I am sort of yes and no about the kastenbrust. If you wanted the sort with "soft" corners, I think this would be great. On the other hand, if you were looking for really crisp corners, I think you would find trouble if you proceeded in the most obvious way.

If I were going to make a kastenbrust with really sharp angles, I think I would plan on hammering the welds over a (2"?) ball to get everything nice and homogeneous, and then sharpen them back up. If that sounds a bit AR... well... OK.


It's really hard to make a good looking crest line along a weld. There's always some irregularity in the welding that makes it look bad. Further, if the line is not quite right, it's hard to fix it under the hammer because of the extra metal thickness and the "built in" angle at the weld line. This is why I go to all the trouble of making a cardboard "core" to check my starting pieces against. If that part of a helmet is not bang on from the start, it's very difficult to make it look good later.

With a helmet, a slight irregularity in the curvature will only be noticed by fussy people with "the eye". That same amount of trouble in the flat lines of a kastenbrust will be obvious to everyone. Nothing is harder to make than a flat surface. By extension, the kastenbrust may well be harder than it looks.


...but, don't let me stop you from giving it a go! It sounds like excellent fun, and you can be the first kid on your block to have one.

Mac

I've tried a angular kastenbrust this way years ago. Version 1.0 was an encouraging test of concept but the various proportions are generally wrong. I didn't put the welds anywhere that there are crests though. I'll see if I can get a picture of the test piece and the pattern posted.

Figured out the re-sizing.

You make interesting points (no pun) about welds and crest lines, Mac. I think, on the basis of no actual experience, that if you wanted a crisp-lined kastenbrust and followed your advice, one would likely end up with a net saving of time over raising one using more typical raising techniques. More savings would come with more time to dilute the time spent making the templates in the first place.

I look forward to Cet's pictures.

So apart from perhaps kastenbrust and a range of helmets, what else could we achieve with this technique? Someone alluded to elbows...which for the life of me I can't get away from the idea of essentially rolled cones. I imagine greaves could be done in a similar way. Someone posted patterns for welded greaves that had the weld line across the instep just above the foot rather than the more usual direction down the medial line of the lower leg.

You CAN put welds in almost anything.
But I find them to be useful when you can get the right "volume" (or close) very, very quickly and then clean it up. Yes, greaves are a pain, but I would have more trouble dealing with the welds in them than just hammering from the flat. I have never actually done a weld in a greave.

Helmets - lots of shape - very "non-flat".
Breastplates - some more than others.
Buckets - sure, why not?

Elbows.. if done just right, but I don't know that I would "house" or "can" I might do more the normal mild dish then weld. But I am sure that there is some applicability.

There aren't a lot of really "deep" parts. You could try it anywhere, but I expect in most cases some liberal use of heat and a hammer will get you past that point pretty quickly for most other things.

But have fun. See what it will do for some shape you want to achieve.

Wade

Cet wrote:I've tried a angular kastenbrust this way years ago. Version 1.0 was an encouraging test of concept but the various proportions are generally wrong. I didn't put the welds anywhere that there are crests though. I'll see if I can get a picture of the test piece and the pattern posted.

This is very eye opening, Dave. It's got me thinking of different ways of placing seams for other sorts of breasts.

Mac

It was Cet, not me.

Anyway...Cet:

after you welded that up, did you then pass a hammer over the inside surface to break the flatness of it? How did you find the fit? What would you change on the next iteration?

In my mind I'd been conceiving of a pattern that separated upper and lower breast (so cut between the termination of both your darts), and have that junction as a slightly convex line on both components to make the line there bulge out slightly. I guess what you template would have to depend on what you're modelling it off, eh?

Mac,

are you thinking of the possibility of doing darts in the sides of other BPs such as 14thC style or late 15thC Italian? It would eliminate the problem of having weld beads on crease lines.