Burgonet build (rough shaping done, crest refining next)

[RWWT]

It’s listed as 40# thickness on Amazon. It hadn’t occurred to me to consider the weight. It works well enough for me to tape up to a wall for body tracing and sloppy work. I have a big sketch pad with heavier paper for the nice, ’think work’ drawing.

This is my first time doing things this way. Credit to Mac. I shamelessly and crudely tried to mimic his method from the Armor Research Society lecture video. From my first go at things, one advantage I’ve seen to the lighter, butcher paper is that I can tape it up to a window or my glass sliding door and easily trace my tracings onto ‘working’ paper section by section, then go back and do it again after my multiple screw ups.

[Kristoffer]

I roughly sketched out the front/back view by transferring the height measurements from my side sketch to the paper. I use a baking paper that I place along the center line to copy my outlines. I flip the baking paper over and draw my lines on the other side of it and it transfers a line to the paper.

There is a lot of annoying perspective to deal with in this view. The neck lames are extra annoying.

Any guidance of what to adress before cleaning things up is welcome.



https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mhp5LstEBanK553m6

[Mac]

There is a lot of annoying perspective to deal with in this view. The neck lames are extra annoying.

Yep. Those are the hard parts, but you will emerge better for the struggle. Take a deep breath and get into the right side of your head. If you are not making progress and having "ah ha" moments, step away and come back to it with a fresh view.

Any guidance of what to adress before cleaning things up is welcome.

The first thing I see it that you have the neck very wide. It might help to introduce the collar into the pic, perhaps as an underlay, so you don't have to worry about accidentally erasing it while you work. I think I might work up the collar on a separate sheet, making sure it agreed well with the profile view.

An important thing to think about is where the widest places are on the profile view. Once you have established those locations, you can transfer them to the other views. Then it becomes questions of perspective to sort out where things are concave and where they are convex in the new views. I may not hurt to bring in some "props" to help you think about it. Looking over the rim of a (beer?) glass might help understand how the collar looks in different projections.

Mac

[Kristoffer]

After taking Macs advice and put on my beer goggles, this is where I am at. This is really annoying and frustrating without having the finished thing to look at and copy.



https://photos.app.goo.gl/nkbu1Y2MZXwrCXW99

[Mac]

I think you can still remove more volume from the neck and cheeks. Remember you need a lot less room for padding on you cheeks than you do at your temples.

Unfortunately, we only seem to have one good front view to go by, but focus on the difference between the roundness of the temples and the comparative flatness of the cheeks.



It may be helpful to find good front views of other contemporary helmets. The details will be different, but there will be enough similarities to be instructive.

Mac

[Kristoffer]

I have been looking at this picture of the brother helmet. It is of poor quality however.

https://pin.it/4h9K3jD

[Mac]

The Met is pretty good about giving a lot of views of their helmets. Here are some (admiditly unrelated) helmets that might help you reconcile the front, back, and side views. There are more there, and probably some good ones in the RA as well.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22226

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collectio ... ts&pos=108

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/35890

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26442

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/23202

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/27160

Mac

[Sky]

Here following along. I've wanted to do a closed burgonet w/ falling buffet, so it's cool to see the slight changes that make such a huge difference.

Kristoffer, I love how clear your sketches are. It's very easy to see your intent.

[Kristoffer]

Kristoffer, I love how clear your sketches are. It's very easy to see your intent.

Thank you, I am forcing myself to learn this. It is really skills that we all need to learn and it is a struggle for some of us who lack artistic skills. I am happy that I am making progress. For me 3D is a lot easier to deal with compared to 2D.

[RWWT]

Thank you, I am forcing myself to learn this. It is really skills that we all need to learn and it is a struggle for some of us who lack artistic skills. I am happy that I am making progress. For me 3D is a lot easier to deal with compared to 2D.

You're not alone. Of course, now that you say that, I realize that I need to go to the remedial class and you need to be moved in with the gifted and talented kids.

I can carve stuff but can't draw as well as I carve. I'm weird like that. In middle school I could do advanced physics but failed my math classes.

Keep up the great work. It's helping me to learn and it's nice to know that someone who struggles with this can get to a point of achieving your results.

[Kristoffer]

Keep up the great work. It's helping me to learn and it's nice to know that someone who struggles with this can get to a point of achieving your results.

The horrible reality is that it is all just discipline and dedication.
After seeing Macs magical sketchbooks (yes, they are magical) when I visited the US a while back, I realized I need to shape up and learn this properly so I started sketching every day and did that for a few months until I felt comfortable enough to do proper drawings. Now I am practicing doing drawings and I will practice that until I feel comfortable enough.

There is no such thing as "I cant draw", there is only "I have not been practicing hard enough". This is a hard truth that most people do not want to accept.

A little rant here aimed at the world at large is that I see many people using words like "blessed" or phrases like "you have been given so much talent" and it pisses me off every time. You do not get skilled at things by default, you get skilled because of practice. Some have it a bit easier to aquire certain skills but you still need to put in the effort. People like me who do not have a nack for these things just need to put in more effort.

End rant.

[wcallen]

There is no such thing as "I cant draw", there is only "I have not been practicing hard enough". This is a hard truth that most people do not want to accept.

A little rant here aimed at the world at large is that I see many people using words like "blessed" or phrases like "you have been given so much talent" and it pisses me off every time. You do not get skilled at things by default, you get skilled because of practice. Some have it a bit easier to aquire certain skills but you still need to put in the effort. People like me who do not have a nack for these things just need to put in more effort.

End rant.

It must be a Monday morning, so I feel that I must post an opposing opinion.

But to start off, yes, putting in practice will almost always allow one to get better at something. But.
I have dealt with a lot of different people in a lot of different fields.

People really are very different.
Some things are really easy and natural for some people, other things are natural for others.

My mother and father were very, very different.
My father could just decide to do something and have it work out the first time. He decided to start sewing/tailoring, so he made a men's sport coat from plaid and got the plaid to line up properly, and the jacket fit. He could also just think about some physical activity, work out how to do it and do it the first time. At the time we talked about it, it was squash, but it applied to many things. He was annoyingly talented at a lot of things.

My mother really, really can't "see things in her head." You know that way you build up and image and think about it? Or build a model in your head, or you think about how to assemble something? She absolutely can not do it. Period. It is so bad she can't look at a written word and say "that looks right." She had to memorize every single word she wanted to be able to write. She did very well (school teacher and 2 masters degrees) but it wasn't helped at all by not being able to "see" things.

Most people lie somewhere in between. So practice really will help.

I "can't draw" either. But I can fake it. I adopted the "draw a lot of lines and erase the ones that aren't right" trick. Erasers and pencils are definitely my friends when drawing. There is no way I could ever draw directly with pen and ink. I inherited a little to much from my mother. My visual memory is a lot better than hers, but a lot worse than my father's. I expect that, if they work at it, most people could get something like that to work. Most people are probably in that middle somewhere.

And, unless you just have the kind of visual thinking my father (and Aaron) have, drawing will help get the ideas and errors out of your head and onto something concrete. Going through that stage is definitely worthwhile, even if you can't draw well at all.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about burgonets. It is fun to see this evolving. Build it with the real comb like the originals which are your source. The "customer" may not think that is what they want, but you and they will be happier with it being right at some point. Maybe you a lot sooner than the customer, but they will come around, or it will pass on to someone who does appreciate it.

Wade

[RWWT]

My two cents on learning stuff: I’m between Wade and Kristoffer. Both make excellent points that I’m just about in total agreement with.

Different example: I was big into music when I was younger. I became technically proficient through a lot of practice and dedication to the point that I could play better than friends, impress girls, reliably play songs, and even compose my own stuff. I thought I was really good. Then I engaged in more serious study and met someone with “perfect pitch”. Everyone in the class was both in awe of this person and was kindly yet extremely jealous. Our instructor was kind enough to reconcile this somewhat for us by teaching “relative pitch”. Yeah, we couldn’t hear fine gradations or color like the gifted “perfect pitch” person, but we could get very close with a lot of work and practice. The lingering difference was that the person with perfect pitch had an innate sense of the feel and art of music that the rest of us could mimic but not quite match.

I’ve seen Mac and others talk about people with “The Eye” here. Some folks are just born with it. I think of it like perfect pitch. I’m in awe of, admire, and am jealous of people with these innate gifts. Lacking them myself, it shows me what’s possible that I wouldn’t have seen on my own because my mind can’t quite get there by itself. Once shown, however, it gives me something to aim for and I can try to apply my strengths to get to a similar level. I probably won’t ever be as good at the “feel” element but with a lot of hard work and practice, sometimes people like me can help advance things in other ways that the freakishly gifted struggle to get to on their own. Some people simply “see”. Others learn to “see”.

Sorry for belaboring the tangent but I hope this is helpful to others in challenging our individual learning curves.

[Sky]

Kristoffer, I love how clear your sketches are. It's very easy to see your intent.

Thank you, I am forcing myself to learn this. It is really skills that we all need to learn and it is a struggle for some of us who lack artistic skills. I am happy that I am making progress. For me 3D is a lot easier to deal with compared to 2D.

I know you were talking about this at the forging, so I was happy to see that you've been making some great progress. I noticed the improvement in the last 6 months, so I wanted to make sure you knew that they were clean, clear, and under control

Also, sorry for unintentionally making a tangent

[Mac]

Since we are all off on this tangent, I thought I'd do it too.

As far as I can tell, the distribution of any and all human characteristics within the population will fall on the famous bell curve. This goes for all the things that can be measured, as well as those that can not (or have not) been measured.

For any given parameter under consideration, most of us will fall in the middle of the curve.



Our values for some of these parameters are more or less fixed. We can't do much about our height, or percentage of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle. However, many of the other parameters are more fluid, and can be altered. For example, our abilities to imagine in 3-D, draw, move gracefully, or make small talk at a party can be improved by practice.

Some of these ability parameters are easier to change than others, but they are all somewhat fluid. With work, we can shift our selves to the right on the curve. With enough work, we might even slide right on over to the next standard deviation, but that's probably about as far as it goes.

Thus, someone who started out with "high average" ability to (say) draw, can expect to end up "pretty good" if they work at it. Someone who is already "pretty good" might get to be "great". On the other side of the hump, someone who is "poor" at it can probably get themselves to be "low average" with work.

The vast majority of us will fall somewhere in the middle of that curve. That's just how statistics are; 95.4% will be within two standard deviations of the mean. The good news is that we can all improve ourselves with practice.

I won't talk about the "tails" of the curve because no one reading this will possess abilities that would assign them that region at either end. Those are the places where a person's ability might be called "ultra wretched" or "unbelievably awesome". Practically speaking, there are so few of either of those folks that we are unlikely to meet them.

Mac

[Kristoffer]

So, back on track again.

I put the collar in there and I just noticed it looks a bit wonky but I blame that on all the erasing I had to do since I put in in rather than having it on a separate paper.... ehm...

I removed as much space at the sides as I dared to. I am considering removing a bit of height on the neck lames to allow me to draw them in a bit closer to the neck. They are quite wide as it is now.

I did not match the two sides exactly, just freehanded them. I think the right side looks better.

Open to suggestions..



https://photos.app.goo.gl/yuDxJrJXMRVjYLQW7

[Mac]

I removed as much space at the sides as I dared to.

The narrower neck is a step in the right direction, but I would advise you to dare a bit more.


The thing that jumps out at me is that the front and back views need to be reconciled at their horizons. Since this is a projection, rather than a perspective, the places where the helmet or collar are at their very widest or narrowest should line up on the same horizon from one view to the other. That is to say, they should not only be the same distance from the centerline, but the same height as well.

These also need to be reconciled with the side view; and it is that view which will give you the most information about choosing the vertical location for those points.



At the risk of being pedantic, I would like to stress the importance of reconciling all the views. There are points in each view that must be transferred faithfully to the others. These are places where the thing is at its widest, narrowest, tallest, etc. These are your anchors; the places you can be certain of. If you change them in one view, you need to change them in the others. It's only when these points are correctly located that you can try to imagine the shapes of the lines that connect them.

In a way, this sort of thing is what distinguishes the draftsman from the artist. The artist makes a line that "feels right, even if it is wrong". The draftsman makes a line that it "is right, even if it feels wrong".

My current project is the "technical drawings" for Toby C's next book; so I'm immersed in this very thing. I'm spending weeks taking what 15th c. artists have handed us, and trying to suss out what they were really seeing and putting that into three views. It's hard work. There is a lot of transferring of points across views, and a lot of erasing and redrawing of lines.

Mac

[Mac]

While I was typing up the post above, I noticed another place where symmetry needs to be reconciled.

The red line is where I expect the head to be at its widest. Sure; this will vary from person to person, but helmets are based on typical and normal, rather than specific individuals. Wherever that line is, it should be the same height on both sides, and the same length from the center line.

The green line is a perpendicular from a tangent to the head at the wide points. Where it intersects with the helmet is typically the widest point on the helmet. It's length will represent (minus metal thickness, of course) the internal space in the helmet. With the exception of the crest line and perhaps the chin, this is typically the greatest internal space in a helmet. That is to say the place for the most padding and the most room for compression. It is (probably not coincidentally) the place where one can land the most powerful blows. It is also the place where such blows send their shock waves through the most brain.

The blue line is probably redundant, but it represents how the two wide points of the helmet should be equal distances from the center line, and be located on a line that is perpendicular to that center line.



It looks like you might need to reconcile your head profiles before continuing. The profiles don't need to be "perfect" but they do need to be symmetrical, even if your head isn't. Nobody's head is symmetrical, but almost everybody's is symmetrical enough that that should be the starting assumption. If the helmet is designed to fit the "average" person's head, it will almost certainly fit any particular person who is more or less the normal size.

Now.. the place where it does do well to consider the individual is the question of shoulder height. This is commonly thought of a "neck length", but the shoulders are really the variable here. Your profile suggest that your shoulders are a bit high, and that fits with my recollection of you. As such, you should be prepared to have to alter the neck lames a bit from the original to accommodate that. I would begin by trying to make the neck lames just like the real helmet, but be ready to fall back to something shorter if that will not fit.

...before doing any of that, though, you need to reconcile the discrepancy in the shoulder height between the front and back views.

Mac

[RWWT]

My current project is the "technical drawings" for Toby C's next book; so I'm immersed in this very thing. I'm spending weeks taking what 15th c. artists have handed us, and trying to suss out what they were really seeing and putting that into three views. It's hard work. There is a lot of transferring of points across views, and a lot of erasing and redrawing of lines.

If there are any parts of this process that you can and would be willing to share, Mac, I’d be immensely grateful to follow along. I’ve previously heard you make the point that (forgive me if I inaccurately paraphrase) you see modern armorers most often error is rooted in the planning and drawing stages and that you frequently find the same errors in sketchbooks as in the armor.

It’s a lesson I’m coming to appreciate more and more and working to improve on. Unfortunately the resources available to learn from seem scarce, or I simply don’t know where to look.

If the answer is, “you’ll have to wait for the book”, I completely understand and look forward to giving Toby’s publisher my money.

[Johann ColdIron]

In a way, this sort of thing is what distinguishes the draftsman from the artist. The artist makes a line that "feels right, even if it is wrong". The draftsman makes a line that it "is right, even if it feels wrong".

Mac

As a person who makes a living as a draftsman (electronic mostly) I want this printed on a T-shirt!

So very true. Can't tell you how many times I've had to tell people "well, that is what you asked me to draw. might not be what you wanted but that is what dimensional reality is telling me..."

[Mac]

In a way, this sort of thing is what distinguishes the draftsman from the artist. The artist makes a line that "feels right, even if it is wrong". The draftsman makes a line that it "is right, even if it feels wrong".

Mac

As a person who makes a living as a draftsman (electronic mostly) I want this printed on a T-shirt!

So very true. Can't tell you how many times I've had to tell people "well, that is what you asked me to draw. might not be what you wanted but that is what dimensional reality is telling me..."

I played with the wording of that till it felt good, but to tell the truth, I don't know if I made it up or if I'd seen something like it before and it's been percolating around in my head. It's like a hoarder's basement in there.

Mac

[Mac]

Doh I pushed the button before I wrote anything, so I've removed it.

Mac

[Mac]

My current project is the "technical drawings" for Toby C's next book; so I'm immersed in this very thing. I'm spending weeks taking what 15th c. artists have handed us, and trying to suss out what they were really seeing and putting that into three views. It's hard work. There is a lot of transferring of points across views, and a lot of erasing and redrawing of lines.

If there are any parts of this process that you can and would be willing to share, Mac, I’d be immensely grateful to follow along.

I don't think that can really happen, for practical as well as legal reasons. I'm not really documenting the process at all. I send revised sketches to Toby and after I've made the changes I delete the previous images to avoid confusion. What's more, a lot of the process is that back and forth discussion about what we are seeing and and what it can, might or must really mean.

I’ve previously heard you make the point that (forgive me if I inaccurately paraphrase) you see modern armorers most often error is rooted in the planning and drawing stages and that you frequently find the same errors in sketchbooks as in the armor.

I certainly hold with that. Perhaps I would even go so far as the say that one usually (I dare not say always) finds the same errors in the sketchbook as the the armor.

It's not that these guys can't move the metal; it's that they don't know where they should be going with it. We all see what we expect to see, an it's only by a sort of Cartesian deconstruction that we can hope to get past that.



Mac

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Those are the places where a person's ability might be called "ultra wretched" or "unbelievably awesome". Practically speaking, there are so few of either of those folks that we are unlikely to meet them.

Mac

I've met YOU!

We all see what we expect to see, an it's only by a sort of Cartesian deconstruction that we can hope to get past that.

The jillion odd assumptions we bring to the art of armour, such as the compulsion to see bilateral symmetry in all our patterns and assuming that helmet skulls are equidistant from the heads they house, persistently interfere with our ability to see what the old guys were doing.

[RWWT]

I certainly hold with that. Perhaps I would even go so far as the say that one usually (I dare not say always) finds the same errors in the sketchbook as the the armor.

It's not that these guys can't move the metal; it's that they don't know where they should be going with it. We all see what we expect to see, an it's only by a sort of Cartesian deconstruction that we can hope to get past that.

Guilty as charged. It is frustrating to go back and find the mistake I’d missed on paper that has vexed me in metal but seeing how often this holds true offers hope of gradual improvement.

I completely understand not being able to share your current project. I’d figured as much but would have kicked myself for not asking. Best of success!

[Kristoffer]

My current project is the "technical drawings" for Toby C's next book; so I'm immersed in this very thing.
Mac

And I just happened to stroll straight into your sights. Lucky me.

Well, the head profile is not mine and it has a bit of age and I guess I will have to redo it. The person is not accessible for some time so I guess I will restart with a profile that I have access to, mine.

Here is my ugly melon. I put a gorget on it, wich was very challenging since I dont have a neck. Lets get the basics right now so I can leave those and work on the helmet.

Fire at will.



https://photos.app.goo.gl/pd6wwkYQmoYZskSr8

[Mac]

Fire at will.

Okey doke!

This is a good start!

Here are some things to consider, more or less in the order that they struck me...

--The neck looks a bit suspicious in the front view. I expect to see something more straight sided. Take a few caliper widths and verify what you have there.. especially right below the jaw.

--You have got room there for a taller gorget if you thought that's what went best with the helmet. I'd raise the upper edge till it touched the flesh under your chin. You can probably squeeze a third lame in there.

--The representation of the edges of the neck lames, as they go around the horizon needs to be more like what you have shown at the opening of the neck. Tell me if that makes sense.

--In the side view; the line of the back of the upper collar lame should be more or less perpendicular to the plane of the top of the collar. You have is sloping in toward the neck. In general, everything from the top of the collar to the 7th cervical vertebral prominence is generally a straight line. Of course nothing is a straight line in armor, so it really should have a nearly imperceptible convexity; but a straight and perpendicular line is always a good starting place.

--It's time to establish that center line in the front view, and make what "fudges" you might in the name of symmetry.

Mac

[Kristoffer]

--The neck looks a bit suspicious in the front view. I expect to see something more straight sided. Take a few caliper widths and verify what you have there.. especially right below the jaw.

I actually look like that. My head is like a squash being carried around in a funnel. My neck is more straight but it ends up behind the things leaning outwards that are partially my fat hamster cheeks, partially over grown muscles around the back of my jaw because of 10 years working with looking at ceilings.

--You have got room there for a taller gorget if you thought that's what went best with the helmet. I'd raise the upper edge till it touched the flesh under your chin. You can probably squeeze a third lame in there.

Yep. Looking at it with fresh eyes the low collar looked very sloppy. Raised it up to a more uncomfortable but better looking position.

--The representation of the edges of the neck lames, as they go around the horizon needs to be more like what you have shown at the opening of the neck. Tell me if that makes sense.

Yes it does!

--In the side view; the line of the back of the upper collar lame should be more or less perpendicular to the plane of the top of the collar. You have is sloping in toward the neck. In general, everything from the top of the collar to the 7th cervical vertebral prominence is generally a straight line. Of course nothing is a straight line in armor, so it really should have a nearly imperceptible convexity; but a straight and perpendicular line is always a good starting place.

Actually, I based it on the angles of Wades augsburg gorget that I handled at the forging. It has that inwards angle of the top lame in the back.

http://allenantiques.com/images/A-201-a-pin-side.jpg

--It's time to establish that center line in the front view, and make what "fudges" you might in the name of symmetry.

Done!

[Kristoffer]

Fat head take 2. Action!



https://photos.app.goo.gl/J8pTzzn4FamQiAb48

[Mac]

Actually, I based it on the angles of Wades augsburg gorget that I handled at the forging. It has that inwards angle of the top lame in the back.

http://allenantiques.com/images/A-201-a-pin-side.jpg

Hmmm.... I see what you mean.

I'm inclined to see that as a "bug", rather than a "feature". It spoils the line and doesn't seem to impart any benefits. I'll keep an eye out for similar things, just in case I'm wrong about this.... but I think Wade's collar just shows a mistake that is within the manufacturer's tolerance.

Mac

[Mac]

Fat head take 2. Action!



https://photos.app.goo.gl/J8pTzzn4FamQiAb48

OK!

I'd still change that thing about the line of the back of the collar, but that does not have any real impact on things. Overall, it looks like you are good to go.

Mac

[Johann ColdIron]

Actually, I based it on the angles of Wades augsburg gorget that I handled at the forging. It has that inwards angle of the top lame in the back.

http://allenantiques.com/images/A-201-a-pin-side.jpg

Hmmm.... I see what you mean.

I'm inclined to see that as a "bug", rather than a "feature". It spoils the line and doesn't seem to impart any benefits. I'll keep an eye out for similar things, just in case I'm wrong about this.... but I think Wade's collar just shows a mistake that is within the manufacturer's tolerance.

Mac

I think part of what is going on in that pic is leather compression canting the top lame backward slightly.

But the collar lame top line and the rear vertical line are not perpendicular on that gorget. My theory is it allows the top lame to nest slightly further to the rear of the lame stack for a more upright posture without the collar pressing on your neck.

[wcallen]

Actually, I based it on the angles of Wades augsburg gorget that I handled at the forging. It has that inwards angle of the top lame in the back.

http://allenantiques.com/images/A-201-a-pin-side.jpg

Hmmm.... I see what you mean.

I'm inclined to see that as a "bug", rather than a "feature". It spoils the line and doesn't seem to impart any benefits. I'll keep an eye out for similar things, just in case I'm wrong about this.... but I think Wade's collar just shows a mistake that is within the manufacturer's tolerance.

Mac

I think part of what is going on in that pic is leather compression canting the top lame backward slightly.

But the collar lame top line and the rear vertical line are not perpendicular on that gorget. My theory is it allows the top lame to nest slightly further to the rear of the lame stack for a more upright posture without the collar pressing on your neck.

I put my hands on the gorget and poked and prodded at the leathers a little.
The leathers really are sagging in a way that makes the gorget not sit right. It should sit a lot taller than it does in the pictures. If it were sitting at what is most likely its original form, I expect that it would be a lot taller, and that there would be something a little different going on in the angle of the upper line.
Staring closely, I expect that some of the slant is intentional, but maybe not all of it. I don't think it as buggy as Mac implies, but it may be some. It looks like the natural flat plane of the top of the gorget really is kicked down a bit from perpendicular to the back plates. I can't get it to sit quite as angled as the back plate's slope would imply, but that may be the scrunched leathers. Or it may be a little more angled than it needed to be.

I don't think that every gorget made needs this slant. I expect that most don't have it. But I think that this one probably had some initially.

Wade

[Kristoffer]

Looking at my own neck profile, I imagine the tilted upper lame would perhaps allow someone to wear the gorget just slightly higher than normal but without becoming uncomfortable? Allow us short necked people to look a bit more stylish?

I however changed mine to the more normal to annoy Mac less. I also did the dreaded back perspective and hopefully I have started understanding it a bit. You can also see my hiding neck in that view.
Tomorrow I hope I can get started on the helmet sketch.



https://photos.app.goo.gl/yJ9ZyjqSSYEuXq8K8

[Mac]

I also did the dreaded back perspective and hopefully I have started understanding it a bit. You can also see my hiding neck in that view.
Tomorrow I hope I can get started on the helmet sketch.

I think your really want to run that line in the back pretty much straight from the rim of the collar to where you have stopped drawing the main back plate. As it is now, your closest approach to your neck is right about at the C7 prominence. You don't want to skimp on room there.

If you find that you can't do that without making it be an obtuse angle from the rim of the collar, you might need to increase the diameter of the collar until you can. Yea... that will mess with everything else, but better to do it now than in steel.

And then.....

Here's one more exercise for you.

Visualize the location of the rear edge of the front main plate and sketch that in. Once you see where that goes, you will also see that need to make a very small correction to what the neck lames look like as they pass around the side.

Mac