The Armour Archive

have you ever noticed the difference in real armour(form teh time period) to todays reenactment reproduction armour?

what is your opinion?

to me it seems that modern armour is more refined in some aspects than its model. besides the fact that modern is over safe in some areas.

A good example for comparison is chocolate. Hershey chocolate is great, until you have some good European brand like Lyndt chocolate, it is only then you realize that you have been eating chocolate flavored wax your whole life.
90% of the reproduction armour I have seen is sorely lacking in refinement and craftsmanship. But this is not surprising; given most of us are 1st generation armourers.
On the other hand, most armourers don’t look for or can’t see the refinement that is lacking and most customers don’t either, so they don’t demand it in the product. Perhaps because we are so used to the “Hershey’sâ€Â

Lemmee see if I can contribute to this fishing expedition...

I have to agree, when I received my armor from Jeff Hedgecock (Historic Enterprises), I was immediately impressed with how the lines were so different from the armors I had put together in the past--specifically, how they more closely resembled peices I had seen in museums and in pictures and drawings. Whereas what I had done was worthwhile in terms of trying to be an analog, the articles from Hedgecock were visually correct. I can show pictures of my best, and lay it next to a picture of me in the Hedgecock stuff, and while you could look at both and say "Okay, these are both men at arms," there is no doubt which armor is the more refined--and part of the reason why the HE armor is closer to the original articles comes from him striving for slavish imitation--a virtue in my book.

Now, there is a spectrum from the best to the most humble, but people are beginning to develop an eye for the more refined armors, and this demand will have all of the economic effects you would expect it to have--to quote Linus Larabee from the movie Sabrina, "...a harbor is dug, a factory is built, and a bunch of kids who never had shoes will have them." John Gruber, because I decided that I wanted a local armorer to make my finger gauntlets, made a pair which people seem to like, and he says he has orders for two more pair--Good on him! And good on those people who are commissioning him to do them!

In much munitions-grade armor, the issue is "the lines." What do I mean? I mean things like:

1. Oversized knee and elbow cops.
2. Lack of deep drawing in knee and elbow cops.
3. Lack of compound curves and geometry in plate surfaces (a lot of straight greaves, and straight vambraces, and so forth).
4. Lack of rolled edges.
5. Overbulk.

In general, a variety of aesthetic qualities that are a bit difficult to define--armor is a tool with artistic qualities, and so just as some like Picasso and others despise him, it can be difficult to speak in terms of whether one form of refinement is better than another--for example, is it preferable for me to always maintain a mirror shine on my harness or is 4-ought steel wool sufficient? Is our modern sense of the perfectly symmetrical, machine-manufactured article really appropriate? We can find examples of very refined, and very, let us say, workmanlike articles from the middle ages.

The history of plate armor in the SCA is also something that is worthwhile to delve into also, because it lets us know why we are where we are now, instead of fifteen years earlier. My theory, and this is just a theory, those who have been around longer can verify or clarify it, is this: Plate armors got their beginning in the SCA actually fairly early on, and there was a movement toward plate armors in the late seventies/early eighties. However, the heavy weight of this armor (I have gone into battle wearing 100 lbs of armor and shield) caused people, and rightly so, to step back a bit and say "Woah-ho...ho. Let's not be too foolish." And so the plate-armored man at arms was set aside because it was difficult to execute and it was heavy. 16 gauge mild steel because the standard, and work into carbon steel did not begin until later. Something to also think about is that there is an explosion now in across the board communication--hard to transmit ideas across states before the internet. Now, we have armorers reaching the journeyman level, and a few masters (I hope that nobody takes it amiss that I raise the bar out of respect for the plateners of old who were born and bred to it), and people are re-examining the possibility of the cap-a-pie man at arms, bearing onto the field in the neighborhood of 50-60 lbs of armor, shield, helm, and weapon. People want to realize the initial premise, and it is becoming more and more possible, until it will become a flood.

Maybe.

This rambling brought to you for your approval,

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

Hey whats wrong with Carpet Padding Armor and Freon Can Helmets huh. God I am glad I didn't fight in those days of the SCA.

I would have to agree with you both. Now that I have been doing some work with armour beyond chain maille I have decided to go back and reread TOMAR and finding alot of stuff that I rarely see in most reproduction armor such as rolled edges, flutting, embossing, raised pieces.

I do think however that we are reaching a place now where alot of us are realizing what we lack and are starting to reach higher goals such as the post we had not too long ago on the raised helm.

Who knows maybe someday with our better knowledge of metals we may someday surpass the orignal.

Educating yourself on what makes up the quality of armour is essential. Studying real pieces is the best, but not always possible. If you can see any of Mac’s work that would be next best. TOMAR is a good start, but I would not put to much stock in what it has to say. I have found things that are misleading or not the best way to make something. Also, you can't judge the quality of a car by looking a photo of it, or by looking at it in a car show. Or even reading about it from someone who has not driven professionally for decades. I have many friends who race, but only a few that I would trust their opinion on a great car. You have to pick armour up and see how things fit together and how smooth things work. See where sliding rivets are used and how hinges and latches work. Then look at the shape and see what is a correct line and what is not. Look at a picture of a Bradley GT and then look a photo of a Ferrari 355 GTS. You will quickly see one looks much cooler than the other. But understanding why it looks better is harder to learn and recreate.

One of the "old" blacksmiths over at the Blacksmiths' Virtual Junkyard contends that you don't get really good at something "...until you've made a hundred of them."

I hate to admit it, but I do think he has something; I see improvements in my procedures and end products when I do later versions, and sometimes the learning curve isn't near as steep as I would hope. Some very talented blacksmiths and armorers are "naturals" and just fall quickly into the groove. Me, I strive for competency.

I doubt if very many modern armorers have made a hundred of any one item. However, in the old apprentice, journeyman and master system, you very easily could take years performing simple tasks, then more and more complex ones until your master (and the guild) decided that you got it right.

In the 21st century, for good or ill, you only have the judgement of the marketplace and the opinion of ones peers to know when you have something "right."

Hello.

As far as I can see, there´s too many people asking for reproductions of period masterpieces at budget pricing.

The central reason for this, as far as I can see, is "the game", that there´s barons and counts and the like by the truckload, but most of them can´t afford proper reproductions according to their rank. So the "inspired by" or "based upon" looks are predominant rather than actual reproductions that deserve this title.

Let me fill in a quote: There´s many bad reproductions of good armour, but hardly any good reproductions of bad armour.

Means: We´ve got loads of clumsy interpretations of masterpieces, but very few good interpretations of appropriate equipment of lower social station. Simply because the lower station knights/warriors to an extent are not really part of the game (or rather beginner´s thing), and the knight in shining armour clichés predominate.

Note: This applies for the SCA just as well as for many other groups and societies, just to make clear that this is not another SCA bashing post!!!

I think that most armourers over- estimate their craftmanship and skills by avoiding the simpler period pieces.
The other side of the medal is that there obviously is not a market for well crafted, but less representative armour of less well-off knight or rank and file. No- one will reproduce things that do not sell.

Regards

Ivo

I totally agree with the above. All of the newcomer and beginner threads on the sword forums are like "I wanna ninja katana like in (fill in some bs martial arts film here) that can cut through other swords and concrete and anvils and stuff but I only have $63 to spend. Which is the best one?" gets really irritating after a while - then after a few months you see all the same people trying to sell their $50 stainless steel wallhanger 'katana' in the classifieds.

People tend to want what they like, and few like munitions grade armour. It's one of the real challenges in living history to make sure you have a proper mixture of armour. For later periods it's simplier mainly because of the pool to draw from tends to be larger. With earlier periods though, it's difficult since we often only have a handful of pieces to work with.

For example, this is the helm of my dreams.

[img]http://www.kylosa.com/Hosting/Warriors_Home/800x600/Helms/Budapest.jpg[/img]

This is not a helm for the rank and file, that's obvious. However, this is the one I like. Guess which one I would be most likely to reproduce?

I don't have the skill to reproduce it by any means, but I'll try and hope to make a munitions grade helm with similar lines.

I'm gonna shut up now before I continue to ramble.

Tom

How about these?

http://www.medievalrepro.com/Helmets.htm

4th and 5th from the top.

Regards

Ivo

The fourth one isn't that bad, the fifth looks "off" to me somehow. I still like the lines in mine more

Tom

Well, that's just it. Money.

Kirby has made a handful of "cap a pie" harnesses in the past and some 3/4 suits. Most were made in the mid to late 70s and a couple in the 80s. Not for the lack of wanting to do them but not many people wanted to pay for the cost of having them made.

His "Milanese Gothic with Barbute" was one of the first (if not The first) to be used in the SCA back in 1976. Made from 14gauge steel and weighed overall 60lbs. The Barbute was based on the Metropolitan Museum one...complete with suspension and out of 12ga. Made for a good friend of ours, Lysander of Sparta of Calafia, who decided to forego his Spartan gear for a later historical persona once in a while. Have a few photos of him, from a Calafian 1976 tourny, wearing it in combat against Duke Armand de Seviegny (who was wearing a full mail hauberk w/ chausses and a Kirby #81 heaume). 400 years seperation of armour at a glance. Classic SCA.

Kirby would like to have made more armour like that...but few had the money to pay for something like this. You would cry at the prices these went for. For the time it took to make and fit the stuff, Kirby could have made several swords and individual pieces of armour (i.e. helmets, breastplates). We had a choice to make as this is all Kirby ever did for a living. I am afraid you would cry at what the prices were. Although it seemed alot at time.

Now, full harnesses are being asked for....and more people are willing to pay for it. So, you have armourers willing to put the time and effort into making it. But back then, it was more of an anomaly at the time.

No, Kirby is not in the armour business on a large scale anymore. Have not been in a decade or so. Only occasional pieces anymore. He sticks mainly to the weaponry as this has been our main "bread and butter".

For my friends, back in the '70s, I would make mail for "...a penny a link, plus materials." It was a labor of love, but it was never profitable.

Ivo is right; a period masterpiece at bargain prices makes no economic sense.

As my lawyer in the Solicitor's Office says: "It is what it is." The current state of the hobby and the current social/financial status of it's practitioners, are at odds with the desires of the heart. If hundreds of rich polo players (nay, thousands) were suddenly interested in Scadia or medieval reenactment, then we would see the high medieval nobility done up right. That mythical day is never coming, so we'll watch things as the limp along and evolve. Some of the most skillful will find a market commensurate with their skills, and I'll stick to the Viking age.

Tom, what is the documentation on that particular helm? I've seen drawings of a couple with stones set in them, but no pictures before that one.

Alcy,

That's a helm apparently from a dig in Budapest. It's a late Roman ridge helmet, only instead of the raised ridge strap, it uses a flat one.

I'm afraid I don't have more info on that piece, except those aren't really gems apparently. It's my understanding that they are paste stones so that real gems wouldn't get hacked off in battle...though I only have that second hand.

Tom

edited to add another example. This is the Berkasovo I, another ridge helm with the stones on it.
[img]http://www.kylosa.com/Hosting/Warriors_Home/800x600/Helms/Berkasovo+I.jpg[/img]