The Armour Archive

Well I guess it has to do with how tight things need to be. When I've hiked with a heavy backpack the hip belt really needed to be tight to keep the load off my shoulders. Of course by heavy I mean 70 lbs A set of legs isn't nearly that. I imagine, having an actual waist above the iliac crest helps too. So, I don't know, it sounds like from others experience a tight fit is all that's required and the gap is one size fits most thing or for those whose size moves too much.

On a related note I am working some adjustments on my HE arming doublet after having lost about 30 lbs.
I just was not able to get it tight enough any more, really I was never able to get it as tight as I wanted.

Yesterday I quickly took in the side seams on a curved line from the bottom of the arm attachment to the bottom.
I took in each seam about 2" at the navel tapering to 0 both at the bottom and the arm inset.
I think I might take it in 2.25" at each side and let the laces at the small of the back out a bit to give me some adjustment range, if needed.

Below are thumbnails linked to the HE site for reference.

Please note that even in Jeff's photos in the doublet there is a slight gap both in the front and back of the garment through the midsection above the hips.

In the 15th century there is a fashion in lots of places for many doublets to be open at the front. I find it unlikely that an arming doublet would be that open, but its good reason to believe a 15th century petticote could be left open at the front.

Looking at the way a 15th century arming doublet is fit and knowing what its function is, the gap shown in Jeff's arming doublet above is clearly not a fashion thing but a function thing to achieve the tight fit required to girdle the hips for the sake of suspending a leg harness. Thus the slight gap in the back as well. This also explains why the lacing at the small of the back exists in the first place, to accomplish this requirement. Assuming the photos are of Jeff's actual arming doublet I bet Gwen intended it to be like that.

This seems like as good a place as any to say some things I've wanted to say for a long time to you Ian.

Early in my involvement in medieval armor, I saw a picture of you in the Wasson harness, must have been right after you got it, back when you still had the Armstreet bascinet helm. I found the pic somewhere floating around on the internet and had no idea who it was. But that pic was what first inspired me to do medieval living history and acquire my own 14th century harness. I always wanted to thank you for that but never found an appropriate time or place. So, thanks Ian.

Over the last couple years I've scrutinized your harness as it has evolved over time and noted things that you did with it, compared them to other sources and found and applied my research to my own harness. I've now seen your harness in so many places on the internet that I can recognize you on sight as easily as historians can recognize famous pieces from museums. I have always been impressed with your continual drive for improvement and it continues to inspire me.

As for the topic at hand, I have the same vest you have, though I thought you were still using the gamby you got from that custom tailor gal who has a 14 month waiting time. I got mine after upgrading my legs and needing a way to point them properly. I previously used belts to hold up my legs and also my hauberk. Putting that weight on my hips really doubled my endurance in full harness so I know what you mean and I agree with you. As for how much of the vest should be open in front I think with historical accuracy in mind leaving some open vs perfect tailoring is an unimportant question. As fast as garments wear out during constant field use, it's unlikely that every garment worn was always perfectly tailored unless you were fabulously wealthy. Others will correct me if I'm wrong but there does not appear to be enough surviving actual 14th century garments or even significant written evidence to prove or disprove a certain style of arming garment. The best we can do is an educated guess based on what we do know (or think we know).

I made my own surcoat when I couldn't find anyone to make a really historical one. I have an achievement with small flowers that I worried over how to get the applique just right and what materiel to use and where to put the hemline. I made it from linen, and made the applique from linen, and learned how to embroider and sew and applique to make it all as correct as possible, and it looks great. I'll post a pic later. Some picky folks will tell you that a hemline is incorrect unless it's a certain number of inches at a certain time period, but I've found plenty of evidence for short hems in the 12th century and long ones in the 14th century. It was a matter of fashion and personal taste much the same as clothing today. Though with living history you want to stay close to the norm, an inch or two won't matter as much as some people will tell you. I did make mine side laced though and it really does make the fit look right. You can cinch it close to the CoP and it also gave me an opportunity to learn some medieval braiding for the lacing which I did in linen thread dyed in my heraldic colors. I learned about aglets that way too.

One thing you might want to do if you haven't already is watch the video of Jeff Wasson at the Met putting on his own (15th century?) full harness with the help of his wife. There's a link to it on the construction forum here on AA, it's on YouTube as Dressing in Steel I think. In particular look at his arming garment. It looks like that's what we're both looking for, except of course the voiders and other niggly non14th century tailoring tidbits.

Thanks for making the video Ian, and try not to take the criticism here on AA too personally. Most folks only want to help make you better, but sometimes things can get taken the wrong way and tact often involves physical ques that are absent in text mediums.

Regarding the gap vs perfectly tailored; yes, perfectly tailored is the ideal situation if your body doesn't change at all. If you lose an inch and the garment becomes loose, the weight goes mostly to your shoulders. If you gain an inch, no big deal, loosen the lacing. I use a pourpoint with my 14th, and I use an arming coat with my 15th and the same exact concept; snug on the hips, loose at the chest, and point the legs the same way on both pourpoint and arming coat. It makes a difference if it's sized and laced properly or not, both in fatigue and comfort.

The gap is completely covered by armor / jupon / surcoat / etc, so it's moot for style. Revival Clothing's arming coat has a "modesty panel", a cloth that covers behind the lacing of the gap.

Basically, you want at least a little gap, because if there is no gap, you're right on the cusp of the garment being too large and leading to fatigue quickly. The primary exception being if you enjoy tailoring garments and don't mind taking it in / letting it out as needed, or plan to buy new garments every 6-12 months - which probably is not most of us.

Yes, I believe this is what Ian is saying and this is what I 100% agree with. When I said "style" I didn't mean that it would be visible, though that connotation could be inferred by my example of modern clothing.

Scott, thank you very much for the kind words. It really comes as a surprise to me that anything I did inspired someone else in this community, because I feel like I'm just learning myself! When I think about it though, I guess that harness has been several years in the making now. How time as flown! For me it was the 'Show me Your Kits and Harnesses' thread on myArmoury.com that made me get serious about the whole thing. Some of the kits I saw in that thread may as well have been right out of an effigy or manuscript and just blew me away!

As far as the gap or no gap, I think it's leaving far too much to chance to try for absolutely no gap. Until I see a reason not to, I'll always shoot for lacing tight to a small gap. I can't ever subscribe to the idea of wanting ANY of my leg harness's wait on my shoulders. On my vest pourpoint, if I literally cut the shoulder seams and turned it into a corset, it would still function the same, there is no tension on my shoulders whatsoever in it's current configuration, and that has made all the difference in comfort in harness.

Hey James, re-reading my previous post, it appears the surcoat is actually what I was talking about with regard to fashion, not the undergarment. Sorry for any confusion.

scott2978 wrote:Hey James, re-reading my previous post, it appears the surcoat is actually what I was talking about with regard to fashion, not the undergarment. Sorry for any confusion.

Oh, no worries, I wasn't replying specifically to you, also to tostig, tailoress, or anybody else reading that didn't reply.

Ian L wrote:Looking at the way a 15th century arming doublet is fit and knowing what its function is, the gap shown in Jeff's arming doublet above is clearly not a fashion thing but a function thing to achieve the tight fit required to girdle the hips for the sake of suspending a leg harness. Thus the slight gap in the back as well. This also explains why the lacing at the small of the back exists in the first place, to accomplish this requirement. Assuming the photos are of Jeff's actual arming doublet I bet Gwen intended it to be like that.

All points regarding fit are correct Ian. I can't recall if this is one of my doublets, but it may be. I have a doublet in red linen canvas for training that's like this one, so it may be mine. I have had several of these, my last two being made of a wonderful red/gold brocade. They are all made with the lacing front and back. The lacing is not there to tailor the garment or to compensate for lack of a custom fit. As you've pointed out, the lacing's there for a reason, for the girdling effect. It not only allows tight fit about the hips for the cuisses, but supports the back in the event of a fall from horseback, similar to that seen on Rennen and some Gestech jousting harnesses.

We've made literally hundreds of these arming doublets using only a few key measurements, no need for custom tailoring. It's all in the patterning and Gwen's done a marvelous job.........but then I'm biased.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=151779#p2306267

Note the lacing and gap too

Jeff pointed me to this thread this morning. Only a few clarifications:

The red arming doublet is Jeff's practice doublet:


The fancy arming doublet Jeff wears when he competes (Dominic is also wearing a BSD arming doublet):




The doublets also work well for ground combat, not just riding/jousting:


Any gaposis is caused by Jeff's less than perfect physique; however, Jeff's doublet demonstrates that the spiral lacing does help to achieve the requisite tight fit on a 'real' body.

My pattern works on any body where the waist is smaller than the chest. It will not work for guys whose waist is larger than their chest.

Because fit is critical, we no longer carry arming doublets in stock but make them all to order, to each customer's measurements. There is no additional cost for custom sizing, and turnaround is usually about 4 weeks.

This style provides a strong and secure foundation for late 14th thru mid 16th C. plate harness.

Gwen

Cool, thank you Gwen for the amplifying info!