The Armour Archive

I think I would place it in the third quarter of the 16th C.

Mac

The thing that seems most vexing about making a brigandine is the part where the columns of plates taper. You can't just snip them to shape and rivet them in like you can with galvanized steel. Unless I am mistaken, tinning only works well if the edges are tinned too. This creates a logistic problem. It means you have to either be running back and forth to the tin pot every time you snip a plate to length, or else have to keep track of hundreds of plates that have been cut to length. Neither of these seems very attractive.

Does anyone here have any experience with this issue?

Mac

I was going to guess mid 16th but 3rd is likely more accurate.

Mac,

It reminds me of some of the odd dots and such I have seen on armours that likely tie to assembly. It could be on the other side of these plates are some coding system. Just a possible way to organize it. Either way sounds like much work.

Could be the pit of tin was right next to them. You can get a moderate sized fire going and keep the pot close at hand.

RPM

Mac wrote:. . . you have to either be running back and forth to the tin pot every time you snip a plate to length, or else have to keep track of hundreds of plates that have been cut to length. Neither of these seems very attractive.

It's not quite that bad to organize. First, assemble the fabric shell, all complete up to the locator holes for riveting the straps, if you are riveting through the scales. Delineate where the columns of scales go with tailors' chalk -- you can get finer lines with it. With the columns sketched, start snipping plates per the limits the columns define, remembering to factor your overlaps of width; every scale will be somewhat wider than its column. With a column finished, go to punching rivet holes. With all the holes in a column of scales punched, move on to cutting scales for the next column, then punching these. You will probably alternate columns, first right, then left, all the way to the side seams of the shell.

Cutting is really mostly eyeball, as any measuring and adjusting will have been done in the chalked-layout stage -- so the number work will be finished. Getting to the straps and the buckles, if riveted in, calls for making more holes in the relevant scales.

And that may be enough of a nuisance that perhaps the buckles should be sewn through the two layers of canvas and the one layer of nice cloth -- stoutly, extensively sewn to the shell alone, and let the scales fall as they may.

Once it's all snipped and punched, tin your highly authentic scales by the column again, one column in a batch so nothing gets mixed up. Last thing before riveting them in is the best time to tin.

Electro-galvanize or prime and paint, for the less demanding or more impecunious.

Ernst wrote:Sometimes you see them around the arms as well. Looks to have a pronounced belly. Peascod?

Mildly. Since you were hardly dressed without one...

K,

I would not bother with tailor's chalk. Pen and ink is the way. You can make fine lines, and it doesn't get rubbed off at inopportune moments. All the layout lines will get covered up by plates anyway.

Mac

RandallMoffett wrote:
It reminds me of some of the odd dots and such I have seen on armours that likely tie to assembly. It could be on the other side of these plates are some coding system. Just a possible way to organize it. Either way sounds like much work.

I would use some sort of marking system. My usual systems of dots on the right and chisel nicks on the left gets pretty cumbrous after about eight or ten, so something a bit more sophisticated would be good.

I wonder if there is any evidence for numbering these plates. The marks might be up in the underlaps, and we would not see them in most pics.

Mac

Xtracted wrote:Whats up with those scale like plates? They are on the inside and not visible, why bother filing them to such a shape?

Because the person who owned it could afford the best, even if no one was going to know it was there except the owner, check out this detail, see how the edges are formed and each plate is stamped (with mulitple double griffin / dragon? heads).

Mac wrote:I wonder if there is any evidence for numbering these plates. The marks might be up in the underlaps, and we would not see them in most pics.

Mac

I would not be surprised. IIRC, the back of the pieces of the Ardagh Chalice have numbers scratched on them to aid in assembly. But I may be remembering a different chalice.

http://www.museum.ie/en/list/artefacts. ... 8bc08cc471


The Ardagh Chalice

Object Number: IA:1874.99

The Ardagh ChaliceReerasta Rath, Co. Limerick. 8th Century A.D. This two-handled chalice is an elaborate construction of over two hundred and fifty main components. The bowl and foot are made of beaten, lathe-polished silver, the stem is cast gilt-copper alloy. It is decorated with gold filigree, granulation, multi-coloured enamels, a large rock-crystal, amber, malachite, knitted cast, stamped and openwork metal objects.

worldantiques wrote:

Xtracted wrote:Whats up with those scale like plates? They are on the inside and not visible, why bother filing them to such a shape?

Because the person who owned it could afford the best, even if no one was going to know it was there except the owner, check out this detail, see how the edges are formed and each plate is stamped (with mulitple double griffin / dragon? heads).

It's funny... I was looking at pics of those plates on your Pinterest page yesterday and wondering what the hell those marks were. None of them are struck very fully, but when we take them all together, I think it's supposed to be a double headed eagle.

It's also pretty surprising how "tall" the plates are. There are a full three layers pretty much everywhere. That's very secure, but it makes for a pretty heavy (23.4 lb !) brigandine.



Mac

Mac wrote:The thing that seems most vexing about making a brigandine is the part where the columns of plates taper. You can't just snip them to shape and rivet them in like you can with galvanized steel. Unless I am mistaken, tinning only works well if the edges are tinned too. This creates a logistic problem. It means you have to either be running back and forth to the tin pot every time you snip a plate to length, or else have to keep track of hundreds of plates that have been cut to length. Neither of these seems very attractive.

Does anyone here have any experience with this issue?

Mac

[Edit! The following data is scientifically inaccurate and I was mistaken. Please ignore]
Solid experience no. But in principle the tinning isn't forming an air-tight barrier anyway. It's preserving steel through galvanic reaction. The tin is more reactive to Oxygen than steel so if a molecule of iron oxide forms the tin will suck the stray electron off the iron oxide which will shed it's O and go back to Fe and the tin will use it's charge to pick up an O and form tin oxide. The issue with iron rust is that iron oxide is electrically conductive so iron more than 1 molecule deep can gain and shed electrons to encourage the O to migrate deeper and then the iron on the surface picks up a new O out of the atmosphere. The benefit to tin or zinc dipping is the less electrically conductive layer that the tin or zinc provides but also in that it can keep the steel that is exposed from rusting if it is electrically connected. This is similar to attaching a sacrificial 'zinc fish' to the rudder or keel of boats to keep their iron structure from rusting or the disposable zinc plates on oil pipelines.

I don't see why tinning would be made significantly less effective by having a small edge exposed to the environment, not when the fabric will rot away sooner... but I haven't conducted and empirical testing to validate the above. It's an academic opinion only.

Sean

Mac wrote:The thing that seems most vexing about making a brigandine is the part where the columns of plates taper. You can't just snip them to shape and rivet them in like you can with galvanized steel. Unless I am mistaken, tinning only works well if the edges are tinned too. This creates a logistic problem. It means you have to either be running back and forth to the tin pot every time you snip a plate to length, or else have to keep track of hundreds of plates that have been cut to length. Neither of these seems very attractive.

Does anyone here have any experience with this issue?

Mac

I'm sure chef de chambre (Bob Reed) and others used to do tinning on brig plates.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5251

They commented what a messy business it was shaking drops of molten tin off of what they dipped. Hot metal rather got all over. They returned the resolidified blobs to the melt when they could handle them, I believe.

Ernst wrote:
I'm sure chef de chambre (Bob Reed) and others used to do tinning on brig plates.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5251

It's true, but the logistical problem is not nearly so great as it would be for a brigandine like the one in Philly. It's a question of shear numbers. Bob's brigandine has about 75 or 80 plates. The Philly brigandine has something like 1740 plates. As far as I can tell, all the columns of plates taper, so each plate is slightly shorter than the one above it.

Mac

Sean Powell wrote: Solid experience no. But in principle the tinning isn't forming an air-tight barrier anyway. It's preserving steel through galvanic reaction. The tin is more reactive to Oxygen than steel so if a molecule of iron oxide forms the tin will suck the stray electron off the iron oxide which will shed it's O and go back to Fe and the tin will use it's charge to pick up an O and form tin oxide. The issue with iron rust is that iron oxide is electrically conductive so iron more than 1 molecule deep can gain and shed electrons to encourage the O to migrate deeper and then the iron on the surface picks up a new O out of the atmosphere. The benefit to tin or zinc dipping is the less electrically conductive layer that the tin or zinc provides but also in that it can keep the steel that is exposed from rusting if it is electrically connected. This is similar to attaching a sacrificial 'zinc fish' to the rudder or keel of boats to keep their iron structure from rusting or the disposable zinc plates on oil pipelines.

I don't see why tinning would be made significantly less effective by having a small edge exposed to the environment, not when the fabric will rot away sooner... but I haven't conducted and empirical testing to validate the above. It's an academic opinion only.

Sean

Sean,

Wikipedia sayeth..

Zinc protects iron electrolytically, that is, the zinc will oxidise and turn to a white powder to preserve the iron, whereas tin will only protect the iron if the tin-surface remains unbroken, as it electrolytically cannibalises unprotected iron to preserve itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinning

I don't know the truth of it, but this is consistent with my understanding form other (now long forgotten) sources as well.

Mac

Mac wrote: Sean,

Wikipedia sayeth..

Zinc protects iron electrolytically, that is, the zinc will oxidise and turn to a white powder to preserve the iron, whereas tin will only protect the iron if the tin-surface remains unbroken, as it electrolytically cannibalises unprotected iron to preserve itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinning

I don't know the truth of it, but this is consistent with my understanding form other (now long forgotten) sources as well.

Mac

Well I'll be damned! i was misreading the table. Sn is tin and it's on the other side of Fe. Damn latin terms messing up English abbreviations.

At best I can guess is that tin may cannibalize the iron but tin-oxide may be electrically resistive enough to form a rust resistant barrier over the majority of the piece. that would limit edge rusting only to the exposed surface despite the fact that the steel would now rust as fast as the tin it was attached to.

Honestly I am apparently out of my depth on this so wikipedia or conducting some experimental archaeology testing may be the best choice.

Sean

It just goes to show how we all take different things away with us. I can remember iron is ferum and tin is stanum, but I'll be damned if I can look at the periodic table and tell you which element will steal electrons from the other. Once the chemistry test was over, I guess I let that all slide away.

Mac