14th century arm harness from the Erwin Oakshott collection

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:16 pm

I was very fortunate to see this wonderful arm harness. Some of the measurements I took are as follows.
- weight 1.75 lbs around 700g
- thickness
cop - between 18g and 19g
vanbrace - outside 18g inner 20g
rebrace - 20/21g

Very hard surface, some delamination.

enjoy

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588235&l=bc36017c2a&id=1273814462

who said medieval armour was all perfect???

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588236&l=c41ee35c53&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588238&l=daba9effc1&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588240&l=b7d799fb80&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588241&l=58432ab74d&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588242&l=5bec607242&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588243&l=16010d793e&id=1273814462

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=588244&l=44ac193c4d&id=1273814462

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:20 pm

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:57 pm

Wow!

You just happen to keep a pair of calipers on you, don't you?

Wilhelm zu Eltz-Kempenich · Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:33 pm

They had the sheet metal gauge at the shop there (arms and armor). It is an extraordinary piece, to be sure, especially the shape itself. Not a single frakkin flat spot on them. And the articulation, oh lord!

Yes, this is me jabbing you in the ribs.

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:09 pm

I got to handle and sketch this piece at the ARS conference in Chicago a few years ago. It's as lovely as it looks. What I found most cool is the asymmetry of the articulation rivets- notice how much height difference there is between the rivets on the lower and the upper lames, yet the articulation itself is flawless. Functional and pretty does not always mean perfect.

Klaus

James Arlen Gillaspie · Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:26 pm

Sigh. IT IS PERFECT. Ergonomically, I'll bet that articulation is close to flawless. It is the modern eye that is #$(*Q!^!! up! Look at it carefully and LEARN.

Jehan de Pelham · Post by **Jehan de Pelham** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:32 am

Yeah, I was about to quip the same, that it is perfect. The modern eye has been de-educated to desire symmetry over function. When I was transitioning out of the leather tankard holder ring belt stuff to, well, better, some years ago, it took some adjusting. My wife and I had a shorthand for a while, "It's so ugly it's medieval," because while we intellectually knew what the correct forms were, generally speaking, they didn't appeal to us. At first.

This arm harness does not appear to be substantially different from most well executed arm harnesses produced these days--the catch in saying such a thing is what does Jehan de Pelham mean by "well executed?" I'm not falling into that trap. Bottom line, I bet there's a reason for any asymmetry that exists in that article.

John
Jehan de Pelham, ecuyer and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:16 am

Thanks for sharing. The rest of us may never get an opportunity to see this piece. One thing that always strikes me on real pieces is how close to the edge some of the rivets are

James Arlen Gillaspie · Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:42 am

The hole diameters (and hence the shank diameters of the rivets) are, if unaltered, smaller than you'd think. I wouldn't be surprised if the hole diameters were no more than 1/8", though on average they'd be a smidge bigger. Often, though, particularly on gauntlets, I have seen how pieces have been handed over to the village idiot to refurbish and, since he lacked rivets with small enough shanks, he would just take an awl and pound it through the holes till they got big enough, with catastrophic results.

Signo · Post by **Signo** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:09 pm

To me, the rivet position is something made on purpose. Back engineering the piece, I see that the cop has 2 different radius, bigger toward the vambrare, smaller toward the rerebrace, if I take a look at my bare arm, I see that my lower arm (is this it's name?) it's larger that the part above the elbow, exactly like this harness suggest me. Maybe the owner (especially if quite young could have had quite some muscle in it's lower arm, but just a developed bicep on it's upper arm. From this the armourer could have decided to better conform his customer to do that way. Anyway, the articulation is perfect, the wing sit in the right position both in full extension and compression.
Other than this it seem that the first pair of lames overlap in the extended position, and having two different radius, they will never catch eachother.
:wink:

William of Stonebridge · Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:24 pm

I love the shaping of everything. There are no simple curves. Everything is deliberately shaped with the hammer. That flare of the rerebrace and the vambrace is just sexy. I think it is cool that there is no real roll on the edges but a very subtle lip that looks like a tiny roll.

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:54 pm

I have a picture of me wearing it from the ARS conference, big nerdy grin on my face.

James Arlen Gillaspie · Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:53 pm

Chuck, do you think this piece is solid 14th c., or do you think it might be very early 15th c.?

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:26 pm

Doug thought at the time of the ARS conference that it was 14th century, due among other things to the slot for the lower cannon strap that allows the strap to pass inside to be riveted, which was a 14th century trend rather than 15th. I also seem to recall we thought the articulation rivets were modern replacements (the pop rivets on the straps certainly are!), but couldn't be sure.

Signo · Post by **Signo** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:10 am

I agree the articulation rivets are modern, the piece scream XIV cent. to me, so they should have been piened from the outside.

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:16 am

According to my notebook, the heads are about 7mm wide and 3mm high, and seemed very regular, ie, machine-made.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:05 pm

Are the washers original?

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:09 pm

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:Chuck, do you think this piece is solid 14th c., or do you think it might be very early 15th c.?

From looking at it close up, I would say it is solid 14th. One thing is there is only 1 lame on the lower side of the cop, and does not have any of the slots for turning. It may be that this is just a lower cost arm harness, but there were no traces of another lame being there. and no traces of slots in the vanbrace.

also, note that the hindges on the later 15th century vanbraces are attached on the outside of the piece and not cut into the inner vanbrace. I think this would have reduced the time required to make them.

Vitus, I think the rivets with washers are later. Although, I do think you can find examples that are peaned on the inside rather than the outside of the piece.

James Arlen Gillaspie · Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:25 pm

After thinking about it, yes, I agree with that 14th c. attribution. The shallowness of the cop, the really excessive form of the 'outside' of the lower cannon (vambrace) as compared to later 15th c. pieces... yep. The small internal hinges seemed to put it a bit late, to me, as the Churburg S18's (aren't they supposed to be about 1410, with the rest of the harness?) nor the Met's brass trimmed arm is like that, but hey, what do I know about 14th c. stuff?

knitebee · Post by **knitebee** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:34 pm

does the wrap plate of the vambrace overlap or underlap on the strap side when closed?

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:40 pm

I presently have it dated to the last decade of the 14th century but that is far from an exact science. It could easily be the first decade of the 15th but not much later than that. Certainly not after 1420 by any means. The inset hinges are an important feature of 14th century manufacture but the presence of two hinges pushes it late.

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:58 pm

does the wrap plate of the vambrace overlap or underlap on the strap side when closed?

Underlaps, according to my photos.

Baron Conal · Post by **Baron Conal** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:51 pm

who's to say that the perceived unevenness commented
on in the second photo was not intentional?

Maybe there is a function to the uneven looking cop.

and yes I am jealous.

and yes I am saving all the pictures to my folder of armor
example photos.

William of Stonebridge · Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:01 am

I am assuming that this is only the right harness. The left harness is not available for comparison, am I correct?

^ · Post by ^ » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:08 am

Is the Oakshott collection open for visiting. I'll be in the Twin cities this week and I didn't see any such information on the institutes website.

Jantien van Vranckenvoert · Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:05 pm

I had a very similar set made for me by Patrick Thaden, but I have trouble getting the vambrace open, it hits the "flare" on the cop, and only opens about an inch and a half....makes it a tad less easy to get them on. Was curious as to how these clear the "flare".

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Baron Conal wrote:who's to say that the perceived unevenness commented on in the second photo was not intentional?

Maybe there is a function to the uneven looking cop.

Looking down at my arm, it is not bi-laterally symetrical.

Piers Brent wrote:Is the Oakshott collection open for visiting. I'll be in the Twin cities this week and I didn't see any such information on the institutes website.

Part of the stipulation by Oakshotte was that the collection would be at least somewhat open to inspection...

It has been awhile, I don't remember the specifics, but he did NOT want it to be locked away from handling...

BobKnight · Post by **BobKnight** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:40 pm

zat you touching an antique with bare hands?

le gasp!

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:58 pm

William of Stonebridge wrote:I am assuming that this is only the right harness. The left harness is not available for comparison, am I correct?

yes, only half of a pair

Keegan Ingrassia · Post by **Keegan Ingrassia** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:04 pm

I'm not sure...on the vambrace, at the hinges, do the "inside" and "outside" portions of the vambrace butt up to one another, or is there a bit of overlap of the two plates when the piece is closed? Not the strap side, but the hinged side.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:20 pm

Gorgeous. Thanks for sharing these!

(Pedantic quibble: "Ewart Oakeshott".)

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:29 pm

Keegan, it looks like the inside half of the lower cannon underlaps the outer half as well on the hinge side, judging from the overhang visible in the photo above.

Keegan Ingrassia · Post by **Keegan Ingrassia** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:41 am

Thanks Klaus. I thought it did, but the last two people (one armourer and one jouster) I talked to about such a thing vehemently denounced it, citing armour bite from the two overlapping plates. Me, I think it would better protect from the point of a blade being able to find its way between the two. And, if you're wearing any amount of quilted or padded protection under the plate, any armour bite shouldn't be a problem. Same goes for how well the plates sit together when fully closed, too.

My .02

knitebee · Post by **knitebee** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:13 am

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:Thanks Klaus. I thought it did, but the last two people (one armourer and one jouster) I talked to about such a thing vehemently denounced it, citing armour bite from the two overlapping plates. Me, I think it would better protect from the point of a blade being able to find its way between the two. And, if you're wearing any amount of quilted or padded protection under the plate, any armour bite shouldn't be a problem. Same goes for how well the plates sit together when fully closed, too.

My .02

Bite is of little issue, far more than elimnating that minute gap is the fact that it amkes the joint sturdier and helps keep the wrap plate from being able to compress down on the lower vambrace plate. Also with an underlap at the closing side the place will stay in plate even if the closing strap is cut.

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:14 am

All of the above, what Knitebee said. I usually fight in a set of spring vambraces based on the Chartres armour that overlap in the same manner, and the mechanics are perfect- very stable closure, no "bite" to speak of.