Some new-old thoughts on the way we view Arms & Armour !

[Cannonshots]

Hi Everyone.....I just want to mention a few things that have been bugging me over the last couple of years....not about any particular group, just about the perceptions of reenactors worldwide. I certinally dont hold myself up as an expert but sometimes we all need to step back and look at the broad picture. By that I mean we all get so engrossed in our interrests and myself as much as any. I have noticed a tendency worldwide to over classify items ie they must incressingly fit into our pre-concieved catagories. I am a strict stickler for authenticity and thats good for what our group does. I see a trend by arms and Armour suppliers to simply be content to re-hash the same old bascinets and swords and while quality varies greatly, we have been lulled into accepting that these few items represent a certian time period. In fact I am continually amazed by the incredable variety of Arms and armour in all the various (Medieval) time periods. One thing Id like to point out is that in reality only a relitavely few Knights of Baronial level could afford the latest thing in armour both for himself and his men. Somewhere in the SCA someone did a price comparison and we are talking a small fortune here for a good Harness....I mean like a Ferrari price tag ! Mast knights would have had to put up with the best they could afford which would equal similar social levals of today from upper middle class down to the "working" class or poor knights ( I dont mean peasants). It is quite plausible that some would have had to use their grandfathers "old-fashioned" sword left over from the Crusades....and they were probably embarassed by it.
The higher up the social ladder knights were the more likely their Armour was preserved....you all know how much gear of Henry VIII has survived. So, back to the stereotyping....a quick look in any range of good books will reveal the vast type of Harness and arms from period and it seems to me that only a few Czech and German companies and one or two in Canada offer a larger variety of Harness...esp Helm types. People get concerned if they even see some breath holes on the left side of a helm !! I dont know why ? And so many people want to know how this was done and the "correct" way to do a procedure.......I guess theres no standard way untill armour was starting to be mass produced, although the Romans seem to have had good control standards way back. I also think that most Armies would not have just thrown away all the spoils of war in weapons and armour......thats where many poorer knights got better gear. So, there may indeed have been a lot of miss-matching of harness unless you happened to be amongt the rich elite ! You wanna know what happened to all the old English Norman and Crusader maille ? There is extant order where it was rounded up and taken up to Oxford and cut up for gussets for the " new " harnesses, I think in the mid 14thC. So I know its out of place to have 15thc. gear in a 14thc period but if we could time travel back I thing things might look a lot closer to our own way of social structure than we imagine 1
Cheers !

[InfinitySteel]

Modern makers seem to stick to "safe bets".

As far as the rest,what is represented in collections is mostly what the purists have to go on. They would be greatly surprised at what is stuck away in undocumented private collections.

[Cannonshots]

Modern makers seem to stick to "safe bets".

As far as the rest,what is represented in collections is mostly what the purists have to go on. They would be greatly surprised at what is stuck away in undocumented private collections.

Thats v. nice work ! I am passing the Valsgarde pic & link on to our Grand Poo-bah as he is seeking same and this is most defently right up his alley !
BTW, you're right about manufacturers going with whats safe....thats understandable from a marketing and financial point of view. I know, I had my own Company for over 20 years. But that is my point....we must be aware that these marketing trends can give us a bit of tunnel vision as products are constently served up to us without much variation. Therefore viva la research !

[Signo]

I think that most part of people that today wear armour, don't know what the hell they are carrying on their heads.
Oh yes maybe they know it's name, and maybe the timeframe of such piece of armour, but their eyes can't see the details, or tiny (and big)differences that, to more trained eyes make two pieces very different.
For this reason common customer ask common pieces that meet their taste and other requirements (price, waiting time and so on).
The main answer that i receive when i tell to one of my buddy that such piece of armour could not go with the other.. is that "but i like this! so i want this!"
This until i found the piece that they like and that is correct in some book... but hey.. now the hard part is finding someone that make it!

The snake that bite his tail.

[InfinitySteel]

There is evidence from surviving pieces that late roman technology was spinning infantry helmets, using water mills for power. Fifteenth and sixteenth century manufacturers were using trip hammers and screw presses to pound and press plates. I imagine that they if they had powered drive shafts, pretty much any piece of equipment that worked mechanically was getting hooked up to them-it's pretty much a modern conceit that everything was being done with hammers and stakes.

This was a big part of the military industrial complex of it's day-and only custom makers had the time to screw around with tenth century techniques by then. There were armies to equip.

You don't screw around with a rock and a stick when you need to build a squadron of f-16s.

[Signo]

This is for sure right, but how many manufacturer therewere?
How we can think that they produced identical stuff? Even if we talk of munition grade armour we must assume regional differences and shop preferences.
Those small differences are what that allow a serious student to identify pieces.

[InfinitySteel]

It was rather confused and things migrated to the oddest places.

We do know from surviving records that there were local and state guild structures. Guilds controlled prices and quailities by authorizing makers to produce in various localities-without a warrant you could not sell your goods.

There were both large indistries and small shops-I feel the the smaller shops probaby relied more on hand methods in many cases, for the same reasons we have differences in the trade now-cash flow.

A state subsidized industry with reliable contracts would be able to get financing for land buildings and equipment much more readily than a smaller maker on a limited budget.

You really do have to look at the overall social systems of the time to understand how these things worked. Monopolies ruled many things in those days, and were only seen as bad things by competitors and consumers who wanted cheaper goods. They were fine and dandy to upper classes who's pockets they lined.

[Sean Powell]

We have too few surviving pieces from too long a time period and too broad of a geographical region to know more then 1% of what there is to know about armor. If you look at an illumination or a manuscript you will often see dozens if not hundereds of identical helmets. Visit a museum and you will be happy to find two that are of similar style and they are often seperated by 50 years or more and 2 nations. Never the less we strive to reproduce in exacting detail a few specific oddball suits merely because they are well documented. How many people have built a Churburg 13? How many people have built a Wisby 1 COP? Even done poorly these pieces are made not just because we as consumers and wearers like their aestetics and function but because they are well documented.

There are SO many gaps in our knowledge about armor that it is appaling, and that is even amongst the people who know and study armor. Is it any wonder that the casual consumer desires to stick with a known quantity? I'm not a car person but I know that a '57 Chevy was a cool car. If someone tried to sell me a '56 Chevy or a '57 Ford I would be less inclined to buy. If someone tried to sell me a '57 Honda I would be incredibly suspicious about the authenticity, despite the level of their documentation. If someone tried to sell me something they claimed was a '57 Chevy and it looked like a Honda I would never buy, even if they could prove beyond a shodow of a doubt that the article was genuine or built off a copy of a genuine article.

The general public knows almost nothing. They think Criton wrote a history book called "timeline" and that Ren-fairs are realistic. Armor buyers know more but not enough. Armor builders and researchers know even more then that but still not enough. Should we be surprised that large numbers of people who know almost nothing influence the production of armor? probably not. Its part of the free market economy. Is there a solution? we can educate the public and hope they buy better researched stuff or we can build what we want and hope that it sells (or gets worn since I never sell anything).

Either way I don't see a rapid change in the market any time soon.

Sean

[Ivo]

Modern makers seem to stick to "safe bets".

As far as the rest,what is represented in collections is mostly what the purists have to go on. They would be greatly surprised at what is stuck away in undocumented private collections.

1) Re-enactors stick to safe bets as well, and that is copying the items of well- respected groups. Many late middle ages folks here in germany are like jellybabies- they look all the same, just the colours distinguish one from another.

2) There´s but a small handful (okay, frankly, a little more) of items you find published in books. So people stick to the things that one can find more often. So there´s the few gothic suits from the RA and Vienna...and so on- you know, the suits the elements of which seem to belong together.

Same goes for makers- off the peg armourers stick with what people most likely will buy. So there´s more of that stuff armound whoich makes it a safe bet for successors (see above).

[Mord]

Ages ago when I had no gray whiskers in my beard, I had to write a short report about class distinctions in Late 14th century England. I can tell you that such studies are not the easiest to read, if only because attempting to discern (much less understand) class differences take tremendous patience and great skill. Most of what being used as source material--in my limited experience--in the study of 14th C. social history is public records.

This was my introduction to late period studies.

Class distinctions in England at this time were, at least on paper, rigid with little social mobility. A simple knight and his house of this time and place, imo, would have been noble, but in an economic sense would also have been thoroughly middle class. I've often wondered if their armor would reflected their class and economic postion, and to wit I sometimes think I should show up wearing a-revamped body armor, a good helm from the last generation, and other armor of good quality but showed that corners were cut for the sake of expense.

Mord.

[Saint-Sever]

A simple knight and his house of this time and place, imo, would have been noble, but in an economic sense would also have been thoroughly middle class. I've often wondered if their armor would reflected their class and economic postion, and to wit I sometimes think I should show up wearing a-revamped body armor, a good helm from the last generation, and other armor of good quality but showed that corners were cut for the sake of expense.

Mord.

I can't speak to this from a historian's expert viewpoint, but I can compare it with the practices of modern police officers. With cops, particularly those from departments where the work is high-intensity and dangerous even by PO-lice standards, guys acquire and improve their gear bit by bit as they can afford it over years. For example, the cheesy D-cell flashlight provided by the city goes by the wayside, replaced by a 120.00 rechargable version that puts out 10x the light. Another 100.00 belt version gets bought as a backup. If you have the option of using your own weapons, you buy ones on the high end of the scale, and fit them out with expensive add-ons like night-sights and lights, to give you the most advantage when you use them on the street. You buy the best body armor available, as you save up and can afford it. And so on.

It's your ass, after all.

In regards to armor, styles did not change as abruptly as all that. In the 14th and 15th century, during an ordinary fighting knight's "working life", I think that he would have worn harness identifiable as being "modern", i.e. from his "period". Since pieces of a complete harness would have been very much the same style in any given 15-20 year period, he could easily have bought them from different armorers over many years, as his purse allowed. Two of the AA's Finest, Jehan and Murdock, have assembled excellent kits in exactly this way.

That's most of us on the AA, by the way: Mord's "middle-class" knights. The best "composite" harness we can afford, bought over time. Those labels on harness in books and museums describing them as "composite" often imply they are sort of a jumble-sale mix-and match of unrelated parts put together for convenient display, as though plate armors were like Luger pistols, with all parts supposed to have matching serial numbers. That is likely the case in some instances, but is that the case in all of them?

Michael

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

It was rather confused and things migrated to the oddest places.

We do know from surviving records that there were local and state guild structures. Guilds controlled prices and quailities by authorizing makers to produce in various localities-without a warrant you could not sell your goods.

There were both large indistries and small shops-I feel the the smaller shops probaby relied more on hand methods in many cases, for the same reasons we have differences in the trade now-cash flow.

A state subsidized industry with reliable contracts would be able to get financing for land buildings and equipment much more readily than a smaller maker on a limited budget.

You really do have to look at the overall social systems of the time to understand how these things worked. Monopolies ruled many things in those days, and were only seen as bad things by competitors and consumers who wanted cheaper goods. They were fine and dandy to upper classes who's pockets they lined.

This is very true... as example, there were only two Master Armourers in the 15th century in the German guilds that were allowed to make every piece of armour. Some were even limited to only make arm harnesses or only make sallets. It was a significantly complex and industrialized guild system.

[Armoured Air Bear]

Like everyone else has said, makers/manufacturers, almost always base their products on something that survives-Why, so they have proof that it is actually "accurate".

I think this is incredibly boring, I myself am in the 14th century, yet almost all SCA and other reeanctment members (with the exception of a few) all look the same. they all have the same basic gear, with their own small if at all noticible flair to it. I myself admit to owning a Churburg 13 BP, which is an awesome BP if it was not seen so much.

For my kit I want to go with something defferent, something that is very accurate, yet it will make people ask where my sources have come from. I do not want to have the "norm" 14th century kit.

to be different you can't always be basing things off of what has still survived. people should look more into the more unknown artwork, effegies, and period manuscripts and documentation. if more people would do this, then I think the "modern battlefield" would have a much more interesting and unique look to it. some do try and combine a few period peices, and make them into one it is somewhat better than just the average "norm" seen on the field. so basically what some are doing with combing several peices into one is giving a general feel to that certain peice. so if you were to go back in time with that peice it would fit right in. I applaud them for that.

So if makers/manufacturers (besides custom armourers) would just take a step out of the box and take a few risks, I think it would be well worth it.



Just my $0.02

Aaron

[Cannonshots]

Thanks for your valued input everyone.......In case some have not visited one of my favoutite Armour makers, I thought I'd post it here as they have certinally jumped outside the regular manufacturers square.......

http://www.bestarmour.com/

Pay particular attention to the Helmets section....they have even reproduced the original grill-faces for bascinets.....the ones that look like an SCA item but are authentic from period illustrations.
Most of you would already know this site I'm sure, but some would not.
I guess I am just a bit protective of what started out as a hobby for me but has ended up being a new career. Modern technology had already descimated my industry before I had $80.000 worth of gear stolen ! So now I just make medieval gear and I am loving it ! Its great to belong to an "industry" that is growing instead of shrinking ! In my city we have over 23 reenactment groups.....oh, yes, and thats not counting the SCA who continue to grow and expand. At our biggest local Medieval fair we attracted over 14.500 people over one weekend ! Some jouster particapents even came over from Poland and Belgium.....& thats on the other side of the globe !
Anyway......please contine your comments.......excellent !

[Erik Schmidt]

It seems to me that you are writing from an SCA perspective. Your arguments are valid, in some cases, but fall flat if you try to apply them over all of Europe or in every time period. Your rant has all the hallmarks of this typical SCA mixing effect, which is a real pity, as you have many valid points.

In fact I am continually amazed by the incredable variety of Arms and armour in all the various (Medieval) time periods.

So am I, but I often wonder if we looked at just one little bit, if we get the same picture. Lets say we ask ourselves what kind of helmets were worn by knights in a small town in the Oberpfalz in Germany in the year 1365.
Our answer would have to be that they wore bascinets or kettle hats. So lets concentrate on the bascinet. Then we ask ourselves, what style? Where would they get them from? Chances are that they would come from armourers in the area. Tolls were high, so the cheapest armour was most likely the local stuff. So, unless you were a wealthy knight with money to burn, you would go for the cheapest stuff. So basically, everyone in the area that was buying a new helmet at the time would have had little choice in style. The fashions were quite homogenous, with each area having perferred styles. The bascinets may have been of two styles (the germanic form or copies of the milanese form) coming from only a couple of workshops, with a choice of globose klappvisor or no visor.
So the knights in the area were probably either wearing a modern local style, a local copy of the Milanese style, an imported Milanese style (if they had the money) or an older style. Many would have come from the same master, so they would have been almost identical.

It's probably the same deal with gauntlets, coat of plates/breastplates and limb armour. So the knights in the area would to a great extent have looked pretty similar during their infighting. It's not until you look at international military events that you will see knights from many parts of europe in one place, and the variety in armour would have been great.

Somewhere in the SCA someone did a price comparison and we are talking a small fortune here for a good Harness....I mean like a Ferrari price tag!

That's not a very good argumet. Try giving us a context, such as a time, place and how the Ferrari was valued against a horse, then we could take it a little more seriously. The armour of the 14th century was certainly much more affordable than that, where even guild members were required to have significant armour.

One thing Id like to point out is that in reality only a relitavely few Knights of Baronial level could afford the latest thing in armour both for himself and his men.

Can you document that? If this is the case, then how do you explain the ability of so many second sons of minor nobles, or even non-nobles, heading off to Italy in the 14th century to fight as heavy cavalry, where the armour requirements were well spelled out and no different to elsewhere.
I'm not saying that armour couldn't be expensive, but it didn't have to be. There was the standard stuff, and then there was armour which had added extras, such as gold, the best leather, expensive silks and velvets and so on.

I also think that most Armies would not have just thrown away all the spoils of war in weapons and armour......thats where many poorer knights got better gear.

No they would not, but can you document whether the spoils went to the fighters or the organiser and financier of the war? We know that ransom was a major part, even sometimes the reason, for war, and this was in some documents seen to belong to the captor. But I don't recall evidence saying who got the dead men's armour.

So, there may indeed have been a lot of miss-matching of harness unless you happened to be amongt the rich elite!

Indeed. But try defining missmatched in the context of the 14th century.

Erik

[Erik Schmidt]

..........my favoutite Armour makers, I thought I'd post it here as they have certinally jumped outside the regular manufacturers square.......

Pay particular attention to the Helmets section.

I had a look at the bascinets. One might have considerd some of those helmets to be mostly authentic, but the fact that there are no lining holes along the outer edge, instead having lining rivets at about brow height, makes them totally unauthentic. This is a major error that could not possibly be accepted by even the average student of 14th century armour.

...they have even reproduced the original grill-faces for bascinets.....the ones that look like an SCA item but are authentic from period illustrations.

There is no evidence that grill faces are authetic to the 14th century. A single one appears in a 'ressurrection' scene in a late 14th century altar, where artists are known to have used foreign or fantacy armour to depict soldiers from other periods.

Erik

[Gundo]

I had an email conversation, several years ago, with somebody I understood to be the 'boss' at the bestarmor.com armory. He's Czech, of course, and his English was at times rather puzzling, so I may have mistaken his meaning. The upshot, anyway, was that the reason he had so much weird-looking [to me anyway] stuff was that he was allowed to handle, thoroughly examine and measure the entire inventory [not just the displayed pieces, everything] of the biggest armor collection in the Czech Republic. Whenever he wanted.

I, on the other hand, have handled and photographed on exactly one occasion lasting about half an hour, about ten rather minor-league extant pieces [from Wade Allen's collection], but I didn't think to bring along materials and equipment to take measurements. I've taken quite a few pics at the Higgins [digital pics in dim lighting] and some of the [rather limited] DIA collection. I have a few of the least expensive decent books, because that's what I could afford.

So yeah, some folks have better resources. Very few of us have even a fraction of what is apparently available to the bestarmor guys.

[Cannonshots]

Well Erik......Sorry to disapoint but I am not nor have ever been in the SCA.......in fact I am with the Brisbane group Order of Lions Rampant but as I know that many forum members are in the SCA, I dont want to come across as rude and arrogent. I just get annoyed by having monotinous merchandise served up all the time by some Armourers. My comments are solely based on what I observe in period illustrations and art compared to whats on the market.
When I mention a nobles 'good' harness .....for example, we represent an elite tournament troup ( there are actually a couple in extant docs.) but none of our members, even the wealthy ones, can afford the gold-plated trim that adorned harnesses of most knights of this level. Tournaments were very 'showy' and visually compedative as well, not just in combat. Lets face it.....less wealthy knights MAY have had some mix and match going on...that doesnt mean that I support a casual approach today....quite the opposite, I am a stickler for authenticity.....I just dont want the word 'authenticity' to become market-clichêd ! I guess the situations varied greatly...many, I'm sure wore their best into combat...and died in it ! Then theres the HYW.....every illustration I see of it shows all knights and men-at-arms in Black harness and wielding C & T swords....perhaps it was all painted black for stealth? Does anyone know the real reason ?
Meanwhile, I will try to find that list of relative costs.

[Erik Schmidt]

I'm not comfortable with these jumps between tournament and war armour. As you will be well aware, by the late 14th century there was a big difference between the two, so you can hardly use the price of tournament armour of the wealthiest knights to give you a valid picture of armour costs for war.

Black colouration in period illustrations that I know of from the 14th century are due to degradation of the laquer layer that held the blue, suspended dye particles.

Erik

[Murdock]

" I can't speak to this from a historian's expert viewpoint, but I can compare it with the practices of modern police officers. With ... departments where the work is high-intensity and dangerous even by PO-lice standards, guys acquire and improve their gear bit by bit as they can afford it over years. For example, the cheesy D-cell flashlight provided by the city goes by the wayside... using your own weapons, you buy ones on the high end of the scale, and fit them out with expensive add-ons like night-sights and lights, to give you the most advantage when you use them on the street. You buy the best body armor available, as you save up and can afford it. And so on.

It's your ass, after all."

Exactly where i was going.

I was issued a full kit by B'ham

All i didn't replace was
#1 my mace
#2 the gunbelt itself, onlt because i was not allowed.
#3 my hand cuff case and the cuffs (but i had 2 extra sets on me and leg shackles in the car)

I replaced their baton with my Manodock locking steel baton
Their Beretta 92 D (yuck) with my Sig 226 with night sights and a walther Back up
Their IIa vest with my III vest with anti rifel plate
their mag lite with an "Ultra Stinger"
I even replaced their holster and equipment cases.

Plus i wore things like an Azon shirt, and wrestling knee pads in the summer when we had to fight alot. Add in polycoabonate toed boots and kevlar gloves and i was pretty well armoured. OI even bought my own Shotgun ammo so i knew it was maintained an new.

I was broke as shit for about a year buying stuff to do my job. But 3 of those things saved my ass for sure.

In regards to armor, styles did not change as abruptly as all that. In the...working life", I think that he would have worn harness identifiable as being "modern", i.e. from his "period"."

Not nearly as fast as it changes now. Guys from the first gulf war would be obvoiusly out of date in the current theater. Much less guys from Korea or Nam. But a guy in high end gear 1360 would not be under equiped in 1385.

" Since pieces of a complete harness would have been very much the same style in any given 15-20 year period, he could easily have bought them from different armorers over many years, as his purse allowed. Two of the AA's Finest, Jehan and Murdock, have assembled excellent kits in exactly this way."

I just reposted that because my name is in it
"
Those labels on harness in books and museums describing them as "composite" often imply they are sort of a jumble-sale mix-and match of unrelated parts put together for convenient display, as though plate armors were like Luger pistols, with all parts supposed to have matching serial numbers. That is likely the case in some instances, but is that the case in all of them? "

Yeah WTF is up with that? It's like they think each piece was made with a complete rig? I think it's because so many are in Art Museums and the staff knows jack about armour or military history.

BTW Mike your new guants look super bad ass!!!

[Cannonshots]

Our group mentor and leader has read this post and wants me to post his response on his behalf as he e-mailed it to me along with some other stuff. He has worked for the Museum and was the single curator of the National Armour Display at the museum. He has researched medieval history for over 30 years and has published very many history books as well as other media material internationally. Yadda, yadda, yadda,,,,He was fine untill he got to Mr Schmidt's posts ! ........

"....As for variation, I though that your statement was that you wanted to see some of the regional variations produced and all he can go on about is how the ‘local’ smith would have made the ‘local’ style ( an argument that would be very difficult to support or disprove) he totally ignores the enormous international arms trade that is well documented throughout the late medieval period with centres of production in Germany, North Italy , Flanders, Bordeaux etc. The Italian merchant Datini was buying captured harness as well as harness from disbanded mercenary troops- refurbishing it and shipping it to where the newest hot spot was. There are even accounts of harness being rented to knights and others...
( a financially embarrassed Sire de Coucey for one)
We all know there is an enormous variety of c14th gear out there that is not publicised part of the reason is that the museums want enormous amounts of money for the use of a single image and if you want anything photographed they will charge you a mint for that on top of it. Many of the libraries are the same – so we are stuck with the same old Churburg, Pembridge, etc with occasional glimpses of the Dauphin’s harness and the New York Met composite harness. Any detailed study will show up other examples but how often do we see images of the visored bascinet/barbute from the Stibbert Collection, the partial surviving harness in the Muse de l’Armee, Cluney or items out of Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Danish etc collections? No wonder people make the same stuff all they have to work with is images of the same stuff d all their customers order is the same stuff because that is all they know. Every body knows the Churburg 13 cuirass but have you ever seen one in art? How common was it?
As for discounting the existence or a bascinet with a grill visor does he suggest that we discount any images that have a religious /allegorical/ or historical subject matter as evidence? We have just lost the vast majority of medieval art if we do! By all means there is some strange things appearing in medieval artistic conventions to depict “outsidersâ€

[Erik Schmidt]

Our group mentor and leader has read this post and wants me to post his response on his behalf......

Excellent.

"....As for variation, I though that your statement was that you wanted to see some of the regional variations produced

That's also what I understood Merv to have been saying and I agreed with him, but I was merely responding to some of his arguments, which I found to be invalid or very much time/place dependent.

all he can go on about is how the ‘local’ smith would have made the ‘local’ style ( an argument that would be very difficult to support or disprove) he totally ignores the enormous international arms trade that is well documented throughout the late medieval period with centres of production in Germany, North Italy , Flanders, Bordeaux etc. The Italian merchant Datini was buying captured harness as well as harness from disbanded mercenary troops- refurbishing it and shipping it to where the newest hot spot was.

Please don't missquote me. You have totally tuned what I have said. My words were;
"Chances are that they would come from armourers in the area"
which is a long way from the "local smith" as you put it.
What I had basically said was that the cheapest armour was most likely that which was coming from the area, not that which had to be imported from afar.
Tolls were high and required frequently along trade routes.
Kellenbenz, in his "Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte", p.175’ notes that in the 14th century, 30 tollstations could be found along the Weser river, 35 along the Elbe river and 50 along the Rhine, and Stolz, Otto (1953) in his "Geschichte des Zollwesens" notes that tolls were charged at between 1-5 % of value of goods, being higher in the middle Rhein area, averaging 10 %. On the road between Koblenz and Bingen, about 60km, there were 6 tollstations, making the total zoll for this stretch 66% of the value of the goods.
So as you can see, importing from Milan over the alps and up into Germany could easily add 100 or 200% to the cost of the good, making such armour less competitive against product from the area, which did not have to pass so many toll stations.

So the very centres of production that you mention would have created a uniformity of armour in their immediate area. Datini was shipping within a defined area in Northern Italy and Eastern Southern France, rerely going further afield, and ventured only as far south as Barcelona with his armour.
The centre of Nuremberg, as well as other centres, would have had a similar effect north of the alps, catering for much of the local demand as well as exporting further afield, such as the record of a large shipment going into Bohemia and Silesia in 1363, as discussed by Golinski (1999), where local armourers could not cover the sudden demand.

We all know there is an enormous variety of c14th gear out there that is not publicised ....... No wonder people make the same stuff all they have to work with is images of the same stuff d all their customers order is the same stuff because that is all they know.

Yes, and this is the very reason I started my research. My point however, was that we do not necessarily need all this variety within a single reenactment group. All the variety we see comes from art and extant examples over a large span of space and time.
As I stated above
"...but I often wonder if we looked at just one little bit, if we get the same picture."
In any one area the variety is not going to be so great. The huge variety that Merv talked about is only seen on an international level. On the local level there is going to be a lot less variety, it being greater where there is no local armour industry (such as Wisby) or where there is a lot of international conflict and movement of combatants (France), but in areas near a strong local armour industry or where 'local' conflict is dominant there is going to be a lot less variety, most of the armour coming from only a few sources.

This is where the strong mixing effect so prevelent in the SCA is felt, where most participants are not striving to represent a limited time frame and geographic area. There is a lot of mixing and matching, trying to use limited sources of armour to represent such a vast span of time and place. Many reenactment groups pick a specific time and place and can happily stick with a limited variety of armour types.

As for discounting the existence or a bascinet with a grill visor does he suggest that we discount any images that have a religious /allegorical/ or historical subject matter as evidence?

No, I do not suggest that, but I am certainly not going to accept it's authenticity to the 14th century based on a single example from a source where it is well known that foreign or fantacy armour was sometimes depicted. I was responding directly to Merv's assertion;
"...they have even reproduced the original grill-faces for bascinets.....the ones that look like an SCA item but are authentic from period illustrations. "

Now for the argument that the dark harness in manuscripts is due to degradation of the suspension medium of the blue pigment.

I don't recall mentioning manuscripts. I am simply not aware of any depiction of black armour from 14th century illustrations that were not due to paint degradation.

Please feel free to post examples.

As for the difference between tournament and war harness apart from the manifer gauntlet and some obscure references to helms for war and tournament in wills ( which may refer to cresting, weight or occlarium) I can not think of any difference in the harness employed- certainly there seems to be little difference between harness for two events in the art of the period. Maybe there is something I have missed?

It seems that both English and German authors are in general agreement that there was a difference by the later 14th century, some even giving examples of differences in armour showing up around 1300. You may want to consult Gessler (1912-14), Post (1910), Gamber (1985) and Richardson (1997).
Some examples to look at are;
The 1374 seal of the Herzog Leopold (III of Austria) which Gessler suggests is tournament attire and not that for war.
The effigies of Johann I. von Wetheim, one showing him in armour for war, the other in armour for the tournament.
The frescos at Runkesltein Castle near Bozen, Italy, showing a melee with clubs, c.1400.
The Prankh and Lebus greathelms from Vienna and Kopenhagen, respectively, each having an extra reinforce and considered to have been specifically for the tournament. It is generally excepted that the greathelm had been relegated to the tournament by the later 14th century and from it developed the frogmouth c.1400.
There are accounts and wills which mentioned armour specifically for the tournament.

I also think his argument that rivets were never used to secure linings in bascinets is a little black and white for my liking.

Once again you take me totally out of context and missunderstand the fact I was referring specifically to the position of the rivets and lack of lining holes on the bascinets from Bestarmour. It's not just the fact that they used rivets, but that they have been placed in the manner of the later Sallets and Barbutes. This was not done with bascinets, although there are indications in art and from extant pieces that the early barbute-like bascinets had begun to get the suspension in this position (as you also state). There is an example of both among the barbute-like bascinet of the Chalcis find, an example in the Metroplitan Museum having a line of widely spaced holes going back around the skull from the brow, while an example in the Cleveland Museum of Art has the typical closely spaced lining holes following the edge along the brow, then running down to the bottom edge and follow it around the back, with a second line of vervelle holes above it. Quite similar helmets to the latter can be seen in Istanbul, a museum in Pommern and the Wallace collection as well as the Ogival klappvisor from the Metroplitan Museum.
To give a non-barbute type bascinet the type of lining holes as the first Metroplitan Museum example I cited above, as Bestarmour has indeed done, is totally incorrect.
Yes, one can find rivets in bascinets, such as the Cluny example you mention, as well as one in Berlin, the Metroplitan Museum and the H.16 in Paris. But they all have the typical double row of lining and vervelle holes, of which the vervelle holes have been given rivets at some point in time. These rivets are generally considered a later alteration, in the case of the Berlin helm this being quite obvious due to the floret washers.

I have not done a study of it but I worry about people who make such categorical statements....

No need to worry. My assertions are well researched and I am sure Doug Strong, who has even more research to draw on, would have a similar opinion.

My observations are that many bascinets have what are most probably stitching holes over the brow.

Yes, absolutely, but they follow the lower edge as well, not cutting across the skull as in the Bestarmour examples. Art works of the period show this stitching across the brow, especially obvious on a couple of stained glass windows from Austria as I recall. There do seem to be many cases of decoration across the brow in English effigies, including rivets, but I don't know of any examples having them continuing around the back of the skull as in the Bestarmour examples.

Erik

[cornelius]

Or Damian is trying to justify allsort of stuff for Lion Rampent