The Armour Archive

This is a crosspost from the classifieds. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155258 I thought I would copy it here for those who do not normally read the want-adds.

Today, I began turning a mail chausse into a sleeve. This pic shows it folded in half, and laying over the sketch of one of Wade's sleeves in my notebook.



Here is what it looks like when I have trimmed away everything extraneous.



This is the same thing laid out, rather than folded on its center line. There is a small shortfall at the point of the elbow which I will fill in after dinner. I will also have to add some material to the armpit area. ( this will make more sense when I show a pic of it later)



This is the off-cut material and the dish of cut rings. There is probably enough material here to make the forearm, but I would have to piece it extensively. I will cut the forearm out of the other "leg" instead.



I will post more pics tomorrow.

Mac

Just curious, those are Icefalcon rings, right? Did you clean them with anything before working on them?

Looking forward tot he "tailored" sleeves - and thanks, I don't check the classified section very often!

Scott Martin

scott2978 wrote:Just curious, those are Icefalcon rings, right? Did you clean them with anything before working on them?

Scott 2978,

Yes, the mail of from Icefalcon. I degreased it with "Simple Green", because that's what Andre recommended. . It works OK, but it did take three soakings and rinses.
Mac

I ended up piecing the forearm together out of the offcuts. This was probably not the best use of my time..... Pics tomorrow.

Mac

I have decided to reduce it all to pieces that can be cut from flat mail, and then stitch it together with brass rings for contrast.

Here are the pieces laid out flat. One edge of the upper arm has row increases added at a rate of one increase (2 rows) per six (6) columns. There are a total of eight (8) increases or sixteen (16) rows. This will make up the width of the cross-grain joint in the armpit.



Here are the forearm pieces. The main piece has six (6) row reductions on each edge. Each edge has one reduction every eight (8) columns. The straight strip of mail will go between the edges of the main piece to separate the row reductions. This separation of the row reductions into two lines is a feature of both of the mail sleeves in Wade's collection, and I think it is typical.



Here they are folded in half, and looking more like a sleeve.



The armpit has a patched-in piece which appears as a featureless dark area in the pics above, so I took a couple with one layer or the other turned back. The overlapping piece has been patched in with brass rings show that it can not be cut from a flat piece of fabric.







I hope to have assembled pics tomorrow.
Mac

Looking much better than the current Indian offerings, Mac.

Since I haven't had the opportunity to study Wade's collection, I have a question about the elbow placement. When I do (or did) long sleeves, I always rotated the point of the elbow outward, i.e. I didn't have the longest point of the sleeve in line with the centerline under the arm, but with the centerline at the back of the shoulder. This always worked better for me, but I may have overthought things. How are the lengthened rows (in you upper arm example) placed on real pieces: centered on the row beneath the arm, or centered on the row to the back?

Ernst wrote:Looking much better than the current Indian offerings, Mac.

Since I haven't had the opportunity to study Wade's collection, I have a question about the elbow placement. When I do (or did) long sleeves, I always rotated the point of the elbow outward, i.e. I didn't have the longest point of the sleeve in line with the centerline under the arm, but with the centerline at the back of the shoulder. This always worked better for me, but I may have overthought things. How are the lengthened rows (in you upper arm example) placed on real pieces: centered on the row beneath the arm, or centered on the row to the back?

When I made a hauberk for my kid, I put the elbow in the back too. It just seemed "right".

But when we look at the ones in Graz (since I have a book) and mine:
http://www.allenantiques.com/M-15.html
http://www.allenantiques.com/M-16.html
They seem top be on the bottom. I don't think we have an explanation as to why at this point in time. I think we need to play with some done "correctly" for a while to see whether it just ends up working out fine there as well.

This way the sleeves appear to be reversible. I don't know whether they cared.

Oh - you asked about the taper in the upper arm? I don't know in general, but my 2 both have it slightly wonky like Mac is making these. He is doing an extremely faithful copy.

Wade

It might be better that way, as it gives the Indians less to get confused about.

Ernst,

As far as I can tell, most sleeves have the elbow points "down" rather than "back". This makes 'em like "tube socks".

I have always made the elbows of mail shirts point "back". That makes better ergonomic sense in a thing which already has a well defined front and back, but I don't know how typical it was.

Mac

I got the upper arm stitched together this evening.



Here's a view of the underside of the sleeve. Like the two sleeves in Wade's collection, (and others I have seen pics of) the row reductions do not happen along the center line of the upper arm. Instead, they begin near the center at teh elbow, and then run along a lint toward the end of the cross-grain joint of the armpit.



Here is a close up of the armpit. The line parallel to the cross-grained joint is where I patched in mail that could not be cut from flat fabric.



I expect to get the forearm zipped up and attached tomorrow.

Mac

Nice work Mac, I cant wait to see the finished product thanks for your time.


Take care

Pitbull

Pitbull Armory wrote:Nice work Mac, I cant wait to see the finished product thanks for your time.


Take care

Pitbull

Thank you, Pit.

Mac

I just zipped the forearm together, and find that although it matches my target dimensions, it is a bit tight at the bulgy point just below the elbow. I am trying to decide if the whole thing needs to be enlarged, or if it needs more aggressive taper. As it is, my hand goes through the wrist with no trouble, but someone with beefier hands might not find it so accommodating.

If I make the forearm bigger, I will have to make the upper arm bigger as well. This might not be such a bad idea in any case.

...I'm going to let this percolate for an hour or so and then get back to it.

Mac

I just added two rows to the forearms, and that makes them work better. It looks like the sleeve diameters are going to have to be bigger than the ones on the authentic sleeves to get it to fit the same. I think the difference is a function of the difference in ring diameters and the bulk of the modern rivets.

I have had a nagging feeling that I was oversimplifying the whole business of the expansions leading up to the armpit. My presumption was that the total additional material in the upper arm was equal to the width of the cross-grain joint. This keeps everything "sort of" symmetrical. That turns out not to be the case.

I have gone back to looking at Wade's sleeves. This time I think I am going to sew some threads through the rings to keep track of the rows.

Mac

Mac wrote: I have gone back to looking at Wade's sleeves. This time I think I am going to sew some threads through the rings to keep track of the rows.

Mac

They make these things for knitters called row-counters that are just plastic loops so you know when to change a knit to a purl or whatever. When I knitted maile I would keep track of my spot with a paperclip. If you lace them through to the middle then they don't pop out on their own and are easy to get in and out. Worked better then adding an extra link which would blend in.

Luck!

Sean

I use plastic garbage bag ties. I always tied the bag to itself, and never needed the little twist ties for anything else.

Sean & Ernst,

I already have the "funny rings" marked with twist ties. I am using thread to follow rows.

Here are two pics of the smaller of the two sleeves. The following rows are marked with thread....
-The row that forms the cross-grained joint.
-The unperturbed row that marks the reductions of the upper arm.
-The corresponding row to the above, on the other side of the sleeve.
-The row midway between the two above.
-The top center row.

The point of the elbow is where the tags change direction and color.




I have not done the "thread thing" to the other sleeve yet, but it is extremely similar to this one. They are both a good deal less symmetrical than I had thought. I am beginning to think that they are both intended to be worn as "rights", and the reductions are all in the back. I have been trying them on my left arm because my right is a bit "funny". I guess I need to try them on the right and see what I can see....

Mac

I just went and tried the smaller of the authentic sleeves on my right arm......Oh yea...it's totally a "right". The elbow position is a compromise between "down" and "back". It's pretty good, really.

This changes everything. These things really do have laterality. Tomorrow I will begin taking my sleeve apart and reconfiguring it.

Mac

Pretty much what I was trying to explain earlier. I don't set elbows "down" 180º, or "back" 90º/270º, but somewhere in-between. This seems to be where the elbow naturally hangs when the arm is at rest.

So Wade doesn't have a pair of mail sleeves, but 2 right sleeves?

Looks good, Mac! Thanks for sharing. Just being able to visualize the cuts to the garment before being rearranged helps a lot for me to understand the tailoring process... Something that I've been meaning to try my hand at more earnestly but was quite scared to do! Then again, maybe I should remain scared. You make everything look easy.

-Gerhard

Ernst wrote:Pretty much what I was trying to explain earlier. I don't set elbows "down" 180º, or "back" 90º/270º, but somewhere in-between. This seems to be where the elbow naturally hangs when the arm is at rest.

I must have misunderstood what you meant. In any case, you are correct.....somewhere between "down" and "back" looks pretty good.

Ernst wrote:So Wade doesn't have a pair of mail sleeves, but 2 right sleeves?

That is correct. He has a heavy size medium of very small rings, and lighter weight size large of slightly larger rings. In light of this evening's revelations, I am concluding that they are both "rights".

Mac

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:Looks good, Mac! Thanks for sharing. Just being able to visualize the cuts to the garment before being rearranged helps a lot for me to understand the tailoring process... Something that I've been meaning to try my hand at more earnestly but was quite scared to do! Then again, maybe I should remain scared. You make everything look easy.

-Gerhard

I wish I had understood it better before I made the first cuts! Laying the threads into the rows helped a lot. It showed that what I had naively thought to be small errors in symmetry turned out to be deliberate and well considered features. The fact that both sleeves "err" in exactly the same way should have been a tip off.

Strictly speaking, having made the mistakes and reevaluated the whole thing was a good learning experience.

Mac

Mac wrote:

Ernst wrote:Pretty much what I was trying to explain earlier. I don't set elbows "down" 180º, or "back" 90º/270º, but somewhere in-between. This seems to be where the elbow naturally hangs when the arm is at rest.

I must have misunderstood what you meant. In any case, you are correct.....somewhere between "down" and "back" looks pretty good.

Going back to my initial post, it seems that your understanding was based exactly on what I had poorly written! I think I had to re-do my first butted mail long sleeves about three times to get an elbow I liked. If you do a yoke-top construction, where the rows on the sleeve run around the arm, you have to learn everything again.

It was like studying underarm joints: I think I examined 5-6 Indo-Persian shirts without finding any two that were joined the same way.

Ernst wrote:
It was like studying underarm joints: I think I examined 5-6 Indo-Persian shirts without finding any two that were joined the same way.

That seems like a marvelous way to spend a weekend! Next time you do that, be sure to call me, and we can have pizza and beer.

Mac

I've begun degreasing the other "chausse". I will use that for the next attempt, rather than taking the time to reconfigure the first one. Likewise, I will take the new forearm out of the middle of the first shoulder. That will give me a nice fresh starting piece.

Mac

Mac wrote:

Ernst wrote:
It was like studying underarm joints: I think I examined 5-6 Indo-Persian shirts without finding any two that were joined the same way.

That seems like a marvelous way to spend a weekend! Next time you do that, be sure to call me, and we can have pizza and beer.

Mac

In my college days, I was fortunate enough to have David Counts bring parts of his collection for examination. Showed up at one SCA fighter's collegium, and spent my time going through two mail shirts link-by-link instead of fighting. I was more than happy with that, and he was a generous mentor. It's amazing to find missing rivets, saber cuts, etc. in detailed analysis.

Pizza and beer sound's great, if Wade can spare the real goods for a few days I'll have to make arrangements for the next meeting.

Ernst wrote:Pretty much what I was trying to explain earlier. I don't set elbows "down" 180º, or "back" 90º/270º, but somewhere in-between. This seems to be where the elbow naturally hangs when the arm is at rest.

So Wade doesn't have a pair of mail sleeves, but 2 right sleeves?

I haven't played with them enough to judge right vs. left, but I definitely believe Mac if he says (now that he has patched the holes) that they really work better on the right than the left.

They are certainly both built with the upper arm expansions on the same side. So if there is a difference they would be for the same arm.

When we put both on Tom they fit differently.
When we laid them out on the table the weaves were very different in density.

I didn't buy them as a pair and I wouldn't ever claim they were pair.

Back to the reconstruction.

Mac, It is fun to see this much thought and analysis going into a piece of mail. Too many people deal with mail as a sack. This shows that there really is thought involved in building a good piece.

Wade

wcallen wrote:
When we put both on Tom they fit differently.

Are you sure he is bilaterally symetrical?

It is neat to see the details. Layed flat I was having a hard time picturing the result when folded over. Makes sense to have them shaped to the way arms work in their travel rather than being a pair built the same right to left.

As someone with one of Andre's haubgeons and a bag of rings coming in the mail, I am watching this with interest. It is a shame that Burgess' dream of publishing a large amount of maille has not yet been fulfilled.

Could we be beginning to see one reason why long-sleeved maille garments appeared so late?

wcallen wrote:

Ernst wrote:So Wade doesn't have a pair of mail sleeves, but 2 right sleeves?

When we put both on Tom they fit differently.
When we laid them out on the table the weaves were very different in density.

I didn't buy them as a pair and I wouldn't ever claim they were pair.

Wade, I apologize if I offended. I simply asked before reading the entire thread in Classifieds, including your excellent inventory descriptions of your mail collection. It is clear from the different ring sizes that these sleeves aren't a pair, and I didn't mean to imply you were presenting them as such. I merely made an assmemption, making an ass out of me and me. Next time I'll try to read all the links within links first.

Sean Manning wrote:It is a shame that Burgess' dream of publishing a large amount of maille has not yet been fulfilled.

Could we be beginning to see one reason why long-sleeved maille garments appeared so late?

Agreed on the need for more numerous detailed publications concerning mail. David Counts timeline which JT formatted could be drastically expanded and clarified.
http://armourarchive.org/essays/essay__ ... able.shtml

Long mail sleeves (attached to the hauberk) are certainly around by the 12th century if not in the 11th. Within the total history of mail that's fairly late, but it wouldn't surprise me if Rome and Persia might have had them in use.

Johann ColdIron wrote:

wcallen wrote:
When we put both on Tom they fit differently.

Are you sure he is bilaterally symetrical?

We tried both sleeves on Tom's right arm. The one fit OK and the other was way to big.

Mac wrote: I have been trying them on my left arm because my right is a bit "funny". I guess I need to try them on the right and see what I can see....

Hey! Careful with the symmetricist jokes. Those of us who are "symmetrical challenged" can be a bit touchy about it.

Johann ColdIron wrote: Layed flat I was having a hard time picturing the result when folded over.

Me too. I have all I can do to wrap my head around it, and the one I am working on now is even weirder. Pics tomorrow.

Mac

Sean Manning wrote:As someone with one of Andre's haubgeons and a bag of rings coming in the mail, I am watching this with interest.

I hope this is filling you with courage,and not despair....

Sean Manning wrote: It is a shame that Burgess' dream of publishing a large amount of maille has not yet been fulfilled.

Very true. It would make things much easier if there were more published descriptions out there. It would also help if Burgess had been a better writer. I read some if his descriptions over and over and still don't know what he was trying to say.

Sean Manning wrote:Could we be beginning to see one reason why long-sleeved maille garments appeared so late?

I don't think that the long sleeve was a developmental stumbling block. Once you decide to have any sort of sleeve at all, you need to deal with the armpit, and that's really the only hard part. Once you have an armpit that works, the rest is easy.

Mac

Ernst wrote:

wcallen wrote:

Ernst wrote:So Wade doesn't have a pair of mail sleeves, but 2 right sleeves?

When we put both on Tom they fit differently.
When we laid them out on the table the weaves were very different in density.

I didn't buy them as a pair and I wouldn't ever claim they were pair.

Wade, I apologize if I offended. I simply asked before reading the entire thread in Classifieds, including your excellent inventory descriptions of your mail collection. It is clear from the different ring sizes that these sleeves aren't a pair, and I didn't mean to imply you were presenting them as such. I merely made an assmemption, making an ass out of me and me. Next time I'll try to read all the links within links first.

There was no offense taken. I just like to be clear where people may not be following links. At some point this post may end up the basis for something more permanent describing the tailoring of a mail sleeve "based on Wade's and information on others" and it is good to have everything in one place.

You really don't get a complete feel for how different they are until you put them side by side or try to wear both. Sometime we will find out which size Mac is making his prototype. It might match one (no chance it could match both) or it could be some other size he has determined to be more "normal" for us. I don't think it matters much, but it would be fun to know - at least for me since I will end up with the originals back so I have something to compare with.

When Mac finishes with a sleeve he is happy with I hope he will provide a quick summary of the odd, unintuitive and interesting things he learned while doing this. Including exactly why my sleeves are rights. I know that they are the same, but what about how the upper arm/arm pit is done makes them rights?

Mac - I would be happy to store whatever information you end up with on my site, link it to the sleeves and provide full credit to you. It appears to be a pretty stable site that isn't terribly subject to hacking since it is just base files with no active code and hosted by a huge hosting firm. It is also paid up for years.

Wade

Mac wrote:

Johann ColdIron wrote:

wcallen wrote:
When we put both on Tom they fit differently.

Are you sure he is bilaterally symetrical?

Hey! Careful with the symmetricist jokes. Those of us who are "symmetrical challenged" can be a bit touchy about it.

Sleeve size isn't always an indicator of arm size!
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paint ... the-virgin