The Armour Archive

Mac wrote:

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....

If you, Wade, and Tom have embarked on the Quest for Tailored Maille, I can be a little Welsh guy following you with a sack and a big knife.

Mac wrote:

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

Ok, I must have misunderstood. The brass rings do show up nicely on photos ...

I think that some early maille with a tube-and-yoke cut (the one we associate with the so-gennant "Greek linothorax") may have had no sleeves. In Caesar's day soldiers had maille shirts with short sleeves and shoulder doublings, then the doublings fell out of fashion. But its not my century, or my end of the Middle Sea.

Here is what the shoulder and upper arm piece looked like the other day...


...and here is what they look like now.


The big change was to shift the upper arm with respect to the center line of the shoulder. This has the effect of rotation the point of the elbow more toward the back. I also crowded the upper arm reductions more toward the armpit. All in all, it is more like the originals. The spiral binding of the note book in the background lines up with the top of the shoulder in both cases.

I had the piece partially stitched together last night, and the armpit looked good, but I had a one ring discrepancy at the point of the elbow that I could not reconcile. It turns out to have been a mistake in the fabric. Mistakes hide more easily on riveted mail than in butted stuff.

I need to find a bigger piece of paper to record this all on before I close it up again. In order to fit it on the notebook, I have to stretch it pretty hard. I would like the "paper pattern" to be in a more even and relaxed state.

Mac

Do you have an art supply store handy? They sell very large (3x4 foot, say) grid-lined pads of paper that would make an excellent base for your pattern. I use them for recording hosen patterns and the like.

This sort of thing: http://www.amazon.com/Adams-Easel-Inche ... grid+paper

Arrakis,

Splendid idea! I had just resigned myself to using a roll of white butcher paper, but the grid lines on the product you suggested will help quite a bit. It looks like the Office Despot carries them. I'll go get one now.....

Mac

Yes, shoot pictures on the nice background with squares.

I want those pictures for my site..... And (if you can take them with large resolution) maybe in a display...... (full credit, of course).

I will have to play with the sleeves when I get them back. You are learning all sorts of nice things about my toys. Thanks.

Wade

I use cm grid on similar projects, as the metric system is less confusing for more people in the world than 1/2 inch grid. Make sure to note whichever size grid you're using on photos.

Mac,

Wow, quite a bit of learning and progress has happened while I have been busy here traveling to China.

Sorry that you had to make the sleeve twice but glad that you have learned so much.
I hope that there being a difference between right and left sleeves won't prove to be too difficult for the guys in India.

Tom

Tom B. wrote:Mac,

Wow, quite a bit of learning and progress has happened while I have been busy here traveling to China.

Sorry that you had to make the sleeve twice but glad that you have learned so much.
I hope that there being a difference between right and left sleeves won't prove to be too difficult for the guys in India.

Tom

If the stuff they are making is really half solid, half round riveted rings, then the sleeves are the same inside and out so they would be reversible to make the other arm.

If they are actually different on the inside and outside color me impressed with the extra quality and they will have to actually make half of the sleeves one way and half the other.

Wade

wcallen wrote: If the stuff they are making is really half solid, half round riveted rings, then the sleeves are the same inside and out so they would be reversible to make the other arm.

If they are actually different on the inside and outside color me impressed with the extra quality and they will have to actually make half of the sleeves one way and half the other.

Wade

That was my thought as well.

Are the contractions in the originals whole row, as you've used, knot row, or some mixture of the two?

-Ben

They can flip the sleeves on their round, double-headed rivets without issue. Wedge riveting leaves a definite inside and outside to the "fabric" (as does historic round riveting), so the Indians would have to make two separate, mirror-image sleeves. This isn't really an issue of riveted and punched vs. all riveted so much as rivet style.

Atlanta Armory wrote:Are the contractions in the originals whole row, as you've used, knot row, or some mixture of the two?

-Ben

Ben,

I am pretty sure that they are all the type that Burgess called "hole reductions". That is, the sort that leaves two "idle rings". I will check to be sure when I get a chance.

Mac

Ernst wrote:They can flip the sleeves on their round, double-headed rivets without issue. Wedge riveting leaves a definite inside and outside to the "fabric" (as does historic round riveting), so the Indians would have to make two separate, mirror-image sleeves. This isn't really an issue of riveted and punched vs. all riveted so much as rivet style.

This is exactly right. With the modern Indian round riveted stuff, you can just turn a sleeve inside out and have it fit the other arm.

Mac

I have been sketching in my notebook in an effort to come up with a convention for representing the armpit joint. I think I have something that works. In the next day or so I hope to post a pic that shows eight different possible armpit constructions.

Stay tuned.

Mac

Mac wrote:In the next day or so I hope to post a pic that shows eight different possible armpit constructions.

Stay tuned.

Mac

Don't worry.

You have us all riveted.

Mac wrote:

Atlanta Armory wrote:Are the contractions in the originals whole row, as you've used, knot row, or some mixture of the two?

-Ben

Ben,

I am pretty sure that they are all the type that Burgess called "hole reductions". That is, the sort that leaves two "idle rings". I will check to be sure when I get a chance.

Mac

No, Ben, I was completely wrong. I have just looked again closely at both sleeves, and all of the row reductions are of the "knot" type. That is, each one yields one idle ring, and one ring which goes through five.

Mac

Here are a couple of pics which show both of Wade's sleeves in a different light. When you lay them out the first way. they look like they would fit either arm, but when you lay them out the second way, they have distinct laterality.

The larger sleeve.


The smaller sleeve.


Mac

Here are some diagrams of mail armpits.

Do you guys find this convention easy to understand? Does anyone have a better idea for a convention?

The first two, 1A and 1B are for an untapered sleeve. They are really the same thing, or course; it just depends on where you want to close it up.

2A and 2B are tapered versions of 1A and 1B

The "3" group involves symmetry around the cross-grain joint. In 3A tapered piece in inserted. In 3B the inserted piece is straight, and the taper occurs in the edges of the main body of the sleeve. In 3C, there is no inserted piece, and the reductions are staggered between the two edges. In a sense, it is the symmetrical version of 2A, or the tapered version of 1A

2C, down in the lower right is the configuration on both of Wade's sleeves.

Does anyone know of any types or variations I am missing?



Mac

THe drawings make perfect sense to my brain. I would have never thought there would be this much variation but I guess it should not surprise.

Johann,

I am glad that the diagram works for you. I am torn about how to represent the grain of the mail. The "row lines" I used tend to clutter the diagram a bit, but without them it is easy to loose track of what's what.

I should have been clearer about the configurations in my diagram. Number 3A is what appears to be happening in the shirt from the Hearst collection which Burgess describes and illustrates, and I have used this on a number of habergeons. Number 2C is the one that is used on the two sleeves in Wade's collection. All the rest of them are configurations that I have imagined. I expect that most of them (and probably more besides) have been used historically, but I do not know this in any real or demonstrable way.

I find it very humbling that the configuration used in Wade's sleeves is something I would never have thought of. Surely there are more (and perhaps even less intuitive) ways to "skin this cat".

Mac

I have seen and used a variation of 3A, where the pyramidal gusset has the rows running horizontally--the same as the body of the shirt. This means it is an extension of the shirt with no 90º seam. There is some creative linking between gusset and sleeve.

Here is the completed sleeve. I may tweak it a bit, but maybe not.



Here it is compared to the smaller of Wade's sleeves.



If I changed anything, it would be to lengthen the upper arm by two columns, and take about three columns off the forearm. I'm not sure it is worth the effort for so small a change.

Mac

Here are a couple of pics of both of Wade's sleeves together to show the size difference.



In this pic, they are laid one on top of the other, with the armpits corresponding. You can see that the larger one is significantly longer, and a bit bigger in circumference. The smaller one is about my size (5' 6" 190#) and the larger one is probably for someone more like 6" tall with a medium build. I expect to see Dave Rylak (Cet) sometime in the next couple of weeks, and I will see how it fits him....pics to follow.



Mac

Ernst wrote:I have seen and used a variation of 3A, where the pyramidal gusset has the rows running horizontally--the same as the body of the shirt. This means it is an extension of the shirt with no 90º seam. There is some creative linking between gusset and sleeve.

Ernst,

Did you see that construction on the Indo-Persian shirts you mentioned above? Were they all that way, or did some have a cross-grained joint?

I will include this type in my diagram later today.

Mac

Yes on 1, no on 2. As I mentioned, it was hard finding any two that followed the same construction. Some have really big sleeves, with the armscye down near the waist--undoubtedly to accommodate the fashion beneath (similar to your C3 but without the horizontal joint, merely both sleeve ends stair-stepping down to a single point), some were cross-grained, some as the extended gusset I mentioned, some cobbled together in an almost incomprehensible manner.

Out of curiousity, Mac, are the brass rings in your reconstruction on the "back" of the sleeve? I always operated under the presumption that contractions are a chink, a weakness in the armor, and should be placed in the area least susceptible to attack. I think Wallace A7 has thicker rings in the collar and armpit--areas not covered by additional plate armor.

Mac, I am continuously amazed by your drawings - if I could only freehand diagram things even half as well. . . gave it an honest effort many years ago and just couldn't get the knack for it no matter how hard I tried.

Question/thought on diagram 2C (Wade's originals) vs. 2B - is the little angled cut at the back corner join of the sleeve perhaps there as a means to ease tension on the links at that corner when the arms are extended fully forward? 2B would seem more simple/straightforward to build, but maybe that little detail in the originals is meant to keep the back of the armpit from unexpectedly blowing out?

Mac wrote:If I changed anything, it would be to lengthen the upper arm by two columns, and take about three columns off the forearm. I'm not sure it is worth the effort for so small a change.

Humbly, the decision to either do or not do this I believe comes down to the very point of the entire exercise. If the point is to exemplify how the tailoring can be done "in the field" using existing raw materials by the end user/customer, then I don't think it is needed - those few details will probably be modified by whomever is doing the tailoring to fit the specific person the sleeves would be for.

On the other hand, if the point of this exercise is to create a prototype to be shipped back to India and tell them, "Make THIS!". . . think of it this way: You have Wade's originals in hand in front of you - primary/original source. You now have your prototype - a "copy" with a few variations, for various reasons. The factory will now be asked to make a copy of the "copy" - again, probably with a few variations, for various reasons. Say the factory makes a prototype ("copy of a copy") that is then finalized and rolled out to the rank-and-file workers (humans making things by human hands with human error and all that entails) to make now a "copy of a copy of a copy". . . and we all know very well how that goes. . . So, in short, if the goal is a direct prototype to be used to build from - even (and maybe more importantly) if the scale is changed later in the process, starting with most exacting prototype would have the best chance of producing the best possible final product for a ready-made, no adjustments necessary, off the peg item?

Cheers to the folks taking the time to go to all this trouble in any case!

Ernst wrote:Yes on 1, no on 2. As I mentioned, it was hard finding any two that followed the same construction. Some have really big sleeves, with the armscye down near the waist--undoubtedly to accommodate the fashion beneath (similar to your C3 but without the horizontal joint, merely both sleeve ends stair-stepping down to a single point), some were cross-grained, some as the extended gusset I mentioned, some cobbled together in an almost incomprehensible manner.

Can you make a couple of sketches of what you saw? Please feel free to use the same convention as the ones I posted above....or some other convention if you have a better idea.

Ernst wrote:Out of curiousity, Mac, are the brass rings in your reconstruction on the "back" of the sleeve? I always operated under the presumption that contractions are a chink, a weakness in the armor, and should be placed in the area least susceptible to attack. I think Wallace A7 has thicker rings in the collar and armpit--areas not covered by additional plate armor.

Yes. The row reductions (marked in brass) will be in the back. Some of the brass rings in the armpit are visible from the front, but the majority can only be seen on the back.

Mac

Jonathon Janusz wrote:Mac, I am continuously amazed by your drawings - if I could only freehand diagram things even half as well. . . gave it an honest effort many years ago and just couldn't get the knack for it no matter how hard I tried.

Thank you, Jonathon. I have some small talent for illustration, but I really do have to work hard at it.

Jonathon Janusz wrote:Question/thought on diagram 2C (Wade's originals) vs. 2B - is the little angled cut at the back corner join of the sleeve perhaps there as a means to ease tension on the links at that corner when the arms are extended fully forward? 2B would seem more simple/straightforward to build, but maybe that little detail in the originals is meant to keep the back of the armpit from unexpectedly blowing out?

I am glad to hear you say that. I had been thinking along the same lines. The rings in the corners of the cross-grained joint are naturally weak points in the fabric because they are under more tension than other rings. The back corner is probably the more vulnerable of the two because the arm travels farther forward than it does backward. I think that the design we see in wade's sleeves does reduce the stresses here a bit.

Jonathon Janusz wrote:

Mac wrote:If I changed anything, it would be to lengthen the upper arm by two columns, and take about three columns off the forearm. I'm not sure it is worth the effort for so small a change.

Jonathon Janusz wrote:Humbly, the decision to either do or not do this I believe comes down to the very point of the entire exercise. If the point is to exemplify how the tailoring can be done "in the field" using existing raw materials by the end user/customer, then I don't think it is needed - those few details will probably be modified by whomever is doing the tailoring to fit the specific person the sleeves would be for.

On the other hand, if the point of this exercise is to create a prototype to be shipped back to India and tell them, "Make THIS!". . . think of it this way: You have Wade's originals in hand in front of you - primary/original source. You now have your prototype - a "copy" with a few variations, for various reasons. The factory will now be asked to make a copy of the "copy" - again, probably with a few variations, for various reasons. Say the factory makes a prototype ("copy of a copy") that is then finalized and rolled out to the rank-and-file workers (humans making things by human hands with human error and all that entails) to make now a "copy of a copy of a copy". . . and we all know very well how that goes. . . So, in short, if the goal is a direct prototype to be used to build from - even (and maybe more importantly) if the scale is changed later in the process, starting with most exacting prototype would have the best chance of producing the best possible final product for a ready-made, no adjustments necessary, off the peg item?

Cheers to the folks taking the time to go to all this trouble in any case!

I take your point. Once the design leaves my hands, it is more likely to degrade than to improve.

I will have the opportunity to try the sleeve on a few different guys next weekend. I hope this will tell me whether the corrections I envision are warranted.

Mac

Mac wrote:

Ernst wrote:Some have really big sleeves, with the armscye down near the waist--undoubtedly to accommodate the fashion beneath (similar to your C3 but without the horizontal joint, merely both sleeve ends stair-stepping down to a single point), some were cross-grained, some as the extended gusset I mentioned, some cobbled together in an almost incomprehensible manner.

Can you make a couple of sketches of what you saw? Please feel free to use the same convention as the ones I posted above....or some other convention if you have a better idea.

Mac,
Here's a quick and dirty glass-table image based on your format. I also showed the armscye drawn to a point instead of flat at the bottom so you get a better idea. I'm afraid I didn't draw the stair-stepping very evenly.

Mac I just have to say - wow. I didn't imagine that there was this much to go into making a sleeve. I've read through your posts a couple times and I think I'm just starting to understand the basics of it. Thanks for all the work - I'm learning a ton - and hopefully when it comes time for my sleeves it'll go a little easier.

Wade,

Which sleeve was the one that you brought to Texas?

Tom B. wrote:Wade,

Which sleeve was the one that you brought to Texas?

Assuming I actually brought the one I planned to bring (a pretty good guess, it was the more stable one) that would be M-15, which is the larger sized one with the looser weave one of the 2.

Wade

Mac,

I am working on tailoring an existing "tube" sleeved hauberk from IceFalcon. In your diagram, 3C is very close to what I've done. I have not done anything with the angle of the elbow, just taken the existing tube sleeve and cut it on a taper to close up; the only difference is that I have not staggered the taper on both sides (it is symmetrical reduction). It seems promising in it's simplicity, though the end result won't be nearly as nice as yours.

Can't wait to see what they can produce from your example.

James Anderson III wrote:Mac,

I am working on tailoring an existing "tube" sleeved hauberk from IceFalcon. In your diagram, 3C is very close to what I've done. I have not done anything with the angle of the elbow, just taken the existing tube sleeve and cut it on a taper to close up; the only difference is that I have not staggered the taper on both sides (it is symmetrical reduction). It seems promising in it's simplicity, though the end result won't be nearly as nice as yours.

Can't wait to see what they can produce from your example.

I think that the actual end result will depend a lot on the geometry between your size and the size and density of the rings. In my case I was making 9mm mail for a child so the geometry was really, really bad. I did a 2/3 sleeve without an elbow and a full sleeve with an elbow. Both tapered to varying extents - probably not quite enough, but they definitely tapered.

With large flat rings and a very small arm, the sleeves with the bend in the elbow definitely worked better. They allowed easy, unimpeded movement. The sleeves without the elbows didn't move as nicely. The arms bunched too much in the inside of the elbow.

You may easily find that yours work better if the overall geometry ends up with a more open feel, but you may also find that an elbow is worth adding. As long as you have some rings, it isn't that hard.

Wade

I got to put my grubby gauntlets on all 3 sleeves pictured in this thread yesterday. First time getting to handle historical mail - it's *really* impressive!

I also got to try on the tailored sleeve that Mac did. It was too big for me, but even throughout. The elbow doesn't bunch up when flexing, and doesn't seem like it would try to pull away from the body with moving the arm around. I may have to sell my current 9mm stainless voiders and get a set of the 6mm tailored ones.

Special thank you to Wade Allen for letting me play with the mail, and all the advice!