The Armour Archive

I am wondering when the point of the bascinet started to drift towards the back of the skull. I want to rebuild my 14th century kit for the 1350's time frame of the CoTT, but my bascinet has a moderate back point. Its not the extreme cones that you see at the very end of the century. I have been under the impression that the form of my bascinet is more appropriate to the last quarter of the 14th century. To get it 'right' I have considered swapping this out for a center pointed version - but cost is of course an issue right now. So if I can find sufficient provenance for something similar to mine I will likely hang on to it.
Unless someone comes up with a super sweet deal on an Anshelm center point or some Valerius gem that is lurking out there.

I found a picture of a bascinet in my Osprey Crecy book that is listed as 'mid century' and as being in a museum in Budapest. It has a form fairly similar to mine. Any idea if 'Mid Century' is accurate on that piece - sorry I dont have any more accurate detail on the helmet in question.

I'm in agreement with the back point bascinet (like you see on the Anshelm arms website) dates to around 1375+. Center point bascinets, with a slight drift to the back date much earlier.
It's not to say that they don't date to much earlier, but there's no evidence that they did (and we tend to make enough assumptions on things).
Even if you find a single example of a backpoint or highpoint bascinet that dates to 1350, I'd still suggest you try to stick with what was typical for the period rather than the exception, to make the best representation of the period.
-Cian

P.S. I prefer the term high-point bascinet, because cervallier and bascinets of the period do often have an apex that points back away from the face, but it's not as tall and conical as the later helms.

This is mine, it is quite an old photo. Most of the rest of that kit has ceased to exist.
[img]http://home.armourarchive.org/members/thaddeus/keene/KEENE9~1.jpg[/img]

I agree about using unique examples of a piece and would like to avoid it if possible.

That doesn't look much further back then a deep cervallier (comes down past the ears and believed to have been worn over a camail) that dates to around 1330.
The bascinets that I think of being typical of the 4th quarter of the century are like on Anshelm arms web site (back point), or the black prince, where the line for the back of the helm is either almost a straight line from the point to the base or slightly cantering out towards the knight's back.
Here are some examples from myarmoury.com
-Cian

Here are two images with what I think can be argued as back point bascinets. The first is a Dutch knight Sir Piers de Grandison from about 1358 the second is from the Romace of Alexander 1338-44(with some sections from 1400).

Is there any provenance for Piers. I know many effigies were produced significantly after the death of the person they represent.
This one does appear to have the form of the armours of the fifties though.

Thaddeus wrote:Is there any provenance for Piers. I know many effigies were produced significantly after the death of the person they represent.
This one does appear to have the form of the armours of the fifties though.

Sorry, it was kind of drive by Image saving. If you google him you get hits but English. My bad documentation. If I clear up the reference I will post.

Mackenzie

It seems to me that there is a very real problem discussing basinets, because of a lack of consensus about terminology. I have been working on a basinet typology, which I will present more fully in another thread in design and construction.



To my eye, the helmets which mackenzei has presented are all probably what I am calling " Mac-type 1c", which is the taller version of "1b". I am calling them "1c" rather than "2c" because the lower edge of the helmet skull is more or less at a level with the wearer's nose, rather than his mouth, as would be the case in the "2" series.

By contrast, most of the basinets in the picture posted above by Cian are probably " Mac-type 3e". The odd man out is the helmet from the Wallace collection (bottom row center), because its horizontal jaw line and narrower facial opening.

Mac

Mac wrote:It seems to me that there is a very real problem discussing basinets, because of a lack of consensus about terminology. I have been working on a basinet typology, which I will present more fully in another thread in design and construction.

To my eye, the helmets which mackenzie has presented are all probably what I am calling " Mac-type 1c", which is the taller version of "1b". I am calling them "1c" rather than "2c" because the lower edge of the helmet skull is more or less at a level with the wearer's nose, rather than his mouth, as would be the case in the "2" series.

By contrast, most of the basinets in the picture posted above by Cian are probably " Mac-type 3e". The odd man out is the helmet from the Wallace collection (bottom row center), because its horizontal jaw line and narrower facial opening.

Mac

Thanks, I had become completely focused on where the point was, and did not think about where the bottom of the basinet was. The typology is very useful.

If the question is, "How can I make the helmet in the old photo look more mid-14th C?" My guess would be to move the maile up so it looks like the helmet has a shorter metal skirt. That would have the effect of changing a Mac Type 2D (the first official misuse of the Mac basinet typology) SCA helmet into a bit pointy Mac Type 1B. I argue Mac Type 1B because its top is closer the head then in the Mac Type 1C which is what you find in a Mac Type 2D.

Now if we are lucky someone with much more knowledge on 14th C armour then me will tell us if what I am suggesting makes sense or not.

mackenzie