Are alternate solid/punched and riveted rings period?

[brucer]

I am curious- in european mail, are alternate rows of solid vs. riveted rings a period practice, or is this a modern invention? Obviously it its faster to create mail if you are only having to rivet half the rings, but I would like to know if this is something that was common especially in the 1200-1500 era. If so, does anyone have any photographic evidence/reference material on it.

Also curious as to the actual ring size in period mail - I see the indian repro stuff in 8, 9 & 10 mm sizes- the 8 looks almost right, the 10 looks WAY too big. I've also seen 6mm, and in fact have a 6mm stainless haubrek coming - but is that in fact the correct size for period mail? how big was the typical ring size?

Thanks to all the mail mavens out there that will know this stuff off the top of their head.

Brucer

[Konstantin the Red]

Yes, alternating rows are period, and present throughout period.

There were some trends detectable, we think. Alternating solids and riveted links was a method prevailing before the early years of the fourteenth century. In the fourteenth, they trended away from alternating and did more all-riveted, along with inventing, in Germany, the triangular rivet. Why this happened nobody ever said, but likely it was something about cost of production -- might be you could get better prices for triphammered, milled sheet metal for other applications and the mailmakers had to retreat to working entirely in drawn wire -- good for the wire-drawers -- and to maintaining only an inventory of one sort of link. But be warned, I speculate.

Neither type ever extinguished the other completely in any era AFAWK. The evidence is in the main statistical. You might be able to ask Erik D. Schmid, who is a good mail historian, and the Mail Research Center if that is up and running again after getting crippled by hacker crackers.

8mm-9mm is right about the peak of the link diameter distribution curve, the 8 being nearer. Some mail pieces did indeed employ links of different diameters to advantage, or changed the link AR by different diameter wire on the same ID, again for advantage. The peak of the bell curve would at a guess land about 7mm-7.5mm, as 6 and 6.5 on one side and 8 on the other bracket it. The range of 6 to 8 millimeters covers the peak.

Mail's shelf life in the race between corrosion in air and maintenance against corrosion in air seems to be about six hundred years. Mail much earlier than c. 1400 gets rarer very fast, and mail of itself is tough to date anyway. You're doing pretty well to pick a 50-year time span. Best bet is to know the find-context, or else have records preserved, which have dated the Wallace Collection A2 shirt to an unusual degree of precision for a shirt of mail: circa 1438 AD Hamburg Germany -- because of municipal records of one Bernart Couwein getting a business license there, then -- and putting his brass signature-link in the mailshirt.

[wcallen]

Many of these pieces have measurements. These appear to be generally representative. There are always outliers.

http://www.allenantiques.com/Armour-Mai ... ction.html

I have used the modern 9mm, I don't like its size. I have played with the modern 6mm. I like the size better, but there are things about the profile of the rings and how the solid/riveted rings interact that don't make me completely happy with it either.

The thing I complain about the most is not the size of modern mail, it is the look of the rings. Either to flat or to dramatic a change from the round to flattened part, or to square for the solid rings.

Wade

[Andeerz]

Not to mention, very very few people ever get the overlap correct, which is absolutely crucial for the structural, let alone aesthetic, features of maille. Just compare a close-up of the Indian-made stuff with that you will see in Wade's site.

[Dan Howard]

Don't forget that Indian manufacturers only provide the INSIDE diameter of their links. Museum catalogues and archaeological reports give the OUTSIDE diameter. So when a mail reseller says that their mail is 6mm diameter, it is really closer to 10mm.

[wcallen]

Not to mention, very very few people ever get the overlap correct, which is absolutely crucial for the structural, let alone aesthetic, features of maille. Just compare a close-up of the Indian-made stuff with that you will see in Wade's site.

Overlap and general cross sections. In all of the Indian pieces I have seen, both are wrong. And usually the overlaps are to flat which does make a real difference in the strength of the piece. It also helps when they decide to put the rivet in the overlap instead of off the edge or so close to the edge that it doesn't matter. I have had to throw away a large percentage of the spare rings I got when i was building Geoffrey's stuff.

Wade

[brucer]

My thanks to all of the learned scholars on mail that have shared their knowledge. I am talking to several vendors of indian mail, and would like to get something close to authentic. The inside vs. outside ring measurement really lit up a for me - I did not know that - but it's a "DUH!" moment. I don't recall seeing much of solid/riveted in 14th century examples, but from what you are saying it's not unheard of in period. Now the modern execution of such, hmm....

Seeing the close up of period mail examples really helps as well. Would love more insight into the period manufacture process vs. Modern producers. I definitely see the issue with the "flat" mail rings they are producing in india - just is not right for period style, which is something that I was surprised by as I had assumed the period mail was flatter - examples seem to show rounder mail.

Again, thanks to all for sharing.

Brucer

[Luca Sogliano]

A question for the experts: what is, to your knowledge, the best commercially available shirt for a late 14th century presentation?

[Dan Howard]

Depends on what you mean by "best". If you want one that looks like museum examples, there isn't one. If you want one that is made from similar material, there isn't one. If you want one that provides similar protection, you can go with one of the suppliers who make welded mail.

This is relevant.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189

IMO, if you want to replicate the appearance of round-sectioned, round-riveted mail then you can get better results by simply using butted links. You need to get pretty close to tell that there aren't any rivets, while the Indian mail can be spotted a long way away. I can easily pick it out, even on TV. I have a patch of 5mm (OD) mail made from alternating rows of solid and butted links and it looks pretty good until you hold it up close and see that there aren't any rivets.

[wcallen]

Best recreation - we can't afford it. Eric S.

I have played with authentic mail and I own some pieces of it.

The best look is actually knuut's rectangular welded stuff. It has the closest density, relationship between ID and width of material, etc. It is also rock solid and won't fall apart. It makes no attempt to be assembled the way they would have, so it is not a recreation. it is, however, a good modern interpretation that works really well.

If you want to teach about how mail should have looked, find a piece of 18th c. eastern mail to buy. They show up all the time and aren't.... terribly expensive. Still more than most will want to pay, but it is better mail than the stuff coming out now.

Wade

[worldantiques]

I am curious- in european mail, are alternate rows of solid vs. riveted rings a period practice, or is this a modern invention?

Here is a link were you can see for yourself.

http://www.pinterest.com/worldantiques/ ... ail-armor/

[Steve S.]

I am curious- in european mail, are alternate rows of solid vs. riveted rings a period practice, or is this a modern invention? Obviously it its faster to create mail if you are only having to rivet half the rings, but I would like to know if this is something that was common especially in the 1200-1500 era. If so, does anyone have any photographic evidence/reference material on it.

As was already pointed out, it seems that prior to 1400 alternating-row construction was predominate, and afterwards all-riveted was predominate. And you can find examples of either on either side of that line.

Also curious as to the actual ring size in period mail - I see the indian repro stuff in 8, 9 & 10 mm sizes- the 8 looks almost right, the 10 looks WAY too big. I've also seen 6mm, and in fact have a 6mm stainless haubrek coming - but is that in fact the correct size for period mail? how big was the typical ring size?

The criticisms above are spot on. But you have to remember - when I taught the Indians how to make the fully-flattened, wedge-riveted maille, I was shooting for the SCA market. Weight is critical as the maille is largely a decorative item in our game. The 3/8" ID combined with 18GA wire made very, very strong maille yet was reasonably light weight. I agree that that wire thickness and that ring size results in a somewhat open weave. Still within period size ranges, but yes, somewhat open. When they switched to the smaller 8mm stuff it was a much more correct-looking density. But of course the weight goes up.

A question for the experts: what is, to your knowledge, the best commercially available shirt for a late 14th century presentation?

The process I taught the Indians was developed to make a very good historical impression (light-years ahead of what was available before) but again, it was designed with manufacturability and cost in mind. To that end, the rings are cut with modern spring-winding equipment and cut with the overlap built in. This results in perfectly round rings, which you typically do not see in period maille.

Period style rings:


Reproduction in the style I invented:


Also the cutting process of the modern spring machine results in a sheared cut, whereas period rings appear to have been cut with a pinching style of tool. This results in a more "snake head" appearance of the period rings and a blunter appearance to the ends of the modern rings.

What I learned during the development of my process, and by many discussions with others, is that basically any deviation from the historical process leaves its mark on the finished work. Within the constraints I was operating under, I think the result is a pretty good approximation of flattened, wedge-riveted maille.

But, if you want the real deal, or if you want ring cross sections of some other style, you either have to do it yourself or hire Erik D. Schmid.

Steve

[Konstantin the Red]

And Erik is worthy of his hire, as he has studied European mail more deeply than all but a very few others. HIs hire is, or was, ten cents per link.

[Ernst]

Also the cutting process of the modern spring machine results in a sheared cut, whereas period rings appear to have been cut with a pinching style of tool. This results in a more "snake head" appearance of the period rings and a blunter appearance to the ends of the modern rings.

Steve,
While I generally agree with the tool to get the "snake head" end at the overlap, I've seen some rings that seem to have a more squared looking end. Perhaps these were done with a chisel, but I'm beginning to think it might have been with shears at the bottom instead of the top--if that makes sense. Shears tend to put a little knick at the top where they first bite, and then a long angle where the shear cuts the bottom. The rings I have in mind look like the top of the shears were put inside the ring, and the shear closed from the outside, which is the exact opposite of how I've always done it.

Didn't you or someone else once post a photo essay of how differing tools made different looking cuts on finished rings?

[Steve S.]

Steve,
While I generally agree with the tool to get the "snake head" end at the overlap, I've seen some rings that seem to have a more squared looking end. Perhaps these were done with a chisel, but I'm beginning to think it might have been with shears at the bottom instead of the top--if that makes sense. Shears tend to put a little knick at the top where they first bite, and then a long angle where the shear cuts the bottom. The rings I have in mind look like the top of the shears were put inside the ring, and the shear closed from the outside, which is the exact opposite of how I've always done it.

Didn't you or someone else once post a photo essay of how differing tools made different looking cuts on finished rings?

I agree with you, Ernst. I'm sure there were a variety of ways in practice for cutting and other things.

The article I did on different cutting methods is here:

http://www.forth-armoury.com/research/c ... maille.htm

Steve

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

A word on the overlap. While modern mass produced maille has a lot more errors, I've still seen plenty of bunny-eared rivet joins on period pieces. A 15th century voider we had at the Higgins comes to mind. The original stuff wasn't exactly immaculately conceived.

On the solid rings: punching them from a solid sheet seems unlikely, I think Steve wrote about this years ago. Steve (or someone like him) put some solid rings under a microscope and determined that they lacked signs of being punched from a solid sheet, and were more likely welded. If that is true, switching to all riveted would have eliminated a whole set of equipment, a whole skill set, and generally streamlined the process considerably, making a slightly inferior but much less expensive product.

As far as density, that varies. Having had the privilege to look at authentic examples of maille almost every day for about four years, I think Steve's repro method is very cost effective to reproducing the overall feel of what the surviving pieces may have been like when they were new.

But yeah, Erik's stuff is the best! If you can afford that, go for it.

[Ernst]

Modern metallurgical analysis has shown that quite a bit of the solid rings were punched from sheet. The Coppergate aventail being disputed, but most other European examples seem to have been made this way. A good deal of the Indo-Persian mail seems to show signs of welding.

The "bunny ears" where the overlapped ends splay outward seems to be fairly common in 16th century mail from what I've read.

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

That's interesting, I'd like to read those sources if you can remember them. Maybe maille got less nice as it declined in importance. The punching thing is interesting too.

[Steve S.]

Yup, at one time the verdict was welded wire, but now it seems punching was valid also. I was at the Arms and Armour study day at the Wallace Collection where someone stated, "The verdict is in: they were welded". But there seems to be a lot of credible evidence now for punching also.

Steve

[C. Gadda]

Sims seems to think that Roman solid mail rings were punched, and has demonstrated how to make the requisite tools without modern precision machinery. Not that it settles things, of course.

Funny, I thought the verdict was punched, rather than welded, and that even Coppergate was considered possibly in error. *sigh* get 10 different experts and 100 different answers. Out of curiousity when was this A&A study day at the Wallace Collection held?

[Ernst]

Just to keep from typing so much, you might want to check out the bibliography and these snippets where we discussed the change from demi-riveted to all-riveted construction in Europe.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=162278

[Dan Howard]

I was under the impression that the question was answered years ago. The majority of European solid links were punched, not welded, from the Roman period onwards. The inability to find a welded join, even after x-ray and microscopic analysis, should be more than enough to cause one to look for an alternate production method. There are two main indicators of punched links - the first is a square cross-section and the second, even stronger, indicator is that slag inclusions are aligned across the link rather than running around. Roman solid links have both of these characteristics, so does later European mail. There isn't any doubt that they were punched. Welded solid links are usually Indo-Persian, as Mart said. It seems common enough that the type of solid link can be a good indicator of its origin. If you have welded links then the mail is unlikely to be European.

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

Any links to surviving roman maille? I've never seen any except what's rusted into a big ferrous lump, identifiable only by the distinctly maille-like grain running through it. Not that I'm doubting its existence, just that I really want to see it.

[Steve S.]

I was under the impression that the question was answered years ago.

It was.

But I remember being at an Arms and Armour Study day when this discussion was in its heyday and someone of import stood on stage and said, "The debate has been settled: they were welded".

I'm not going to name names as frankly my memory is fuzzy as this was a decade or more ago. However, it was an authority.

So - some people were interpreting the available metallurgical evidence as showing evidence for welding.

Steve

[Dan Howard]

Any links to surviving roman maille? I've never seen any except what's rusted into a big ferrous lump, identifiable only by the distinctly maille-like grain running through it. Not that I'm doubting its existence, just that I really want to see it.

Arbeia is the best example (two-thirds down)
http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/Canterbury/Arbeia.html

There were lots of fragments recovered from Dura Europos too.

[Dan Howard]

So - some people were interpreting the available metallurgical evidence as showing evidence for welding.

Perthaps the examples they were studying had a dodgy provinance and were actually made in Asia, rather than Europe.

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

Wow, that stuff is in really good shape.

I've seen the Dura Europos ones (actually have a b&w photo of one being excavated hanging on my wall!) but all the ones I got to see at Yale were of the rusted-beyond-detail description. Are there high quality samples that survived there?

"Made in Asia" might mean a little less at that early time, when Rome had military bases, and presumably armories, in Asia.

[Dan Howard]

"Made in Asia" might mean a little less at that early time, when Rome had military bases, and presumably armories, in Asia.

Medieval and early modern mail, not Roman. Indo-Persian solid links from this time period are welded, European links are punched.

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

Oh right. I thought they were talking about Dura Europos, re-reading the thread I see my mistake.

[Steve S.]

Perthaps the examples they were studying had a dodgy provinance and were actually made in Asia, rather than Europe.

It's possible, but I doubt it given the people in question.

I'm pretty sure even the US Steel article from the 50's was in favor of welded, but I don't remember now.

Steve

[Ernst]

One of the Wallace Collection German hauberks (A1?) used to be cataloged as "Oriental" until someone noticed the signet ring with gothic miniscule lettering. Even the sleeves A10 and A11 were listed as iron with latten trim until Erik Schmid looked at them and determined they were tinned latten. Most collections haven't looked at their mail in a very detailed way. David Edge has argued that one of the RA hauberks cataloged as eastern, OA2183, might be European instead due to the "slotted" rivets.

The U.S. Steel Vilella article is sometimes maddening. He acknowledges in his summary that his analysis of solid rings, "failed to disclose a recognizable weld or evidence of deformation of the surface metal associated with stamping." Despite this lack of evidence for either method, he concludes that the stringers follow the wire and indicate the rings are welded. He also studied both European and Eastern samples, and makes no apparent distinction between the technique used. The RA has found evidence that theta links used in India are welded from strips cut from sheet and wound multiple times. Dave Counts used to have an Indo-Persian shirt where the solid links sometimes were separating, apparently when multiple coils of wire had not been successfully welded together.

[Steve S.]

Dave Counts used to have an Indo-Persian shirt

I bought one from him, and it exhibited that appearance. I have pictures of the "delaminating" rings on my web site.

the shirt:
http://forth-armoury.com/photo_gallery/ ... ushman.htm

http://forth-armoury.com/photo_gallery/coif/theta.htm

http://forth-armoury.com/photo_gallery/ ... _rings.htm

But these are all "eastern" and we know they welded.

I still can't figure out how they did it, but they did.

Steve

[Konstantin the Red]

One of the Wallace Collection German hauberks (A1?)

Wallace A2, I think, and it's not a full 'berk, more like a long sleeved haburgeon for overall size. Wallace A1 iirc is a short coif -- something like a mail "secret" and not a cowled coif descending to the collarbones or farther. Heard of a tin hat? -- this is like a tin wig.

From its dating and its shape, I figure A2 for an infantry shirt, covering the vitals and arms in one piece of gear, but leaving the legs to take their chances. Where exactly its hem lands I do not know -- experience tells me it'll fit wrong if the hem ends up exactly at 'nad level. Armor is supposed to keep you from getting hurt! Above or below, never at!

[Ernst]

K,

You're right. It was A2 which was previously catalogued as O 1858 when Martin Burgess examined it in the 1950s. Point being that even the big museums and collections sometimes get things wrong.

A1's a shirt (or steak sauce which is better on pork chops).
http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.or ... ckKey&sp=2


A8 is the hat/coifette.
http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.or ... ckKey&sp=2

[worldantiques]

Any links to surviving roman maille? I've never seen any except what's rusted into a big ferrous lump, identifiable only by the distinctly maille-like grain running through it. Not that I'm doubting its existence, just that I really want to see it.

Try this link.
http://www.pinterest.com/erikdschmid/early-mail-armour/

Roman riveted mail, part of a lorica hamata, with flat section links that still show traces of gilding, Vindonissa Museum.



Roman riveted mail fragment, (Lorica Hamata), : 6 mm, alternating riveted and solid links, remains from a battle in Germany.