Change in Focus

Post by JT » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:02 am

This is only here until Glen writes up his own announcement, and replaces this one....

The R&A forum is now Historical Research. There is a new Interpretive Re-creation forum, which should be where you post questions on making things more authentic, or hiding/concealing/"cheating" the modern items we've all come to depend on.

Glen K · Post by **Glen K** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:34 am

Egads... one should be careful what one wishes for...

Over the next few days (at least it's a weekend), I'll come up with better descriptions of each forum based on our discussions, and start moving threads from one unto the other as appropriate.

My sincere thanks to JT for taking the chance on this... I think it will serve us well.

InsaneIrish · Post by **InsaneIrish** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:13 am

Glen I have to disagree, I think this division will either end up as "us vs. them" or go the was of the medival tactics board. Once the shiney wears off there will be little to no traffic.

Black Swan Designs · Post by **Black Swan Designs** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:31 am

....and because I believe there should be balance in all things, I'd like to say thanks. I think I'll post more now because I don't have to spend time sifting through the silly flamewars, I can go directly to what interests me. I'm willing to give it a go, what about you Irish? You know, they say change is good.... :wink:

Gwen

Thorstenn · Post by **Thorstenn** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:18 am

I have to disagree also. I think not as many purist will post on the other board. In my opinion its the balance that helps me get my rig better. Alot of people strive to get better, this is a sepperation of that. The gap between SCA Vrs is now larger.

Thorstenn

Post by JT » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:40 am

If the Great Experiment (tm) doesn't work, we can always undo it, or try something else.

InsaneIrish · Post by **InsaneIrish** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:04 pm

BSD:
In the grand scheme of things the division of an enternet message board is pretty low. I am willing to give it a go.

I just happen to agree with Thorsten. I think what is going to happen is that one board will become an "SCA only" type board and the other being populated only by LH people, with very few crossover.

I don't know about everyone else but I draw inspiration from both SCA and LH. Just like on my "Practical yet acceptable furniture" thread. I specifically wanted the input of LH and other groups than SCA. I found that while I may not want the level of authenticity many LHers want in their own stuff, I can draw upon that knowledge and try to find a way to more closely making stuff that is still practical to may standards.

If we divide the board I feel it will further divide the two main groups on the archive SCA/LH.

Post by JT » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:00 pm

Well, my intent was not to divide LH and SCA (or any other TLA for that matter) by splitting the forum.

My intent was to provide a forum for discussion on research, and another forum for discussion on how to make ones re-creation more accurate, authentic, whatever.

So, if the question is "how did they do XYZ?" it should go in Historical Research. On the other hand, if the question is "how can I make my persona/armour/soft-kit/equipment/campsite look like XYZ?", then it should go into Interpretive Re-creation.

I imagine there will be some occasions where the question could go in either forum. In those cases, the poster should put it in the one he/she prefers, and if desired, make a cross-post in the other.

At least, that was my intent....

Thorstenn · Post by **Thorstenn** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:35 pm

I understand, and hope it works. Good luck.

Thorstenn

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:58 pm

JT wrote:So, if the question is "how did they do XYZ?" it should go in Historical Research. On the other hand, if the question is "how can I make my persona/armour/soft-kit/equipment/campsite look like XYZ?", then it should go into Interpretive Re-creation.

Most of the time the ansswer to q2 is the same as q1.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:08 pm

Charlotte J wrote:
JT wrote:So, if the question is "how did they do XYZ?" it should go in Historical Research. On the other hand, if the question is "how can I make my persona/armour/soft-kit/equipment/campsite look like XYZ?", then it should go into Interpretive Re-creation.

Most of the time the ansswer to q2 is the same as q1.

You'd think that more people would realize that, wouldn't ya? Why bother with an activity that emulates historical items without fully understanding how they did it? (frustrated)

Mike F · Post by **Mike F** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:46 pm

Jeff: People are lazy, and think (often incorrectly) that it's easier to be half-assed. Not to insult anyone, that's just my opinion on this.

I personally like this idea, and I will try to help both by staying on topic in both. As JT said, it can always be put back. I wouldn't mind that, either.

Post by JT » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:35 pm

Charlotte J wrote:
JT wrote:So, if the question is "how did they do XYZ?" it should go in Historical Research. On the other hand, if the question is "how can I make my persona/armour/soft-kit/equipment/campsite look like XYZ?", then it should go into Interpretive Re-creation.

Most of the time the ansswer to q2 is the same as q1.

I'm not as certain of that.

For instance, I don't think that when chests were being made, they were being made to go around a cooler. Certainly, some features will be the same, but not all will.

Also, while it is admirable when people use hand-tools only, and limit themselves to the hand-tools of the day, I don't think it necessary to do so, if one is interested in a close (or even "not-so-close") approximation, rather than an exact replica.

Finally, as has been brought up other times, anything other than an exact copy will be an interpretation. How reasonable the interpretation is will depend on how far afield one strays from documentable instances of the item.

But, as I said... if the experiment doesn't work, then we can un-do it.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:54 pm

JT wrote:Also, while it is admirable when people use hand-tools only, and limit themselves to the hand-tools of the day, I don't think it necessary to do so, if one is interested in a close (or even "not-so-close") approximation, rather than an exact replica.

You have me there - I DO use power tools (for now). I've been thinking that after we move to our new place, with workshop space, that I'll start gathering low-tech tools and working on that skill-set.

Jon Barber · Post by **Jon Barber** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:06 am

Jeff J wrote:
JT wrote:Also, while it is admirable when people use hand-tools only, and limit themselves to the hand-tools of the day, I don't think it necessary to do so, if one is interested in a close (or even "not-so-close") approximation, rather than an exact replica.

You have me there - I DO use power tools (for now). I've been thinking that after we move to our new place, with workshop space, that I'll start gathering low-tech tools and working on that skill-set.

You'll find it very rewarding, I think. Once I got the shop set up at the new house I began acquiring as many hand tools as I could and using them more and more. Not only it is very satisfying, but there are times when they work not only better (imagine how using a specialty tool for it's intended purpose could be better than using a generic power tool *g*) but often faster and usually with much better results.

I've also cut down on my hand tool cheats. Example: I used to use a specialty doweling bit with tapered dowels that I had to buy. It worked great, but I wasn't happy. Now I step down bit size when drilling holes and even it out with a small gouge. I taper the dowels with a spokeshave. They fit, it holds like crazy, and damn me if it doesn't feel good. :lol:

Jon B.

Fire Stryker · Post by **Fire Stryker** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:24 am

You never know until you give it a try.

Jenn

peteyfrogboy · Post by **peteyfrogboy** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:23 am

JT wrote:Also, while it is admirable when people use hand-tools only, and limit themselves to the hand-tools of the day, I don't think it necessary to do so, if one is interested in a close (or even "not-so-close") approximation, rather than an exact replica.

I find that I usually do it "the right way" at least once so I know how it looks and feels when done that way. In the future, when I do use modern techniques to save time, I at least know what I'm shooting for. Now, most of what I do is sewing, so there's not a whole lot of investment in expensive hand tools to do a one-shot experiment.

Gerhard von Liebau · Post by **Gerhard von Liebau** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:35 pm

I'd just like to say that I've never noticed this thread in my life.

That's all.

-Gerhard

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:02 pm

I think this was a pointless change. It'll never last.

Mega Zenjirou Yoshi · Post by **Mega Zenjirou Yoshi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:05 am

I missed this note until now.
But I'd like to add, that I appreciate the split, and use it frequently in doing highly focused searches of the forum.
For instance, say I am working on a new piece of armour for my kit. I will start with the Historical Research section, to get an idea of what I am trying to emulate.
But because I belong to a society focused on creative anachronisms, whose tournaments enforce different rules than those we reenact, I frequently must seek ways adapting or disguising something that is made of modern materials for modern protocols as something made of antiquated materials for medieval protocols.

For instance, I would go to Historical Research for images and impressions of 12th century long swords. I would go to Interpretive Re-creation for tips on how to make a rattan baton best resemble that sword.