SCA: Marshals Clarification Regarding Helm Construction

This forum is designed to help us spread the knowledge of armouring.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sigeric
Archive Member
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN

SCA: Marshals Clarification Regarding Helm Construction

Post by Sigeric »

Greetings All,

I have a quick question for you SCA marshals out their. I know the spacing rules for bargrill/eye slot construction, but what about spacing in other portions of the helm.

A Shire member has a helm that is loosly based off of a greathelm. He wanted extra air flow, so instead of overlapping the bottom back and front parts, he left a gap (between 1"-1 3/4"). This gap is on the sides and is about where the ears are. He placed 3 bars acrossed the gap to make it stable and protect the ears, however the marshals tool easily fits between the bars.

Looking through the SCA Marshals manual I didn't see any requirements regarding spacing other than for the face. So I would like to know (As a Marshal) what's your take is for spacing requirments.

Sigeric
Last edited by Sigeric on Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
white mountain armoury
Archive Member
Posts: 10538
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
Location: the Taiga

Post by white mountain armoury »

I believe it would fail, i have no gaps greater than 7/8th on anything i build.
With slots that wide a ca blunt could enter the helmet or something similar.
We i to inspect it i would fail it if it had any gaps one inch or wider.
I would also question the strength of the helm based on your description.
I prefer kittens
User avatar
InsaneIrish
SQUEEE!
Posts: 18252
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Jefferson City Mo. USA

Post by InsaneIrish »

Fail flat out.

While not technically in the marshal's handbook it still is not a good idea. I mean what good is a helmet if the weapon can pass through it and strike your head???

Ask your friend if he cleans his ears with 1 1/4" rattan and a low profile thrusting tip?

Just because thrusts to the head are illegal in some kingdoms doesn't mean he won't get hit there.

Tell him to weld some more bars across there until a marshal's gauge does not pass through and he should be fine.
Insane Irish

Quote: "Nissan Maxima"
(on Pennsic) I know that movie. It is the 13th warrior. A bunch of guys in armour that doesn't match itself or anybody elses, go on a trip and argue and get drunk and get laid and then fight Tuchux.
Jorgen
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:05 pm

Post by Jorgen »

Aye, what he said above, can't have a gap bigger than 1 and 1/4" They don't want anything going into the helm.
-Jorgen Unruh
(aka James Vaughn)
Kilkenny
Archive Member
Posts: 12021
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: SCA: Marshals Clarification Regarding Helm Construction

Post by Kilkenny »

Sigeric wrote:Greetings All,

I have a quick question for you SCA marshals out their. I know the spacing rules for bargrill/eye slot construction, but what about spacing in other portions of the helm.

A Shire member has a helm that is loosly based off of a greathelm. He wanted extra air flow, so instead of overlapping the bottom back and front parts, he left a gap (between 1"-1 3/4"). This gap is on the sides and is about where the ears are. He placed 3 bars acrossed the gap to make it stable and protect the ears, however the marshals tool easily fits between the bars.

Looking through the SCA Marshals manual I didn't see any requirements regarding spacing other than for the face. So I would like to know (As a Marshal) what's your take is for spacing requirments.

Sigeric


mmm. If the manual language only addresses openings on the "face" of the helm, then it's a case of bad re-writing.

Look to the purpose of the rules and it is readily obvious the helm is intended to prevent the fighter's head from being struck by a weapon. Openings *anywhere* on a helmet that are larger than the specified maximum opening are not permitted (yeah yeah yeah - whose head fits through a one inch wide slot :? ).

I've got no problem with slat back helms, Vendel style helms with an open weave top, etc. - as long as they are structurally sound and none of the openings are large enough to admit any weapon we use in heavy combat.

gavin
User avatar
Morgan
Archive Member
Posts: 18229
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX (Ansteorra)
Contact:

Post by Morgan »

Yup, I'd fail it in a heartbeat. But it can be fixed by welding a bar down the middle of the slot.
User avatar
Kenwrec Wulfe
Archive Member
Posts: 4260
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Kenwrec Wulfe »

If I can fit the marshall's tool through any spot on the helm, I will fail it. Whether a shot is legal in the area or not, it is a matter of safety.
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. -Aristotle
User avatar
Sigeric
Archive Member
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN

Post by Sigeric »

Thanks for all the advise. I will have him stop over to my shop so we can weld that extra bar like Morgan suggested.

Sigeric
User avatar
JT
Editor
Posts: 1020433
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 1999 1:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN, USA
Contact:

Post by JT »

Wulfe wrote:If I can fit the marshall's tool through any spot on the helm, I will fail it.


Even through the neck opening?????


(Sorry) :P
User avatar
Jean Richard Malcolmson
Archive Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Whitehouse, TX, USA

Post by Jean Richard Malcolmson »

To add to the chorus, I would fail it, also.

Regards,
Rischard
Ansteorra
User avatar
Kenwrec Wulfe
Archive Member
Posts: 4260
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Kenwrec Wulfe »

JT wrote:
Wulfe wrote:If I can fit the marshall's tool through any spot on the helm, I will fail it.


Even through the neck opening?????


(Sorry) :P



Nah, That one I would hope that you can fit your head into.... if not.....Get a bigger helm! :P :P :P
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. -Aristotle
User avatar
Morgan
Archive Member
Posts: 18229
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX (Ansteorra)
Contact:

Re: SCA: Marshals Clarification Regarding Helm Construction

Post by Morgan »

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest he's over-interpreting the rules regarding bar spacing, as they are most common in the face area.

Kilkenny wrote:
mmm. If the manual language only addresses openings on the "face" of the helm, then it's a case of bad re-writing.

Look to the purpose of the rules and it is readily obvious the helm is intended to prevent the fighter's head from being struck by a weapon. Openings *anywhere* on a helmet that are larger than the specified maximum opening are not permitted (yeah yeah yeah - whose head fits through a one inch wide slot :? ).

I've got no problem with slat back helms, Vendel style helms with an open weave top, etc. - as long as they are structurally sound and none of the openings are large enough to admit any weapon we use in heavy combat.

gavin
User avatar
Sigeric
Archive Member
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN

Re: SCA: Marshals Clarification Regarding Helm Construction

Post by Sigeric »

Morgan wrote:I'll go out on a limb here and suggest he's over-interpreting the rules regarding bar spacing


No... he's just not the brightest bulb :idea: lol...

Next time I will have to keep a closer eye on his projects...
Dalewyn
Archive Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Sambro, Nova Scotia, Canada
Contact:

Post by Dalewyn »

Actually, he can't have a gap bigger than 1". If a 1" down can fit in and touch your face or head, then it's too big.
Post Reply