Help with Wisby Coat Dimensions

[Alberonn]

In the pursuit of greater historical accuracy, I've decided to make a Wisby CoP. Looking at the illustration in the great Price tome on the subject, I picked Nr. 7 for its fewer plates. I made a transparency from the one in the book and once I got it sized on the wall to match the correct width for my torso, I noticed that even with no overlap (as shown in the illustration), it's 5" inches too short. If I add another plate like one of the lower ones it would work and provide more mobility (so much for near historical accuracy). Would any of you mind sharing your experience with the different designs (7, 13 etc.), particularly with the pros and cons of each. I am also thinking of trying to cast scallops and fleur-de-lis to match the ornamentation thereof and I've worked in lead and would thereby welcome links or helpful suggestions as to how to begin the process of bronze casting. Yours Aye, Alberonn

[skevmeister]

Alberonn,

As tow the casting I am having them done for me, next year when I have the cash as they are quite large castings and I want them to match, so rather than going to the hassle/expense of getting all my own casting kit I am having a friend make them for me.

As to the sizes. What you really need to do is actually draw up the plates as per teh scale and I will imagine that by adding the odd half inch here or there they should fit.

As my pattern works excellently I am 44inch chest 34 inch waist 6'2 high.

All sclaes are in centimters and thet are 10cm to 1DM if your wondering what the scales is.

Alixx

[Alberonn]

Skev -

Which pattern are you using and (regarding scale) what are DM? Thanks, Alberonn

[Alberonn]

Oh, you mean decimeters. I don't always think in metric....

[Sean Powell]

I thought Dm was DEKAmeters and dm was DECImeter. The capitol letter indicating that it was 10 TIMES the length of a meter vs one tenth the length of a meter.

The best way I know to handle scalling a Wisby coat is to put on your gambeson and then a tight fitting t-shirt. Have someone take a sharpie marker and draw the plates on your body. Then measure the plate sizes and transfer to paper. Cut from paper (or better yet cardboard) attach together with tape and try it. Modify as you go.

From a personal opinion the 2 piece pectoral cover isn't as flexible as the 3 piece of the Wisby 1. I've also found that splitting the side plates horizontally into 2 plates helps with mobility. That may not be an option if historical accuracy is your driving motivator.

I am partially suspect of that pattern since if you overlap the two pectoral plates side to side they will not be as wide as the belly plates which will make overlaping with the side plates difficult... unless the side plates don't underlap the pectoral plates in which case the shape of the pectoral plates seems off. By suspect of the patern I mean there might be a scaling issue in the patern drawing. Try to look closer at the grave image and see what you can discover.

good luck,
Sean

[Ernst]

You mention that, even without overlap, the CoP is 5" too short. How tall are you? How tall was the original owner?

[Alberonn]

Well, I'm 6'2" or 3 depending on who you ask and I don't have any data on the original owner... I think I am leaning toward just adding an extra plate like the middle one. It's either that or stretching the others so much that I doubt it'd be practical.

[Ernst]

Wisby, Ch.4 pp. 159-160 gives the average calculated height for those KIA at about 168cm, around 5'6". You may note the discrepency in average height compares to the "shortness" of the armor.

[deBlakstan]

You have to decide if you want to make a reproduction or a recreation. A reproduction use the dimensions of the original and, as noted above, will fit someone who was around 5'6". Now, if you want to make a recreation based on the original, I would measure the distance between the outer edges of your pectoral muscles and use that as the width of plates. (Divide by 2 for the two chest plates for obvious reasons). For length, you should be able to go one of two ways. One, measure the total amount of torso that you want to cover and divide by three. I wouldn't do it that way because you may find that the plates don't move where you bend. Two, measure from just below your sternal notch (where the soft part of your neck meets the flat bone in front of the chest) to your xyphoid process (Where all of your ribs come up and meet). Use this for the length of all three plates and it should end up down around the crotch area. I would also do a mock up in cardboard and see if everything moves the way you want. Remember, period armour, even Wisby stuff, would have been at least generally fitted to the wearer. I feel that a recreation using extant pieces is just as historically accurate as a reproduction. Now, if you arbitrarily decide to add a fourth torso lame because you think it is a better design, then you have departed from historical and moved somewhere else altogether. Not necessarily bad, just no longer accurate if you don't have evidence to support it.

Cameron

[RenJunkie]

I don't know if this will help any, but this is a bunch of recreated suits. At least it gives something to look at and judge by...hopefully accurately...lol.

http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoa ... index.html

Christopher

[Andrew Young]

http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoas_rustningar/index.html

Some of the reconstructions on that site leave much to be desired. They are far to boxy. Even with large side plates, its quite possible to achieve an hourglass affect. Many also appear to come down too far, ignoring the hips, and flair of the sides.

Remember the reconstructions Thordeman made are damn near pushing 100 years old. And as far as I have understood through the books, little if any base leather or textile remains...so reconstructions are not necessarily accurate to the original plate placement and alignment. Ergo, you can angle the plates slightly so that the wrap around forms a V shape (rather like a modern jets swept back wings-albeit an exagerated angle), mirroring the human bodys shape and equally mirrowing the hourglass silouette as seen in contemporary illustrations. This is becasue the side armor often sits above the hips.

So if youre going to make it look right, concern yourself more with the 'fit' against the human body and the look you see in many period illustrations than the measurements or a modern (and often inaccurate) reconstruction.

In other words: Know thy anatomy!

Here is good page to study in terms of the hourglass shape:
http://www.themcs.org/armour/14th%20century%20armour.htm

[Kel Rekuta]

From a personal opinion the 2 piece pectoral cover isn't as flexible as the 3 piece of the Wisby 1. I've also found that splitting the side plates horizontally into 2 plates helps with mobility. That may not be an option if historical accuracy is your driving motivator.

I am partially suspect of that pattern since if you overlap the two pectoral plates side to side they will not be as wide as the belly plates which will make overlaping with the side plates difficult... unless the side plates don't underlap the pectoral plates in which case the shape of the pectoral plates seems off. By suspect of the patern I mean there might be a scaling issue in the patern drawing. Try to look closer at the grave image and see what you can discover.

good luck,
Sean

I suspect you haven't made one to scale and worn it over a haubergeon. I scaled up the plates to fit my barrel-like torso under the assumption that the side plates only cover the flanks. They underlap the abdominal plates but not the pectorals. The pects float above them as mail tends to flatten out the torso surface. There is nothing wrong with the pattern and I have complete confidence in the scale drawing of the plates, if not in Thordeman's curious alternative reconstructions of #VII.

I can do tumbles and grapple in this without any restraint. People try to cover too much in many reconstructions of this pattern. That makes the plates too large and possibly restrictive. Pairs of plate supplement mail and are not stand alone armour, IMHO.

[Andrew Young]

This should help...

[/img]

[Sean Powell]

Durasteel.

That is a wonderful picture. Is it copyright to you and do you mind if I use it explaining armor to newbies? You are right. I probably cut my COP's too long but not my corazina which could explain why I like one so much better then the other.

Sean

[Alberonn]

Thank you all, gentlemen, for your response; I'm deeply appreciative and will let you all know how it goes. Yours Aye, Alberonn

[Andrew Young]

Sean

Well I nabbed pics from the net (saved and editted in "paint") so I guess the originals are copyrighted...but I wouldnt sweat it. Its educational, nobodys profitting here right? lol

D

[skevmeister]

Great Pictures.

Alberon, I used the one your using teh pattern 7.

DM is DECImetres and is 10 x 1cm.
Made To Measure Plates. I agree especially in the extant of number 7 this would have been been a specially made item and fitted to the wearer. Keep to the pattern, and then just adjust for your height as would have been done for this coat.

Skev

[Kel Rekuta]

Sean

Well I nabbed pics from the net (saved and editted in "paint") so I guess the originals are copyrighted...but I wouldnt sweat it. Its educational, nobodys profitting here right? lol

D

Yeah, good job on that! Very useful explanation.

[deBlakstan]

Durasteel,

Not to argue but I will anyway. I really believe that some of the COPs are supposed to cover the lower abdomen. My copy of Wisby is buried somewhere right now so I really can't research it but as soon as I can I will try to support my argument. I believe that the troops at Wisby were mostly foot soldiers not cavalry. If you suppose that the side plates cover the rib area as you suggest then that puts the bottom plate covering the soft part of the abdomen. This is very feasible since the COP has enough flexibility that the bottom plate would not interfere with a foot soldier. The lower plate covering the abdomen would have given some measure of protection from the thrust of a short sword into the very vulnerable soft abdomen area. Chain mail protects against slashing but is not as good against a thrust so I think this would have been a welcome addition to the armour of the day. Just an opinion, though. I will try to find my Wisby and back it up with someone else's opinions...

Cameron

[Andrew Young]

Not to reply, but I will anyway


I agree there is room for some variation, definately. And thats where scale and lamellar come into play. I also do think there were some cases where some type of proto-fauld may have been attached to the COP. However the key bending line would have been the naval; solid sides would not have extended over this as such:



But the COP is, at its most momentous, a definate attempt to protect the upper abdomen--U shaped bottom frontal plates being what throws most people off.

Yet if you really look or frankly measure the distance from the COP sides and a late 14th century globose breastplates sides, youd fine they were remarkable similar in height.





Ultimately yeah I think there is always exception to the rule and that might be were proto-faulds existed, like the figure above seems to show dots (rivets?) much lower like a strip-fauld. However most COPS made now are not made with true practicality in mind... equestrian skills/survival and medieval aesthetics are often lost on our modern eye.

d