Question about Sinric's "Klapp Visor Bascinet"

Pietro da Montalcino · Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:51 pm

My plan is to make a globose face klapp visor bascinet that could be used for SCA combat but would also work for a living history group. My main problem is that for the SCA I need the visor to be far wider than they were. I can think of a number of routes but my favourite would be to Sinric's cheek plate idea he uses here
http://www.armourarchive.org/patterns/klapp_face_bascinet_sinric/

I really like how the hidden cheek plates allow the use of a smaller visor but i was wondering if they caused any problems or weaknesses.
I was also wondering if it would be possible to attach the cheek plates in a way that could be removed and reattached easily/quickly (or at all).

Pietro

Galvyn Lockhart · Post by **Galvyn Lockhart** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:55 am

Well, your mileage may vary.

I showed pictures of Sinric's klappviser to one SCA knight and he claimed that the cheek plates would have the exact problems that you described. They would be weak and not legal.

I do not see why you couldn't just have the cheek plates on you bascinet built out in that fashion to begin with. In other words, part of the original shape i/o rivited on afterwards.

The safest thing to do would be to check w/ your local kingdom marshal and get their opinion.

------------------
Galvyn Lockhart
Kingdom of Acre / MSR
MKA - John Mertz

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:37 am

My advice would be to build two helmets. One of the type you want with the compromises required for SCA is not suitable for living history - the one 14th century group in the US "La Belle Compagnie" has even tighter minimum standards than most 15th century groups.

------------------
Bob R.

white mountain armoury · Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:38 am

I dont think you can assume the helmet is unsafe just by looking at its desing on a web page.
Simple fact is this helemt is in my area, i see it on occasion and its still working fine, its been quite a few years now as well.

Vogeljager · Post by **Vogeljager** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:17 am

Hi Pietro!
How is the mainland treating you?

I can see how the add-on cheek plates look weak. but if you can't see them under the aventail anyway why not just extend them till they meet? Look at Sinric's visored sugarloaf pattern and just modify the size of the face opening.

------------------
Vogeljäger
www.angelfire.com/nf/dfowler/

Zweihammer · Post by **Zweihammer** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:09 pm

I have had minor issues with the marshals early on as to attaching thing to the inside of the helm. Seems that until my reputation was sufficient to show the quality of my work, the preference was to see things riveted as opposed to welded. I think that is a fine solution to the problem. Several marshals I spoke to agree with me, but this is the West, you should check locally.
Cheers, Erick D.

Red Dragon · Post by **Red Dragon** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:17 pm

I am not sure it is still there, but there used to be a line in the rules about grills and face plates that they need to be attached to the outside, "unless of superior workmanship." Since most marshals are not qualified to judge the workmanship, they often went with the reputation of the armorer.

I do not think that the helm is unsafe as designed. I cannot say that I like it, but I do not think that it is unsafe.

------------------
Conor
Red Dragon Armoury
You should serve your boredom, unless you can make your boredom serve you.

Britehelm · Post by **Britehelm** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:08 pm

I have fought with a helm with Sinrics idea for a faceplate. I used a faceplate that was similar but with a little more decorative profile. The cheek extensions work like a dream. Mine are rivited in so I can not tell how it would act if they were welded. Structurely I have had no problems. Make them out of 14 guage and you should not have any problems either. I used the leather that I attached my camail with to hide the rivits for the cheek pieces. Hope this helps.
Alexander

------------------
He conquers who endures.

Lord William Avery · Post by **Lord William Avery** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Galvyn:
...I showed pictures of Sinric's klappviser to one SCA knight and he claimed that the cheek plates would have the exact problems that you described. They would be weak and not legal.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the rules as long as things are riveted properly (I forgot the exact distance between rivets) it is legal. If this was NOT the case then why do we have so many Spangenhelms on the field?

------------------
Data Fata Secitus

Directory of S.C.A. Armouries & Armouring Supplies

Persona / Culture Research Links

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:38 pm

I did an SCA Klappvisor bascinet for Otto von Achen and the solution we settled on was to narrow the face opening a bit while widening the visor slightly as well. Esentially the same approach Sinric used except that the extra material on the skull was not attatched seperately. Once the aventail is attatched the narrower face opening isn't apparent and the extra width on the visor isn't really noticeable unless you're really looking for it ( IMO anyway)

If your looking to do a helmet for rigid LH specs I would suspect that these modifications wont really fly and your best solution would be to do as Chef suggests and have two seperate helmets. Very few helmets made to accurate period specs will really meet SCA regs. Great Helms being one of the few exceptions.

Pietro da Montalcino · Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:23 pm

From the debate over welded or riveted I'm guessing it would not be possible to attach the cheek plates in a removable fashion.
I won't be using the helm for living history but I want it to look as accurate as I can pull off for SCA combat. I'd like to be able to wear it without the visor and not have it look bad. I could make a padded aventail for under the chainmaille aventail to help cover the cheek plates.
It may be a while before I make or have the helm made but I just wanted to try and work out as many details as I could.

Pietro

Pietro da Montalcino · Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:15 pm

Ambrogio · Post by **Ambrogio** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 3:18 am

I have made 4 or 5 bascinets with different versions of this solution and to my knowledge there has never been any complaints from the marshalls or the owners. Some are made from plates and some are made from bars, all of them were riveted in place.
If you want a removable chin plate why dont you just bolt it in place? The mail would cover the boltheads.

Vogeljager · Post by **Vogeljager** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:46 am

Any weakness in the design would not come from the helm/cheek joint (I'm sure most armourers know how to make a secure welded or rivited join) but rather from the fact that the "cheeks" under the aventail don't have any support and are likely to flex or bend.

This could allow a cheek plate to hit the face or unseat the visor allowing it to hit the face.

Connecting the cheeks at the chin would vastly strengthen the face.
It's the same logic behind SCA barbutes - All SCA versions I have seen have a few small bars in the front slot to prevent the cheeks from flexing open or closed.

Pietro da Montalcino · Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:57 pm

Would it be possible to use nuts and bolts to keep the cheekplates in place? I have some strange urge to be able to remove the cheekplates easily every so often.

Pietro

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 10:42 pm

Close helms and armets of historical accuracy are usually sca legal all by themselves as well.

Nuts and bolts are normally NOT SCA legal. check your kingdom's Marshal's Handbook for specific rules. Ansteorra says that non-permanant rivets aren't allowed for structural purposes, for example.