Dont get me wrong, I`m not defending the Sallet and saying genuine, probably is a fake or an old copy or maybe even ancient but Its good. You say different in shapes and proportions, surely all helmets were not identical !!! The Maybe copy has a higher visor, less rivets and no rivets for strap and differant tail, Also has been said old helmets were 2 plus mm thick, not true, I have examened many Burgonets and lobstertails that have been 1 - 1.50 mm thick and lobstertails with many dents.
The Sallet I have was very badly rusted ( dont mean anything I know ) but underneath the grot a lot of hard paint underneath, wired rims, seens a lot of trouble to make if a fake at such a low price....
Last year I purchased a 15th century sword off ebay at a very low price and told genuine by the Leeds Armoury so Items can still be around. To-day I recieved an e-mail from the Leeds Armoury saying they will get in touch for me to take it there and hopefully sort out.
Thanks Tony.

I explained in the last post that there are differances and would say mine has more grace in the chin.

Dents themselves don't necessarily mean it's fake. I've seen pictures of originals with dents.

However, many of these dents look like they were made with a blunt object and are rounded and shallow. That makes me suspicious, though I'm far from an expert. I would expect dents from weapon edges and spikes and warhammer heads to have left sharper creases.

The lower edge of the visor also doesn't look like most I've seen, but I don't know if that's enough to condemn it.

Hello Chad,
I think you have it wrong, I am grateful for the responce from everybody and keen to listen and dont disagree with anybody. I dont have my own opinion as I have said probably A fake, old copy or maybe genuine.
Thanks Tony...

Dents, shallow cuts or punctures don't mean an item is a fake at all. Aside from some items i've owned or own there are a fair number of examples of used original armour in print. "Shiney Shapes" an excellent book from the Graz Armoury that we just picked up is filled with close up pics of helmets showing all of the above in the Graz Armoury collection as one example. I don't mean this as commentary either way on the authenticity of the helms in question, simpley that "evidence of use" in no way is a hallmark of a fake.

Thanks Allan.
Tony...

And what about an almost twin helmet surfacing on ebay for a pittance?

I disagree on thickness, this is not a late period helmet, as for thicknes also the armourer of themarzoli museum thinks the same.

The ebay sallet seems to have a paper thin visor, if the pic is not cheating me.


I examined a barbuta this summer, very little size, I couln't ven enter its lowest part with my modern skull, but beside being almost 2.5 mm it was weighty.

The other helmet from that collection, from a norman to a closed XVI century parade helmet, were heavy and thick.

And they couldn't be certainly be dented like this. Big dents, many dents.

The are several tottenkoff helms in "Shiney Shapes" that have a large area of the skull pounded in from multiple impacts. Additonally while we today view these items as important pieces of history to be treated with reverance this was not always so and alot of this stuff was not treated gently in earlier times as it was seen as so much junk ( Ffoulkes story of suits from a college library being sold off and cut up for scrap comes to mind) leading to further damage. Denting, scoring or puncturing while done in the forgery industry does not in and of itself indicate a fake. Hell i've dropped one or two of my own originals over the years and put a dent in 'em. They're not suddenly fakes because of it and i'm probably not the first person to drop the thing in its history either. Alot can happen over 350-400-450 years, I wouldn't feel comfortable making the statement that dents or certain types of dents means fake but thats just me.

Tony did you get this from Military Bargains U.K on Ebay? Thats where I was going to purchase these from. They sell alot of quality items and I just dont get why one would throw ringers into so much other great stuff.

Chad Arnow wrote:

Quote:

All helmets were not made equally, but most of the antiques I've seen exhibit a little more grace of form.

Chad, thank you for having the eyes to see these subtle, yet very important differences! I couldn't agree more with your observation about the fairly high minimum standard of quality and form of period arms and armour. Many good pieces have exhibited slight asymmetries, yet even the worst examples still had a charming grace to them. This could only be accomplished by a fair amount of skill! I believe that Guilds controlled most of the arms and armour industry in those times, resulting in a fairly well trained work force doing the manufacturing. Striving towards functionality, precision, and aesthetics helped ensure the necessary general reliability of this industry's products, for failures during use usually entailed disasterous consequences for the user. These sallets just do not exhibit such a functional grace, nor do they even exhibit a medium grade of workmanship, helping make their period time of manufacture suspicious.

ps; I'm not a fan of these particular specimens, but they certainly are very cool...

It would be very interesting to focus on build details in the hard to shape areas of the sallets, in order to ascertain whether Victorian or modern manufacturing techniques were used. For instance, the interior under the crest area, and under the pointy nose/ eyeslit juncture would reveal much about methods used, if the corrosion hasn't obliterated everything there. One could judge whether true hot forging or cut-and-weld techniques were used, by looking for weld traces and/ or thickness distributions indicating hot-worked plastic flow. The way in which the rivets were peened would also describe volumes. Sherlock Helms??? Ok, so that was a terrible attempt at humor, lol... my apologies

Hello again, to be fair, I found another pic of the supposed Milanese Sallet, or evil twin sallet, or bowl of sallet.
I am still not conviced either way, real or fake, or slightly real or victorian, or just modern ripoff junk.
Its late and Im waxing philisophical.

---

 Attachment: 15.91 KB

I have just spoken with the Brescia's Marzoli museum armor caretaker and restorer.

His sallets are now in japan for an exhibition.

A good italian sallet is insured against theft, loss or damage for as few as 150.000 euros.


This would be the price of a very good original example from the XV century.

You have three almost copycat examples of the precious Coventry sallet for sale for much, much less.

At this point either you are the luckiest men on earth or yu have been served a copy.

Dents.

The caretaker confirmed my opinion. Original metal wouldn't dent that way, he thinks the above helms are simply theatrical items.

His work is armor restorer.

I`m sure your probably right Bruno. You say an armour restorer, whats does he do, remove dents. ITS A JOKE.
Tony.

Hey Bruno,
forgot to say ( want to buy a Sallet cheap ) lol....

If I may chime in on this subject. In addition to the dents and the rounded (not pointed) tail of this sallet in question, there is another major difference between this sallet and the Coventry sallet. On the Coventry sallet, the visor and brow plate are not forged from the same piece of metal. The brow plate is attached to the front of the helmet and does not move when the visor is raised. On the sallet in question, the brow plate and visor are the same piece of metal. Looking at the location of the pivots, it does not appear the that this visor can be raised very high, possibly not high enough to reveal the whole face when worn. Any thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Rob

I thought this when I had freed it up, But If you pack helmet so eyes are inlign with the slit you can see straight ahead with it lifted but not upwards unless you lift your head !!!!