Okay Jeffrey this is the short list for plackarts as most of my books are packed up for the move to a new house.

1)Osprey "Wars Of The Roses" plate C figure 3
2)Osprey "Orleans 1429" page 38 a detail from a French illustration of "Alexander besieging Tyre" middle figure wearing chapel de fer.
3)Osprey "The Swiss at War 13000-1500" plate F figure 1 and page 33 showing "contemporary paonting of Burgundian troops in action c.1470. Both the archer and fellow throwing what appears to be a hand grenade have on plackards over brig or maille
4)Osprey "Armies of Medieval Burgundy 1364-1477" plate G figure 2 and plate H figure 1 (this figure actually has a very similar strapping layout to what we use although thats not why we did it. Why we did it is in the write up for the item which you didn't bother to read . It allows it to be worn over the B&B plate we make). Also page 33 middle panel " details from the Reliquary of St. Ursala by Hans Membling c. 1494 the archer has on a plackard over a quilted coat with cross strapping
5)Osprey "German Medeival Armies 1300-1500" plate G figure 3

These figures/images wear plackards alone or over maille,quilting, or brig not as part of a plate 2 pc. breast plate and two of the examples utilize similar strap layouts to ours but as i've stated before you don't seem to have read the write up for the item or you would have know why we have it.

Sallet, the original we worked froms in the write up. I fact theres a picture of the two together . The dimentions are identicle to the original but with a more high gothic feel.

Ringmaille, multiple theories as to what it was this was when mentioned in inventories of the time which I thought you were aware of but if I have to spend this evening digging throught packed books rather than painting my house so I can dig up my copies of books about it I guess I will. If its "fantasy" as you say so's the Atlantean and Beastmaster swords so whats your point?

Edge beveling , or as you call them"shaprened " edges. A common feature for the edges of articulating plates as can be seen on the Maximillian leg c.1530 and the two lower lames of a pauldron c.1570 we posted here in the past and on loads of other original pieces i've had over the years but its plainly visibly in photos in many books or just by going to a museum and looking at the pieces there. Created a better deflecting angle to shead blows but you knew that right.

Rolled edges on the top of the plackard. Ummm.. yeah user safety . The edges of articulating plates face out and are of no danger to the wearer which isn't the case here and since our basis was multiple, multiple period illustrations besides those sighted we made the call in favor of the user.

Jean and Patrick asked for sources which i'd be interested in as well and you still haven't sighted them. Perhaps Jeff you had better just PM them to me as this thread is already pretty far of topic . The guy asked about bucklers not if any one felt like running down a bussiness.

For the sake of decorum I will be stapping out of this thread completely so things don't get goofy.

At the request of Chuck Russell this post has been seperated from it's original thread so as to more clearly discuss it.

Oh, I have a plackard by M.T. and the " Sharp " edges are at the top of lames and are cut at an angle so that when one try to wedge the point of a sword between the lames there is less purchase for the point than if the plate edge was at 90 degrees.

Yes if feels sharp and yes I was concerned about it when I got the plackard but Allan explained the above it made sense.

One point thought is that I have not had any problems with accidental cuts because you almost have to do it on purpose to cut yourself as these edges are only on edges that overlap and all other exposed edges are rolled.

I should finally get a digital camera in a month or so and will try to put together shots of my various armour pieces mixed and matched.

I have this piece as well and have had no problems from it. It is a little wide but I am slender and it is not a custom piece. For the money paid, I'm very happy with it.

Hello all,

I don't want to get off topic or start any trouble, but I've had a chance to handle most of the original armour that the MT has collected and used in the design of their lines of armour. It is my belief that they are staying true to the originals in design and concept, and updateing the lines as they learn more: an example would be the new kite shield or the revised demi-gauntlets....I have an original pair and can plainly see the revision.I can post pics if someone likes.

Just thought I'd add my 2cents for whats its worth.

Jay said:I have also had the oppertunity to examine the armor in MT's collection and seen how the designs are incorporated into MT's work. One of the challanges that Alan and co. face is that they're making pieces to fit the masses. Period armor was generally made specifically for the customer and based on that person's measurements.

Jay thank for bringing this up. This is in large part myth especially when plate became common. This is not to say that the finest harnesses weren't custom made but Graz isn't full of custome armour its full of munitions armour. In the pictures posted by Blaz a while back in a thread on Graz theres a picture of stacks of gorgets a dozen to a stack bundled together on a table maybe 12 stacks in all. Theres a picture of a hallway 80-90 feet long one wall of which is floor to celing three or four deep with the exact same breast and back plates. The Negrolis makers of the finest parade armours of the 16th century , probably ever really, were doing large contracts for 100's of corslets , as well as helmets for the wars in France (for which they were in court a few times as it was illegal to ship armour to France) . These were contracts for munitions armour for the average soldier. Theres plenty of custom makers in the modern market place in fact everone seems to be a custom maker but theres not really much out there to fill the munitions portion so common during the time period today. We're just trying to serve that part of the market.

Jay to an extent your on the money with the Maximilian annology. If you look at our 15th century leg we could replicate the fluting ect. of the Maximilian leg you saw this summer but your talking about a whole different price point to do it. Doesn't mean we might not take it on in the future ( I see what your saying about that being your point now) but its the difference in cost between the leg harness of the guy who employs some one and the guy he employs. Our focus is the guy employed because honestly its the sort of militaria thats always fascinated me the most. The more used stuff was wheather medieval ,WWI or WWII the better I liked it and that means the average guy employed it for the most part. The focus for armour tends to be the glamour full harness rather than the slag which is the average schmuck. We dig the average schmuck because he used his gear and left his history behind by doing it. Pristine's great to some extent but boring in others because your don't get the individuality that comes from the use one person puts it through and the extra history thats transmited through that use. Guess thats why average guy gear fascinates us and is what we seek to replicate inside the confines of how modern man makes use of antiquated technology.

(Other issues addressed by PM)

Yes, the armor for the common soldier in Graz is an impressive collection, showing how the armor for common soldiers may not be as ornate as that worn by the rich, but it was still well-made. Here's an example piece:

[ Linked Image ]

See the clean lines are and how well-fit the articulations are? No wide gaps there. And see how it's shaped so it'll fit the body? The armor in Graz isn't dashed out, nor is it one-size-fits-all. There are multiple sizes there and you'd presume there was an intent to fit the wearers well.

It's all in the details. I've handled some original (munitions) Black & white maximilian armor in a private collection-shaped much like the breastplate here.There was a roughness to the surface (in the black areas), but the parts all fit well. For example, the edges of the lames weren't just ground of in a bevel - there was an actual curve to that edge so that it added structurally to the armor while reducing the opportunity for a weapon to find purchase. And those edges fit tightly against the plate it overlapped.

All of this fine work for the common man. There's an oft-mis-represented aspect of what actual historical craftsmanship was like. Especially in earlier periods. steel/iron were precious, labor was cheap and weapons and armor were made by professional craftsmen. Not all craftsmen were artists, but they made their products well.

I have both custom and off-the-rack armour by Allan and I can tell you (from someone that actually uses the armour for what it was designed for) that his work is spot-on, looks great, and functions as the original pieces did.

Before someone says that I haven't worn "good" armour, pieces of my jousting kits in the past (and present) have been made by Valerius (full kit) , William Hurt (Age of Armour) (full kit and custom helm), GK Armoury , Armour and Castings, Clif Basset, John "Shark" Perry, among various others.

I have been jousting and swordfighting for over 20 years and Allan's armour is a great deal for the money.

I got to inspect some of MT's armour at last year's WMAW. Some of the pieces were pretty good, some not as good.

For instance, their Battle of Visby gauntlets were fantastic. Very rough looking, but the articulation was smooth and seamless, as good as some of the high end custom gauntlets I've seen but with a much rougher finish. The gloves used inside are modern, and I talked to Allan about this, who did so to keep the price down. I'm still tempted to get a pair for WMA use.

That said, Jeff is right about the lines and proportions of the gear. It doesn't look like period munitions grade armour, it looks like modern made armour being sold off the rack... which is exactly what it is. The plackard only bares a casual resemblance to any period piece I've ever seen, and appears to use more modern shortcuts that I've seen on SCA styled armour than on armour geared to someone who wants historical accuracy. Most likely to keep it in the reasonably priced range. Functional? Yes. Historically accurate? Very loosely.

That sallet... well, it looks like nothing I've ever seen outside of the antique example pictured next to it. And I must admit, I'm very doubtful that's a medieval antique... I strongly suspect that it's a Victorian repro. But that's just my guess based on a picture. Regardless, I find that the gap between the visor and the helm is really wide, much more so than any original I've ever seen, and that's an easy place for a weapon to get caught.

The occulars on most of the helms seem really big as well, something common in modern made armour but rare in originals.

The ringmaille really is fantasy. While I know there are some theories about it, they are sketchy at best, generally being based on unclear period illustrations. Even if there was hard evidence of such armour, MT uses modern rivets, modern O rings and modern buckles, so it would still be considered fantasy. Is it wrong to do so? Well, that's up to the customer. But I will say it definately isn't historical, and I personally wouldn't mind seeing something on Albion's site acknowledging this.

In the end my opinion echoes both sides of the arguments that have already come up. MT is catering to an audience who wants off the rack armour and is concerned with having functional armour for modern contact activities (be it WMA or SCA or what ever), but is less interested in historical accuracy than, say, a living history participant or even a collector who is interested in authenticity over anything else. I don't see anything wrong with this. (and quite frankly, I've dealt with custom, and there is something to be said about buying off the rack instead) Like everything, the customer needs to do research first and decide whether this product is for them or not.

Bill;

So I think the argument is more what M.T. armour should be called: It is munitions type armour but not strictly a copy of historical munitions armour, rather the " modern " equivalent .

L.H. grade munitions armour made exactly like the period munitions armour would cost almost as much to make making custom armour IMHO.

It serve a market niche and as long as one uses looser than L.H. criteria it works for me.

Looking through my reference books I do see Sallets that seem TO ME similar in basic lines with the ocular being formed by the top edge of the visor. ( Not sure if this was / is the main thing that seems OFF to you ? ) A lot of other have oculars cut into the movable visor. If I look at just the profile of the piece it looks good to me, the front view, in the photos of it, looks a bit odd to my eye forming a flattened diamond shape rather than a rectangle or flattened hexagon.

The width of the ocular may be too wide but the shape of the ocular and size is something that should be easy to redesign in a way that would making it look better ( Historical ??? ) and in a way that wouldn't increase the cost of production.

Now sending Allan a P.M. with specific documented design suggestions would just be giving him useful feedback.
In the case of Lloyd: Practical USER feedback by someone whose life and limb may depend on sound construction.

In any case when I say that his Sallet looks good to me in general shape when I compare it to my references is something that depends on my limited experience in the sense that a true expert will see the smallest " error " at a glance. Seeing subtle nuances comes with deeper study :D Having a graphics and arts background I may be reacting more to the general shapes than to any detail inaccuracies.

In any case, if this Sallet is completely wrong I need detailed explanations of why i.e. This curve should be convex instead of concave or this edge should be rolled or not, or the dome of the skull is too ........ something or other, :confused: :lol:

Jeff;

Just the hazzards of written communication: Face to face we might have an animated discussion, might make each other mad or actually agree on some points or agree to disagree and then just enjoy a good meal and a beer. :D

( I would hope the last option :) )

I think people are confusing MT's intentions. They never call themselves "historically accurate." Their blurb on Albion's site calls their wares "historically based," which is a term whose definition can vary quite widely. What they are doing is trying to balance price and historical design elements while trying to hit their target price niche. To expect complete historical accuracy at this price point is not realistic. I think they do a good job for the price range, but my needs and standards are different from other people's.

To assume that everyone's definition of "munitions grade" is the same is also a stretch. "Munitions Grade" is a term that will mean different things to different people. In reading through their site and their info on Albion's site, I don't see any deceptive or misleading claims.

The bottom line: if they don't meet your needs or the needs of your group, then look elsewhere for your purchases. Their stuff obviously meets the needs of their customers or they wouldn't be in business. It's okay if they don't meet your needs. But it doesn't their render product worthless to everyone simply because it doesn't have value to you or meet your definitions/needs.

We can debate till we're blue in the face about the historical accuracy of most wares made today of modern materials and with the advantages of electrical power. :)

That's the problem with intent and interpretation.

Until I read this thread I was misinterpreting historically based to mean histrorically accuate in the MT context. This is my problem but once I make that incorrect assumption it can cause other problems because I will not mange my expectations correctly.

People,

Is it really that important what MT calls their product? As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. Instead of overthinking the semantics of a company's sales pitch wouldn't it be more productive to simply decide if the product is suitable to your indiviual needs?