Hi all,

I'm very interested in getting a bascinet with a visor like that shown in Ralph Stafford's effigy for use in a c. 1340-1350 SCA kit.

#4 guy here:
http://www.kriegsturm.com/albums/album10/English_knights.jpg

And this effigy:
http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/2006%20M...0%2079.jpg

So, my question is, does anyone have any idea what that visor might look like three dimensionally?

I'm going to have the armourer do an arrangement like this for the swivel:

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll288/Blackfather/IMG_0820.jpg

But would like to have the visor look somewhat different than the round-faced klappvisors that seem to be everywhere, and like the look of good Lord Ralph's helm.

Thanks for the help!

Ben

Bump?

No one?

Here's a wonderful reproduction made by Ugo Serrano. I believe his inspiration was German, but the visor shape is definitely about what you're after, I'd say.

Cheers!

-Gregory

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

Yeah, I've seen plenty of these and similar, but they really don't seem to be quite the same thing as what's seen in that effigy, although this one is closer than any I've ever seen before. It looks like the one in the effigy continues down to cover the whole throat with plate.

I think it's just an exaggerated, stylized depiction of the lower part of the visor. In practice, such a design would be highly restrictive to vertical movement of the neck and chin.

I considered that it might just be artistic license, but artistic license on that scale (that's a pretty major modification of the visor for no apparent reason) in an art form that's intended to be lifelike doesn't seem like a particularly watertight hypothesis.

Thanks! Are there any extant bascinet visors from 1350ish and before in England? I'm aware of several slightly later of the pointed houndskull variety, but I'm much more interested in the types that predate that development.

I guess my thought, unformed and untested thought it may be, is that this might be a relatively broad plate (perhaps not as broad as you've rendered) that might give some extra protection to the neck during jousting, or in some other way functioned similarly to deflect attacks incoming frontally away from the neck that's relatively exposed under mail, which may or may not stop either a thrust from a dedicated thrusting weapon or the mass strike of even a blunted lance.

I edited the second portion of my post to reflect my uncertainty in the jousting scenario. I'm fairly certain it would hold up with a more seasoned or knowledgeable patron, though! Some input there would be jolly welcome.

As for its practicality in combat, I can see that being quite so! The area below the visor where the neck was only covered by the loose extension of the aventail and possibly a bit of padding around the top of the gambeson in the form of an upright collar, would be considered one of the most vital points of contact on a man-at-arms wearing a full harness. The point I made about discomfort upon impact in such situations would hardly outweigh the benefit of its being used in war to protect a wearer from life-threatening situations.

To make two more critical notes regarding conjecture here - the vast majority of men-at-arms during the fourteenth century still used great helms during the joust, under which they would wear a visorless bascinet or a "cervielles," resembling a steel cap that covered only the top of the head. Also, during the course of this war-torn period, 1350 being so soon after the battle of Crecy and the surrounding campaigns into France, most English gentlemen were likely depicted wearing their gear of war on their effigies. So there's no reason to associate a bascinet under these circumstances with jousting for two reasons.

-Gregory

Dear Mr. Mudd,

A search of the forum using the keyword "klappvisor" turned up twenty-two threads. You might also try the alternative spelling "klappvisier", with which I didn't bother. Photos of at least a couple of surviving originals that may be similar to the style for which you're looking, one from an auction house and one in the Royal Armouries at Leeds, appear in this thread. No doubt there are others; I seem to recall some iconographic representations of similar visor designs, but again didn't look for them in this quick review.

I hope that this proves helpful.

Sincerely,

Mark Millman

Its for lifting the visor up. The visor shown in the thread Mark referenced, third post down, second and third pics is quite virtually identicle to Ugo's. The helmet shown in the 9th post down, second pic has a similar, but slighly smaller projection.

Two problems, though.

First, all of those are, to the best of my knowledge, still firmly dated to the later 14th century. I've seen plenty of those.

Second, while many such helms have a small knob or projection by which to life the visor, none have what seems to be an attempt at an integral, functional gorget as seen on the Stafford helm and a similar helm in the effigy brass of Thomas Beauchamp. Equating the two without an argument to explain the massive artistic license required to go from one to the other seems somewhat silly, in my opinion.

Now whether that strange plate for the front of the neck would actually do you any good is a whole different question. Would it give much protection or just get in your way? Very similar (or at least they look similar to me, in a broad sort of way) sorts of protections are seen integrated into later helms, so I feel that the concept is at least a good try, but the later versions are articulated and made of several plates for mobility. It really seems, though, that there is no more information about what I want and that it's therefore up to guesswork. :(

Ben,
If you look at monumental brasses (not the same as effigies) a lot, you'll find artistic license in terms of proportions and other things quite frequently. Heads and/or hands will be too large or too small for the body, the men will be contorted into S-shapes none of us make on a daily basis, wasp-waists will be exaggerated, etc. Brasses (which you've been showing) are 2D representations and run the gamut from pretty accurate from a proportional standpoint to ludicrously skewed.

While I think it's possible this is some early attempt at throat protection, I think it's much more likely to be an exaggeration of visor forms people have show you in this thread already.

If you want more info on brasses, you can check this out:

[ Linked Image ]
Monumental Brasses
An article by Chad Arnow

Thanks very much for that information. Good to be able to read more and learn more. :)

That being said, I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you. Take a close look at the brass of Thomas Beauchamp that I linked in the previous post--it would appear, to me at least, that the artist is making a very clear attempt to show a wide, three dimensional plate projecting from the bottom of the visor. There's actually a lot more dimensionality than in the Stafford brass.

I'm not saying the proportions are necessarily correct, or really accurate to life, but I will say that it looks to me that the artist is trying to depict a plate coming down off the front of the helmet, with roughly the same lateral curve as the visor. Look at the area encircled in red, that appears to me to be a perspective view (crudely rendered, maybe, but to my eye clear enough) of the inside of the plate.

The possibility that it's an exaggeration or made up by the artist is possible, but that doesn't seem to fit the trend of the style of that particular piece or of 14th century art in general. The proportions of the artwork show the body of the man as it was idealized at the time--this is to be expected. The lance is short so that it fits in the frame. These are normal things that you see pretty commonly, yes? The depiction of his visor, on the other hand, seems to be restricted to these two effigies, both from Elsing (I don't know their history, though, or where they were made so place of current deposition might be irrelevant), and seems to be large and intentional. I guess the gut problem I have with that is that exaggerating helmet visors doesn't seem to be part of the style of the time, and the artist would (correct me if I'm wrong, here) be making this for the family of the man, or possibly the man himself shortly before his death, who in any case are very familiar with his armour. So why chose that particular part to overemphasize to such a degree, when the people who ordered it would look at it and probably see something wrong, not something that's just "the way we draw a man to make him look nice to us."

That's my reasoning, or the short version anyway.

EDITS: Urgh, me no do grammar good before coffee. (Hits self on head with club). Sorry if I missed any important little words that I left out in the first go.

Dear Mr. Mudd,

On Tuesday 2 February 2010, you wrote:

Two problems, though. First, all of those are, to the best of my knowledge, still firmly dated to the later 14th century. I've seen plenty of those.

I'm afraid that Mr. Senefelder, who refers to the second and third images in that post, is not thinking of the same kind of visor that I am. But that's not the issue, I think. The Stafford brass dates the appearance of this visor design. In your initial post, you asked:

Quote:

So, my question is, does anyone have any idea what that visor might look like three dimensionally?

And the thread to which I linked gives a plausible analogue for the construction seen on the Stafford brass and in the image to which you linked. In fact, on review, I notice that the first visor in this style (which is shown in the first image of the third post) is dated to c. 1350, exactly at the period in which you're interested. It's unfortunate that more complete information on it isn't readily available. With the visors to which I refer, foreshortening could make their free ends appear to taper when lifted, as shown in the brass and the image. By the way, as the image is almost certainly drawn from the Stafford brass, I think its chief value may be as a possibly clearer version of the image on the brass, if the artist has been faithful to his source. If he hasn't, then it's that much less helpful, and may be altogether useless.

However, if you can find the iconographic representations to which I referred earlier, you may be able to find both closer approaches to the visor shown on the Stafford brass and more dating information for the visor style.

Quote:

Second, while many such helms have a small knob or projection by which to life the visor, none have what seems to be an attempt at an integral, functional gorget as seen on the Stafford helm and a similar helm in the effigy brass of Thomas Beauchamp. Equating the two without an argument to explain the massive artistic license required to go from one to the other seems somewhat silly, in my opinion.

The extended bottom of the visor to which I refer is hardly "a small knob or projection", and would seem perfectly capable of covering the length of the throat like a gorget.

Quote:

Now whether that strange plate for the front of the neck would actually do you any good is a whole different question. Would it give much protection or just get in your way? Very similar (or at least they look similar to me, in a broad sort of way) sorts of protections are seen integrated into later helms, so I feel that the concept is at least a good try, but the later versions are articulated and made of several plates for mobility. It really seems, though, that there is no more information about what I want and that it's therefore up to guesswork. :(

I would respectfully disagree with this conclusion. If we know what the construction was like--and clearly I think that the information to determine it is available--then we can test it and get an answer that's better than simple guesswork. But this doesn't address your initial inquiry.

Very sincerely,

Mark Millman