Or the Maciejowski Bible examples:
[ Linked Image ]

Fabric armors were worn both above and beneath mail, as well as independently from the second half of the 12th century through the 16th century.

Here are some designs for future projects:

I haven't yet come across any pictorial evidence of a "Type 3" coif though. Would it be unreasonable to have the face covered at times?

---

 Attachment: 105.32 KB

Some Flemish sources also mention Jacks/Gambesons as being made by a guild. I am not sure if the fact that you could possible make it yourself makes is that more attractive to do so. The late medieval period, like ours, had a consumer culture in which skilled professionals with equipment keep production time and cost down, then there is the whole guild regulations thing.

I think the main attraction of it was that it was cheap regardless of whether you had it made for your or made it yourself.

Randal Storey's thesis:
http://virtuabis.free.fr/Technology%20and%20M...ngland.pdf

Quote:

APPENDIX I Average Prices of English Arms from the years 1294-1339 (in pence) Item....................Average...........Low..........High..........Sample Size Aketon................67d..................12d...........160d......... 60 Pair of plates......167d................27d............320d.........12 Gambeson.........28d......................................................06 Hauberk.............138d.................60d...........264d..........14

The wide variety in costs of pairs of plates can be explained by covering (e.g. hemp or fustian vs. silk velvet), iron nails of silver, quality of the metal in the plates.
The variety in the cost of hauberks (lorica) can be explained by varying degrees of coverage (e.g. long sleeves with mittens vs. short sleeves), ring size (smaller rings require much more labor), and type of metal (wrought iron vs. steel).
The variety in costs of aketons can be explained by variants in facing material (e.g. canvas vs. silk or leather), and stuffing material (e.g. layers of linen vs. raw cotton, Tanners, rags, etc.).

Why gambesons should only average 42% the costs of aketons is more difficult to explain. Perhaps they were sleeveless and shorter, or not stuffed nearly as thickly? But the sample size is small, which might skew results downward.

Certainly prices could be much higher. Consider the aketons and gambesons inventoried from John fitz Marmaduke, obit 1311.
https://books.google.com/books?id=meoU4_UxKcgC

Quote:

INVENTARIUM BONORUM DOMINI JOHANNIS MARMADUK (obit.1311) Apud Sylkesworth j aketon coopertum cam viridi samet xl s j gaimbeson rubeum cum tribus cathenis argenteis l s j gaimbeson cum alleccys liij s iiij d j aketon rubeum cum manucis de Balayn xl s j gaimbeson cooper tum de panno cerico xl s

@12d per shilling

Inventory Goods of Sir John fitz Marmaduke (obit.1311)
in Silksworth

1 Aketon covered with green samite, 40 shillings (480d)
1 Red gambeson with three silver chains, 50 s (600d)
1 gambeson with alleccys(?), 53s 4d (640d)
(Latin root allec is pickled herring, perhaps from the Gr. root for the name Alexis, a protector?)
1 red aketon with sleeves of baleen, 40s (480d)
1 gambeson also covered with silk cloth, 40s 480d

Both gambesons and aketons are listed at similar inflated values. Some of the costs may have been from hardware:

Quote:

Joynters pro j gaimbeson de argento xviijd

Jointers (buckles?) for 1 gambeson, of silver 18d