Given the recent thread discussing a sallet and its authenticity, I thought I would post this, a 19th century close helmet by Ernst Schmidt (see the features section for article on this maker). Obviously it would be better to see in person, but I thought that there might be some value in seeing a good 19th century copy, and to see its patination.

Jonathan

---

 Attachment: 159.58 KB

Ernst got what most during the Victorian era missed. A ton of Victorian work got, and really only understood, appearance, which in large part was fine, as hanging on a wall looking like what it was supposed to be was all that was required, not that it actually function as well, that wasn't the purpose in use. The beveled edges of the plates, the planishing marks showing in the patination of the the helmet bowel that can only come from hand planishing, that kind of stuff, seen on originals is what has Ernst's work being a commadity in its own right in the collectors market. A VERY nice helm well worth the money.

That's a very nice example! You can tell that quite a bit of work went into making this piece. The eyeslit is for all intents and purposes far too high up to be functional in a normal field of vision. A combat participant would find himself looking out the breathing slits, and the chin area would be too close for comfort...

In this vein, how much of the arms and armor made for the Eglinton Tournament of 1839 do you
suppose still exists? I remember reading that many of the attendees had gotten extensively
kitted out for the occasion.

Doug Gentner

Torseten, I appologise for having to list the picture numbers (I couldn't get the "link to this picture" thing to work) but, a quick glance through the "Anitque Armour" pics I found pics 48/211, 98/211 and 102-106/211 of some original helms whose occularum are at the same level or higher. The series 102-106 actually appears to be looking up. They are all also shown level as this helm is. I beleive they sit forward on the head to view through the occularum. The Tottenkoff we have is the same way. If you sit it on a table it seems to be looking up, but when put on it rests forward and vision is easy. I think thats the case here as well.

Per the Eglington Tournement.

The Castle Museum has 3 suits used in it. There likely are more. They were old 17th century armouries, repainted and restrapped and readied for the field. There was a book on the tournement but I cannot remember the titleoff hand.

RPM

As for armour from the Eglington Tournament, the Higgins Armoury in Worcester, Mass. has at least one harness, possibly more. They also have a gothic armour by Ernst Schmidt. Construction wise, it is very authentic, with fluting and beautiful piercework. Some of the shapes seem to be a bit "off" though. I'll see if I can scan some of my pictures and post them.

Cheers,
Rob

This helmet, amongst others, has brought up the following thoughts:

I feel fairly comfortable assessing the authenticity of certain antique edged weapons up to a certain point in time (perhaps the 17th century). I am sure I could be fooled, but 13 years of collecting has given me a reasonable feel for things. I have had the fortune to buy from reputable dealers, and the heyday of my collecting was before the internet was widely used for the retail of antique arms and armour. I have therefore been relatively safe in my purchases.

My confidence would be shattered if I was to examine antique armour. I would not know what to look for to determine its authenticity. Patina? Maybe, but there needs to be more to it than that. In addition to a knowledge of the form and function of armour, construction is probably one of the great keys to evaluating a historical specimen. How does the layman gain access to this specialist knowledge? (Rhetorical question)

Antique armour is a less accessible commodity when compared to antique swords. As a result, I perceive the collecting of antique armour to be quite daunting. Does anyone on this forum have experience with antique armour? I would love to see a companion article to the "How to Evaluate a Historical Sword Specimen" article. An article that not only addresses the questions that would be raised by a practitioner of historical swordsmanship or a re-enactor, but also questions that would be raised by someone interested in discerning the differences between modern reproductions (and yes, fakes) and original period armour. I do not have any illusions that an article can replace hands-on experience, but I am sure that something can be gained.