I'm not so much interested in making it myself. I'm interested in why reproduction mail looks different then real mail.

I'm still a bit vague on the watershed. Do you perhaps have some pictures of reproduction mail that does have a watershed? E.g. Erik's mail? I find the pictures of the original mail a bit hard to interpret because... well... laying around in a bog or stuck in clay for five centuries has also had it's effect on the metal. If I know what real mail should look like when it's new, then I think I have a much better understanding.

Here is a closeup of Erik's German wedge-riveted mail.

---

 Attachment: 67.48 KB

Here is his reconstruction of Roman mail (round-sectioned round-riveted, alternating with punched solid links).

---

 Attachment: 57.83 KB

Hey guyz,
I wanted throw in my opinion too. I have been lookin around at historical maille and this is my opinion. I feel that true accuracy is an unattainable goal, even if each and every item is made from scratch (trying to adhere to what we know in terms of construction technique) using all period tools and materials, we still will not have something 100% accurate. So I feel like we must content ourselves with not being perfectly accurate, but do our best to get as close as we can. If we simply go with the idea, "It's never going to be accurate, lets go for what we feel like." we end up with people wearing T-shirts and butted aluminum maille. If someone strives for accuracy it is better, is it not? Let's say one person goes and makes a kyrtle utilizing a pattern from an archeological find, 100% wool, hand-sewn, and with a historical colour, it will be very very close to being accurate, but it may not have been hand dyed with woad and hand woven. It will look almost right, but not be 100% accurate. Now compare that to a person that takes some bright blue, stretch cotton, and machine sews it into a vague medieval-esque tunic. Doesn't the first person look better?
The same principle applied to maille in this thread could also be applied to blades. Take, for example, the Albion Brescia Spadona, it's a very nice sword, however the steel was not made in a historical furnace, the leather grip has string under it when it shouldn't...etc...etc... Even my Patrick Barta sword was not perfect. Perfection is unattainable, frankly I am sure even Erik's maille is not 100% perfect. Nothing ever will be perfectly accurate, thus I feel that each person should do his or her best to get as accurate as he or she can. If the best he can do is Indian mail, than that is the best he can do, and a well made mild steel riveted shirt is a lot closer to being accurate than say butted aluminum mail.
Z

p.s. guys, to contrast the pics of Erik’s maille I attatched some of the same type of Indian maille

---

 Attachment: 21.04 KB

Flat riveted maille

 Attachment: 31.81 KB

Round rivited and flat solid "Roman" maille

I don't particulary care what type of mail people buy. The Indian mail has plenty of uses and is lighter and stronger than the butted stuff people used to wear. My problem is when people try and claim that it has any relevance to the mail that was worn historically - hence the title of this thread.

Dan,

Reenactment use does not bother me to a certain extent as there is a real need for people to get into mail for the medieval period and my guess is only a fraction of reenactors could afford Erik's mail shirts. The lack of men (and women) wearing mail in many cases really ruins the general look that should be present in especially late medieval events. My goal eventually is to have a nice shirt made by Erik but I'm still a long ways off at the moment. For me Indian mail is heads and shoulders better than the butted stuff that still is everywhere. I did buy a heavier suit of Indian mail and have replaced a few loose rivets but am happy with it in general. It's links size and design and rivets work for my time period close enough and has a nice grey-black look that reminds me of several period suits in look though as you point out performance likely would be lacking... I spent enough on this that I likely will not try to find out on purpose.

The use for testing is indeed an issue for the same reasons you posted. I agree 100% there is little reason to try testing on such mail suits.

RPM

This has been a great thread. But.............I do have to thrown down a comment. I have both butted round ring mild steel and the made in India riveted flat ring. IMHO it is not always a clear cut case that the riveted is always better even if it looks better from 10 feet away. Depends on the application (fighting vs re-enactment vs living history). There can be problems with the Indian riveted mail because the rings themselves seem to be punched out of sheet, then cut , overlapped and riveted. Often the rings are very sharp. I had a haugergeon of 9mm 3,4 years ago - and it was ridiculous sharp. I can't tell you how many times I cut the bridge of my nose, or the top of my forehead or my hands with that haubergeon. I had people cut themselves on that thing just by coming up to pat me on the shoulder. Many of the rivets also fell out. Every time I pulled it out I would notice a few more rivets in the bottom of the pillowcase I stored it in. I got rid of it. I did eventually replace it with a 6mm haubergeon which seems to be a lot better although you still have to careful with it taking it on and off and it too has lost a fair number of rivets (good luck finding the empty rivet holes on a 6mm shirt - talk about needle in a haystack!).

I have known people who have gone "all out" on hand sewn linen clothes arming garments and hose etc, only to have their $1000 super cool and accurate undergarments completely shredded by that Indian made mail in two, three, outings.

As for playing around or fighting in mail, as David said, I don't have people actually trying to skewer me dead with a sharp, or shoot a bodkin into me so for certain applications I prefer butted round - e.g. for my mail skirt. The flat ring riveted skirts I have tried have all just shredded and scratched the hell out of everything underneath it. OTOH I have that 6mm flat riveted stuff for living history, because I admit, it does look more accurate within about 10 feet or so. I just got hold of some 9mm voiders and they seem not too bad although I have not tried them out yet. My point is that I think the quality on that Indian made mail can vary a lot. tr

I do have to agree with both sides of the argument here. I do respect that most maille used by reenactors and such is not 100% historical. But as has been stated, this is in fact unattainable w/o stealing from a museum or private collection. I believe that it is worthwhile to attain riveted maille for living history or educational purposes.
A favorite maxim of mine is "Even if perfection is unattainable, there is no reason to hope for the best and try anyway." same philosophy.

anyway, is the german ulfbert flat-ring stuff sharp? I plan on buying a set of that.

"but there is a scale of authenticity. "

I have to agree with Zac's comment,
its kind of like, "Let him without innacuracy cast the first stone." The thing is, as someone else pointed out, it kind of depends on what you intend to use said piece of re-created armour (or indeed weaponry) for. Yes if you have a scientific, metallurgical or academic reason for wanting to "Accurately" re-produce an item then fair enough, I myself am a re enactor, who owns simple butted mail, indeed I believe, from India, however I am more than capable and willing to impart this info to a curious spectator, whilst explaining the methods of construction of the original and the materials used.

The thing is, Whilst my fellow re-enactment group members and I, strive to achieve high standards of Authenticity, non of us have dysentary, or ground down teeth from eating bread containing grit from the quernstone. Neither do we have headlice, or live in smoke filled hovels. So where do we draw the line in terms of 'Authenticity'

Essentially, there has to be a 'Scale of Authenticity', where common sense prevails. The knowledge and discretion of the items owner should dictate the level of 'Inaccuracy' tolerable for the specific given situation. What is an acceptable standard for a museum or lecture full of academic historians may not be for an audience of 10year olds and vice versa.


Bruce