Alright, after some fooling around I have split imaged the two mails. My penny is still a smidge bigger than Eric's, which means my mail is a further smidge smaller yet, but it shows better the diffference in size. Eric's is mighty fine, but mine is finer still!

---

 Attachment: 165.79 KB

Putting calipers to screen, and doing a little division, it looks like James rings are right around 4 mm outer diameter.

I am putting some information from a thread on this forum and a thread from another forum together here. Mart posted some information on Wade Allens hauberk M2. ( http://www.allenantiques.com/M-2.html ) It is a long horsemans type with a split up the front and back, all European wedge riveted mail, it has been suggested that the mail is 14th or early 15th (possibly Milanese).


I noticed a similarity between Wade Allens M2 hauberk and three other hauberks that I know of, these were also of the same type with a long split up the front and back. All four have some similarities and differences, it has been suggested that possibly all or some of these hauberks were either made for or sold to the Indo-Persian market. There is evidence of trade between European countries and several Indo-Persian countries in both arms and armor.

All four have a long front and back split and a split at the collar, three of the hauberks have similar standing leather collars, all four appear to be made with wedge riveted mail with one of the four having alternating wedge rivets and solid links, two have a wide flat area at the top of the front and back splits which looks typically Indo-Persian. The outer rivet heads on all four hauberks are very worn, to the point that the metal appears to be smooth and the rivet heads look like small rounded bumps instead of being pronounced, showing age and use. So far two of the hauberks have been said to possibly be constructed with Italian mail with a time period ranging from 14th or early 15th century on one to 15th to 16th century for the other, two have no opinions yet on age or origin. Two have been weighed one was 16 lbs, the other 18 lbs.


Here are some photographs of the four hauberks along with some detailed images of the links.

Wade Allens hauberk M2 is top left.
[ Linked Image ]




#1. Wade Allens M2, 16 lbs.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]





#2. Wedge riveted with alternating solid links, 18 lbs.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]





#3. [ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]





#4. [ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

Just realized I posted the wrong link earlier. Here's the right one. http://www.livinghistory.cz/node/426 For the ring sizes, I think the first number is outside diameter for riveted, second number is for solids, and last two is wire thickness for both.

Of rival size, plus having the complication of interwoven scales, is the Roman lorica hamata squamataque (mail and scale armor) -- H. R. Robinson's "plumata". Here's the Newstead find:
[ Linked Image ]

Here are a couple of pics showing a link I kept track of with a red 'twisty tie', which, I think, give us some clues as to how the rivets were handled.

---

 Attachment: 100.82 KB



 Attachment: 199.48 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 358.17 KB
[ Download ]

James,

I found a ring like that on one of Wade Allen's mail sleeves. It's remarkable that the rivet is still there, even though it has never been properly squashed. It suggests that the rivets are jammed it pretty hard I (somehow) before the final setting process.

In both this example and the one from Wade's collection, the exposed base of the rivet seems surprisingly large. I guess that goes to show what I don't know about mail rivets. :confused:

Mac

In this detail (just to the left of the ring with the rivet hanging out) we can see the base of a rivet which appears not to have been spread at all in the setting. I get the impression that we can see the original dimensions of the base of the rivet as well as those of the slot it was installed into.

[ Linked Image ]

Mac

What I find interesting in that pic, Eric is that we seem to be seeing the un-deformed original size of the rivet and its slot. I'm excited because his tells us something about the process and the tools. I suspect that this particular rivet was too narrow, and thus entered the slot all the way. This left nothing at all sticking out the back to be upset by the setting process. By contrast, the one that James marked looks like the rivet is much wider.

As you say, the tapered shape makes it so that the rivets jam in the slots. I think that they usually jam with just a bit of material sticking out the back. This excess gets upset and otherwise smooshed down in the setting process to produce that smooth, almost featureless look on the back.

Mac

It's true, Eric. Looking at the others, I am no longer so sure that my favorite one is all that pristine. It looks like it might have gotten squeezed a bit narrower in the setting process.

Mac

I got some photos of holes from missing and sprung rivets last June at Wade's. (Thanks to Tom Biliter for placing the mm scale!) The drifts seem to have been ground to a trapezoidal section or a very flat pentagon. When filled with a nearly rectangular rivet section, these usually leave a sharp corner visible on the inside of the ring, and sometimes a slit to either side of the rivet head on the outside.

---

 Attachment: 92.94 KB

Allen M-2

 Attachment: 104.8 KB

Allen M-2

 Attachment: 115.43 KB

Allen M-4

Those are great pics, guys!

It goes to show how much volume the wedge-rivet contributes to the joint. It also shows how much deformation it must undergo during the setting.

Mac