myArmoury.com - What did a mail coif really look and work like?

Posts: 1,302 Location: Jackson, MS, USA

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 8:14 am

Ventails appear on separate mail coifs in the 13th century ONB Cod. 2554, and on this Bulgarian coif of questioned provenience.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...mp;t=89515

[ Linked Image ]
Photobucket image

One simple way to keep the coif tight under the chin would be to use a lace. Here's a 13th century example showing a lace at the neck, and another to hold the square lappet down.
http://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/pageview/165567

Attachment: 81.57 KB
Karlsruhe 410 fo14v-coif.jpg

Profile PM

Mart Shearer

Quote

Posts: 1,302 Location: Jackson, MS, USA

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 8:49 am

Robert Rootslane wrote:

By the way, do you think a coif would be cheaper? I imagine it would take more work than a simple helmet, and also quite a similar amount of material.

Remnants of nearly 200 mail coifs were discovered at the mass graves at Wisby, making the mail coif the most common armor discovered. No helmets were discovered at Wisby, and it could be that removing them was easy, while removing a coif from a bloated corpse wasn't worth the effort, seeming to point out in both cases that mail coifs were readily affordable, if not cheap.

Interestingly enough, some coifs were discovered in situ with the mantles tucked under the coat of plates. There was some discussion on previous pages of whether the mail coif might have been "tucked in" beneath a hauberk or surcoat to help keep it from being removed in combat (thus giving the illusion that it is part of the hauberk).

Profile PM

Bartek Strojek

Quote

Posts: 496 Location: Poland

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 9:33 am

Stephen Curtin wrote:

A thought just occurred to me guys (me, thinking, strange I know), but often mail coifs and ventails covered a lot of the face, sometimes leaving only the area around the eyes uncovered. My question is how protective do you guys think that mail would be to the face area? I'm guessing that for breathability and comfort the padding was minimal, and even if it wasn't any projectile or melee weapon would at least smash teeth and facial bones.

Smashed teeth or even bones are perfectly survivable, and facial bones are not that fragile anyway.

While axe embed into said bones would generally not be survivable at all, even with modern medicine, so there would be definite profit at least, I guess.

Profile PM

Mart Shearer

Quote

Posts: 1,302 Location: Jackson, MS, USA

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 11:22 am

[ Linked Image ]

No one wants two jaws..

Profile PM

Luka Borscak

Quote

Posts: 2,307 Location: Croatia

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 4:38 pm

Luka Borscak wrote:

Stephen Curtin wrote:

Hi S. Sebok, very nice coif, I wish I had the money to commission a piece from Erik. I can't see it in your pictures but I'm assuming that your coif is laced up at the back to tighten it, is this correct?

A thought just occurred to me guys (me, thinking, strange I know), but often mail coifs and ventails covered a lot of the face, sometimes leaving only the area around the eyes uncovered. My question is how protective do you guys think that mail would be to the face area? I'm guessing that for breathability and comfort the padding was minimal, and even if it wasn't any projectile or melee weapon would at least smash teeth and facial bones.

Still better than just a nasal helm without a coif. Or better than nothing at all if you couldn't afford a helm but you could a coif.

Judging by how many men at arms on some 12th or 13th century pictures have coifs and how many helms, I would say coifs were cheaper...

Profile PM

Brian Robson

Quote

Posts: 185

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 5:13 pm

I think that some styles of coif may have ventails that were much bigger than we usually expect - giving two layers of mail over most of the face. With just a thin layer of linen or leather between the mail and the face (at least the part not covered by an arming cap and collar), gices surprisingly good protectoin. Here's my interpretation (which I've shown on this forum before):

http://dawnofchivalry.wikispaces.com/Mail+Coif+-+Biro%27s+project

I like the idea that seperate coifs may have been more common than we think due to 'tucking them in', and the reasoning makes sense to me. I also like the thought that the move to seperate coifs may have partially been to provide an additional layer of mail on the upper chest - if you look at late 13c images of knights charging with a lance, you see them leaning forward slightly - with the head ducked forward. So it stands to reason that any incoming strikes to the face are going to glance off the helm downwards - and land in the upper part of the chest. I'd certainly want two layers there!

Profile PM

S. Sebok

Quote

Posts: 82

Wed 28 Nov, 2012 8:37 pm

Stephen Curtin wrote:

Hi S. Sebok, very nice coif, I wish I had the money to commission a piece from Erik. I can't see it in your pictures but I'm assuming that your coif is laced up at the back to tighten it, is this correct?

A thought just occurred to me guys (me, thinking, strange I know), but often mail coifs and ventails covered a lot of the face, sometimes leaving only the area around the eyes uncovered. My question is how protective do you guys think that mail would be to the face area? I'm guessing that for breathability and comfort the padding was minimal, and even if it wasn't any projectile or melee weapon would at least smash teeth and facial bones.

Yeah, it has strings in the back that allow me to tighten it up, still unsure on how to use them. I got the coif used from a rather nice person at Days of Knights named Jesse Bailey who gave it to me for a very good deal. It fits my head fine without tightening the laces. I dont think I could ever afford a brand new maille piece made by Erik. It's wedge riveted with round rings, though some rings ARE flattened and the ends of it are brass flat rings. I think it's an early 14th century coif, not sure though. I want more maille made by him but I guess that will have to wait for now.

Profile PM

Mart Shearer

Quote

Posts: 1,302 Location: Jackson, MS, USA

Thu 29 Nov, 2012 7:49 am

http://www.djurfeldt.com/patrik/cupps_i.html

A Swedish analysis of the Wisby coifs. The Edinburgh example is the only one I'm aware of which has a slit in the back.

Profile PM

Nathan Quarantillo

Quote

Posts: 279 Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA

Fri 30 Nov, 2012 8:19 pm

Here's my coif, which is actually Mr Sebok's old coif. It's a GDFB, with no ring expansions or true shape. My modifications were to add the ventaille, and the shaping to my head is exclusively done with leather ties along the rings. I'm very happy with how it turned out. :)

Attachment: 40.03 KB
Teutonic maille1.jpg

Attachment: 38.63 KB
Teutonic maille2.jpg

Profile PM

Dylan Moniz

Quote

Posts: 1 Location: Ontario

Sun 05 Aug, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: What did a mail coif really look and work like?

Sander Marechal wrote:

I have been looking at several coifs and at pictures from e.g. the Morgan bible, but it doesn't rhyme for me. Pretty much all the reproduction coifs I found are very loose fitting garments that leave a lot of the face exposed. I've attached one such example. Another example is the coif worn by Margot in the girl armour thread. But when I look at e.g. the Morgan Bible I see much closer fitting coifs that leave a lot less of the face exposed.

I have found that in some manuscripts from the first half of the 14th century some loose fitted coifs are depicted, if your main interest is in the mid 13th century as it seems to me than this might not be too helpful, but it is interesting none the less, was this A short lived style or experiment? We may never know.

Attachment: 33.81 KB

Profile PM