[W. Schütz]

About the issue of prices: I recently bought a Sallet that was beautiful, detailed and had a great sturdy feel to it and just great all together. This helmet i payed about 300€ for. And on other armour-pages i see "similar" helmets for up to 1500€. So now im wondering, what is the vast difference between good/adequate armour-pieces and these fantastically priced ones(who i for one would never dare to fight in..)? I ofcourse understand that people can charge and value using old-time methods and other things making it more difficult to produce, but what im wondering is the actual quality. FOr instance a historically correct riveted chainmail will be both better looking, much harder to produce AND take abuse, wear and tear (and after all thats what armour is made to do..) better then say a mail from calcutta..

[Nathan Robinson]

How do you define good and adequate? It really depends on how trained your eye is to form, shape, and volume. It also depends on how well you're versed in the finer points of construction methodology. Without seeing two specific examples to compare, it's difficult to define what makes one valued higher than the other.

[Chuck Russell]

the first difference is the maker, you pay for the armourers mark too, just like everything else

the second is if the skull of the helm is 1 peice raised or 2 or more pieces welded togeher. most cheaper (by cheaper i mean under 800 bucks) are more than 1 piece welded together. raised is more historical, harder to do, takes more time=more money.

[W. Schütz]

Ok, i guess i can refrase to make it very easy; what is the biggest difference between normally priced armour from say Clang Armoury and really pricy stuff from say www.living-history.no? And i mean in terms of other then pure esthetics.

[Nathan Robinson]

One must also consider that the term, "pure aesthetics" doesn't mean much. At the very best, it's ill-defined. It could mean polish and finish quality or ot could mean form, shape, and volume. These are quite different things, though each refer to the piece's general apperance, or aesthetic qualities. Each would be significantly different factors in price determination.

For example, let's consider an ill-shaped helm as an example. What if a person made a two-piece helm of welded construction that is a poorly shaped form and lacking the subtle accurate shaping of a quality research piece.This piece was finely finished to an even-applied satin finish with no visible dents or imperfections of finish.

Now let's compare that to another helm that was created by a maker who's spent a significant amount of time doing research on authentic samples and perfecting his craft making him able to replicate those fine shapes. He's raised the helm from a single piece, rather than using welded-construction. The subtle shaping matches that of of an example found in a museum he had studied. Fine details are present, but the overall polish on this one was left rough with hammer marks, pitting, and many other imperfections visible.

Which one is more valuable to you?

[W. Schütz]

What i meant was "other differences then those who please the eye", the ability to take abuse, weight to "sturdiness" ratio and other things you would care about if you treated armour like a weapon of war rather then a collectors-item that most do. Maybe its hard to explain what conclusions im trying to reach..id best get me one of those 1500€ helmet and compare...;/

[Chuck Russell]

ok well the first thing is your compairing norway to american currency?
1,500.00 NOKNorway Kroner = 221.000 USD United States Dollars


where as american
$240USD


pretty much the same price. now its not supposed to be the same helmet but its a spangen cronical. its the location that makes the price seem higher.

both armourers in question have the form and function down pretty good. i've never seen the pieces from teh norway armourer up close, but i've been to Clang's shop a number of times and the guy is good. hehehe he's even got the cluter of robert macpherson's shop down hahahaha

[Bill Grandy]

[W. Schütz]

[Chuck Russell]