[Bill Grandy]

I believe Steve Sheldon at Forth Armory designed the maille, and has an Indian contractor make it. He does custom stuff himself, though. But since he imports the majority of it, it might mean that others are able now to also import it.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

[Bill Grandy]

[Adam R]

Stephen Brown from GDFB sent me this e-mail, I thought I'd post it here, he's fine with that.

[Alexi Goranov]

Hi Adam,

I hope that you encouraged Stephen to become involved. I did. And I was the one that pointed him in the direction of myArmoury, as I though he might want to see what people say and think about his products. I think that tis is only fair. As I mentioned earlier, he sent me a sample of his new mail, so I am pretty exited about that.

Cheers,

Alexi

[Erik D. Schmid]

You are correct Bill. Steve Sheldon designed a process for mass producing riveted mail for the reenactment market. He has an Indian company produce it for him, but he still does the custom work himself.

The mail offered by GDFB does not look much different than that being sold by Von Sussen Enterprises and looks to be less expensive.

Adam R., the small piece of mail you have pictured looks identical to that offered by Forth-Armoury. Even the tooling marks look the same. Is it from GDFB?

[Adam R]

Alexi,
Sadly my sample slipped from it's envelope
I'm glad it looks good though.
Erik,
The second posted pic of mine is a photo of one of GDFBs samples taken by someone whose envelope was luckier than mine. Any machining marks will be down to the similarities in thew process I'm guessing, there are only so many ways to make the stuff after all.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Thank you Adam. In that case then they are using the same type of tools that are being used to make the stuff for Forth Armoury. They may be their own tools, but the design was obviously taken from Forth's. As for their being only so many ways to make the stuff you are somewhat correct. However, there are more than one might think if you wish to make it accurate looking. The problem is that none of them offer themselves to mass production easily. At least not in todays society anyway.

[Alexi Goranov]

So I got my sample mail from GRFB, and it is very nice. (Few pictures included).

The rings are flat 1.2mm thick, 1.8mm wide, 8mm inner diameter. There are 32 rings in the sample and it feels very light. I will weigh it with high precession (analytical balance) tomorrow and give you an accurate wight so that one can get an approximation of how much a hauberk will weigh. The design is very similar (I would say identical judging by the pics from Forth-armoury) to that of forth-armoury. The rivets are wedge like. The color is very pleasing. I do not think that my pictures do it justice. So at ~$700, that might be the cheapest quality mail out there.

Cheers,

Alexi

[Alexi Goranov]

As I promissed, here is the weight of the mail sample: 13.88g (0.0306lb) per 32 links.

So 10 000 links will weigh (4.34kg, or 9.56lb)
15 000 links will weigh (6.51kg or 14.34lb)
20 000 links will weigh (8.68kg or 19.12lb)
etc.

Hope that helps,

Alexi

[Adam R]

My sample of GDFB arrived late last week. Excellent.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Adam, the reason I stated that GDFB seems to have copied the tool style from Forth Armoury is because the resulting links are identical to those being produced from tools designed by Steve. He was the first to have riveted mail mass produced that looked like this. I also have tools that do the same job, but they don't look the same because I designed my own tools based off of what original mail looked like. If I wanted to copy Steve's mail I could, but why would I want to? Now, you are correct that the flattenning process is the same for both of these companies and will produce the same type of link. However, it is the rivet setting tools that give the lapped area its final shape. Because GDFB's links look identical to Steve's and because Steve's was the first of this type to hit the market I can only conclude that GDFB copied the tool design from Steve.

I would have had no problem with GDFB until they made the comment that the tools for their mail were their own design. If that had been the case why not make tools that can more accurately create the look of original mail rather than copying a modern reproduction? I am not trying to argue with you, but rather trying to get you to see where I am coming from.

[Stephen Brown]

Hello All
I would just like to clear up a few points.
I did not design the dies for the rings, I do not have the expertise, but I did pay to have them made.
After a visit to The Royal Armouries at Leeds with the Armourer I am working with I was informed that the rings presently available had an I.D. whch was too large. After much discussion with people who know I was advised to reduce the I.D. to the size we have now. Also the question of historical accuracy is subject to personal opinion but I like the idea that the items that exist from the 14th and 15th c have had considerable wear and may not resemble the dimentions they were when originally made, i.e. the rings have a slight radius on the edges.
Erik.
If you think the shape of the rings should be changed in any way to improve them I will gladly listen to your ideas and pass them around my advice team for their thoughts on the matter.
I am not a re-enactor so I rely on the advice of others, yours would be welcome Erik.
Historical accuracy balanced with common sense is what I try to achieve by talking to those who know the subject.
When I started supplying Re-enactors last year I took items to exhibitions and asked how to improve them to make them suitable for the groups, this attitude met with universal praise and I am now producing goods that people can use which are both afordable and safe.
This has happened by people talking to me and not about me.
Now that you know I am hear please feel free to direct questions to me or email me direct or even use the old fashioned method of communucation and pick up the telephone.
I look forward to learning more from this great discussion board.

Well done Nathan.

Best wishes to all

Stephen

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello Erik,
Knowing that you are very well informed of the appearance and dynamics of authentic maile; I am very interested to hear the difference in appearance between authentic and modern maile links. I would find this enormously interesting.

[Adam R]

[Stephen Brown]

hello all
Could someone point me to where I said "GDFB designed the rings" I do not think I have ever said that.
What I have said is that we have had dies made, these have been done to the spec requested by people who have the historical knowlege.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Alright, this could be a long response.

Stephen, the two statments you made regarding your links were:

1.The flat ring maille is made using our own dies and not bought from a company currently supplying the market. We invest in our own company and therefore are able to keep greater control on our costs.

2. I did not design the dies for the rings, I do not have the expertise, but I did pay to have them made.

This is what I was referring to in my previous responses. Your toolmaker copied tools which are already in use to create links identical to ones already being marketed. This does not refer to the diameter of the link, but rather the lapped portion where the rivet is. This is the part of the link that takes the most effort in order to get it to look correct. Meaning how it compares to original pieces. The process being used by your people and by those who make the mail being sold through Forth Armouries and by Andy Goddard in Glasgow does not yield a link that will pass as an original one. This is not meant as a slam on you or them. I have had this same discussion with Steve Sheldon and we both agree.

The problem is that if you were to use a process that would give you an accurate looking link, the cost of production would be much, much higher. This is because you would have to have a considerably larger workforce in order to be able to produce a decent quantity of mail garments. That said the items that you are all producing are far and above the butted mail that is so abundant.

Now Stephen, you also wanted to know about manufacturing processes in order to yield a more accurate looking link. This will also help to answer Jeremy's question as well.

Now, there are three ways to manufacture a mail link. The process that is used will be dictated by what type of link you are looking to create. The three types of links are:

1) Ends lapped and then flattened.
2) Ends lapped and then the entire link flattened.
3) Entire link flattened before ends are lapped.

In each of the above processes the flattening of the lapped ends is very minor. The reason being is that if they are flattened too much there will not be enough material for the setting tongs to shape. The problem with this is that it requires a good deal of skill to be able to pierce a lapped area that is roughly 1.5 - 2mm wide. This is in regards to wire that is about 1.3mm thick. Obviously the width of the lapped area will change depending on what the starting thickness of the wire is.

Another problem with mass-producing mail is that originally there were quite a few different types. Mail that was used during the Roman era would not be suitable for someone with a transitional harness and vice versa. What you have to do is find a happy medium and stick with it. Most people today can get by with flattened link mail quite easily, so that would seem to be your best option. Keeping the inner diameter under 6-7mm is also a good idea. I would have your tools redesigned so that the rivet head comes out round rather than being oblong. Look over the pictures of original links here. As I said before you most likely will not be able to create museum quality links as the process does yield itself to mass production in todays world that well.

As for historical accuracy being subject to personal opinion I would have to agree. However, that said there are plenty of original mail pieces left for us to study that are in excellent condition. They give us a starting point with which we can compare other links to that may not be in the best shape. Also, after 7 years of research and several hundred thousand links I feel that I have a fairly decent grasp of what mail should look like. Whether or not people listen to what I have to say is up to them. Although judging by the posts regarding mail on the various fora most seem to be of the opinion I'm full of crap.

Anyway, does this help any of you at all?

[Alexi Goranov]

Hi Erik,

yes this is helpful even to us, the consumers. And long responses are not necessarily bad (I personally appreciate the in depth discussions).

So what I gather is that the modern mass produced riveted mail falls short mostly in the design/geometry of the overlap of the link ends. How about the link shape? The consensus so far is that the flattened links are more authentic. Are there surviving examples of round shaped links?

Also are there surviving examples of mail with wedge-like rivets?

Thanks,

Alexi

[Allan Senefelder]

Hey Alexi I hope this will be about the same thing Eric would have to say , the "wedge shaped rivet " of which you speak is not a rivet but actually a small triangular wedge of metal . The base of the triangle prevents it from passing through the hole drifted through the flattened ends of the ring and the point which protrudes from the other side is peined to lock the ring closed . The European mail i've handled/owned has all been of slightly flattened cross section . I've owned alot of
Indo -Persian maille/maille and plates and in the later suits i've owned the use of riveted rings with only the rivet point flattened is as common as those with the whole ring of flattened cross section . Aventails/ventails on Indo-Persian helmets ( khula khud ) seem to almost always be of butted links however while the maille hood/helm ( khula zhira ) is
almost always riveted .

[Stephen Brown]

Hi Erik
Thanks for the info and as for those who say you are full of crap, I find that it is people envious of knowlege who make remarks like that.
Stephen