Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why is 14th century reproduction armour so limited in scope? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Robert S. Haile





Joined: 16 Dec 2007

Posts: 126

PostPosted: Sun 15 Jul, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kel Rekuta wrote:
Robert S. Haile wrote:
I myself use a unique single ocular bascinet which I've managed to locate tons of examples of in period art from 1350-1410 (I've included one example c.1375 in an attachment, but would be willing to post more if anyone so requests).


That would be great Robert! Always looking to add to my library. Happy
BTW, could you reference the image you included. I believe it is Italian but I don't recognize the piece.


Unfortunately I don't quite remember what the source of that image was...I do know that I found it here on the myArmoury forums. I don't have terribly long to post at the moment, but I'll throw in a few bits of 14th c. manuscript art I found interesting. Most of these are high resolution and too large to post directly, so I'll just include a few links...

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-22.jpg

The first is from Queste del Saint Graal / Tristan de Léonois (Milan, 1380-1385) and features a man who has been disrobed and is either resting or dead. You can see his arming garment and undershirt on the left and his bascinet, great helm, and other assorted pieces on his right. The great helm appears to be smaller than his bascinet, which I found strange considering that they seem to usually be worn over the bascinet with the visor removed. Is there another document way of wearing a great helm this late?

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/queste-del-sa...ncais/104/

This one's from the same manuscript (which is turning out to be one of my favorites) and depicts a melee at tournament. Lots of fantastic looking swords (Types XV and XVIII) with some very nice looking scent stopper pommels. More amazing looking great helms and surcoats. It appears that wearing surcoats of damask and other rich designs as opposed to traditional coat of arms forms was a popular stylistic alternative.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-12.jpg

Another from the same manuscript. This one features a great helm suspended from a buckle on the back of the knight's surcoat. He's wearing what appears to be a cervelliere or very short bascinet. To answer my own question from the previous commentary, these cervellieres appear to be worn only when a great helm is being worn. You can see in the following two images that the visored bascinets look quite distinct from the skull caps worn with great helms. I'm not quite sure whether these are also worn beneath the great helm or if that was restricted to the cervelliere-esque form. Quite conveniently, the two bottom images are of the same knight wearing both types of bascinet show. The bottom one's shape seems much more suited to go beneath a great helm as it lacks the rather aggressive point present on his regular bascinet. For the record, this man is the same one featured in the disrobed image, with the bascinet larger than his great helm.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...al/2-7.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-13.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-14.jpg

This image features a visored great helm, which I was not aware had stuck around until the 1380's.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-24.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...l/2-21.jpg

Here's some interesting bascinet visors c. 1389 from Codex Vindobonensis 2762 - Wenzel Bible.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat.../328-6.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...328-64.jpg

(This one has a some rather confusing garments as well)

Another from the same source. I particularly like the bascinet with the white feather crest. It reminds me of my own unique bascinet, which I am currently having recreated for me.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniat...328-46.jpg



I will also post my new helm in this thread when it is completed in about a week. It will look nearly identical to the one I owned previously (seen below), but with a few minor aesthetic upgrades as well as some major metallurgical updates. The coronet is going to feature custom cast brass rose rivets in order to coincide with the ancestral English coat of arms I've chosen.



I will try to post some more images in a bit.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sun 15 Jul, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is 14th century reproduction armour so limited in sc         Reply with quote

Jojo Zerach wrote:
Why are people so hesitant to produce anything other than Churburg or Wisby pieces?


Those are well documented and often published pieces. Because of that, they are seen as safe, easy choices for reproduction. To find different things takes a little more work and most people don't put in the effort.

Just my opinion.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jul, 2012 11:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think that there are at least a few related factors in play.

1) Customer expectation: This is related to what Chad posted. What are the most commonly published pieces? Most customers "know" that a 14th century armor looks either like the Churburg or Wisby pieces. Therefore, when they want a 14th century armor what do they want? Something that looks like what they "know" a 14th century piece looks like or something that they have never seen before and doesn't say "14th century" to them? It becomes a vicious cycle.

2) What's out there: What's extant in good enough shape to be worth trying to reproduce? Or do I have to make a bunch of special research trips to collect my own data?

2) What's the incentive: As a maker if I've already worked out the kinks of my Churburg or Wisby reproduction what is my incentive to start making something else? Should I do the research, work through the trial and effort, waste the time and materials and then finally try to market something that the market isn't demanding? Or should I just keep on making what people seem perfectly willing to plunk down money for? If the market demands something different I'll look into making it, otherwise I've got bills to pay.

This isn't confined to armor of course, the same thing applies to swords, scabbards or pretty much other accoutrement. As a custom maker I can / will build anything the customer is willing to pay for, but if I'm a production maker or even a semi-production maker selling stuff mostly off the shelf I'm going to make what sells to the widest possible audience.

The solution as a customer of course is to either go the custom route or alternately generate a demand for a particular type that the market is not currently supplying. A particular customer may think something is cool, but unless there are a bunch of similar customers the market is unlikely to change.

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Reece Nelson




Location: Overland Park KS
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 257

PostPosted: Fri 03 Aug, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Russ Ellis wrote:
I think that there are at least a few related factors in play.

1) Customer expectation: This is related to what Chad posted. What are the most commonly published pieces? Most customers "know" that a 14th century armor looks either like the Churburg or Wisby pieces. Therefore, when they want a 14th century armor what do they want? Something that looks like what they "know" a 14th century piece looks like or something that they have never seen before and doesn't say "14th century" to them? It becomes a vicious cycle.

2) What's out there: What's extant in good enough shape to be worth trying to reproduce? Or do I have to make a bunch of special research trips to collect my own data?

2) What's the incentive: As a maker if I've already worked out the kinks of my Churburg or Wisby reproduction what is my incentive to start making something else? Should I do the research, work through the trial and effort, waste the time and materials and then finally try to market something that the market isn't demanding? Or should I just keep on making what people seem perfectly willing to plunk down money for? If the market demands something different I'll look into making it, otherwise I've got bills to pay.

This isn't confined to armor of course, the same thing applies to swords, scabbards or pretty much other accoutrement. As a custom maker I can / will build anything the customer is willing to pay for, but if I'm a production maker or even a semi-production maker selling stuff mostly off the shelf I'm going to make what sells to the widest possible audience.

The solution as a customer of course is to either go the custom route or alternately generate a demand for a particular type that the market is not currently supplying. A particular customer may think something is cool, but unless there are a bunch of similar customers the market is unlikely to change.


This is just my personal opinion, but if I had the skill to make armour (or whatever else) I would make things that haven't been seen yet on the market, something that will make you stand out from the rest. I personally look for those armourers that not only getting the shaping to look correct, but attempt to create a piece that hasn't been done before. I think its important to continue making what it is that is selling, but also to challenge yourself and bring new light on the variety of styles that were available in the period Happy

I have been learning to make armour and I'v been researching for many examples that you don't see being done much, and thus, make my harness more unique. Tobias Capwell has had several style of harnesses that are not commonly seen and has documented every single piece Happy

-Reece
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Fri 03 Aug, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Reece Nelson wrote:

This is just my personal opinion, but if I had the skill to make armour (or whatever else) I would make things that haven't been seen yet on the market, something that will make you stand out from the rest. I personally look for those armourers that not only getting the shaping to look correct, but attempt to create a piece that hasn't been done before. I think its important to continue making what it is that is selling, but also to challenge yourself and bring new light on the variety of styles that were available in the period Happy

I have been learning to make armour and I'v been researching for many examples that you don't see being done much, and thus, make my harness more unique. Tobias Capwell has had several style of harnesses that are not commonly seen and has documented every single piece Happy

-Reece


Armourers tend to pretty much make what people order. Happy So they don't usually decide to make random, boundary-pushing items if there's no buyer lined up. The creativity of what armourers make is almost entirely a function of what people order.

Dr. Capwell's harnesses are great examples of under-reproduced styles. He did the research and worked with one of the best armourers out there. Would Robert MacPherson opted to make that style without an order to back it up? Not likely. Happy But we had outstanding research by the customer and a maker who could make it happen.

Armourers tend to make what sells when it's not a custom order. What sells are often safe, easy choices.

I think there's another factor impeding 14th century armour reproduction variety. This century goes from surcoats to jupons and it's often hard to know exactly what was underneath. The Wisby and Churburg pieces are known quantities from an era where you usually can't see beneath the heraldic outer fabrics.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Michael R. Mann




Location: Germany
Joined: 26 Jun 2012

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug, 2012 7:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

We have meanwhile searched around why the Dutch Armour isn't (really) known in Germany althought several documents mention and images show these armours.

The reason in this case was:
This kind of armour (see post of Josh from Sat 14 Jul, 2012) is a very special kind of a Brigandine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine (engl.). In Germany it's rather called as a Übergangsrüstung (transitional armour), in another group the term "(Early) White Armour" for such a type of armour was mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alwite_of_W...oeheim.jpg , This armour was described by Wendelin Boeheim.
Such a transitional armours existed in Germany in different types.

So it seems the description of the armour as a Dutch Armour isn't quite correct.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why is 14th century reproduction armour so limited in scope?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum