[Robert MacPherson]

I spent some time yesterday looking at pics and thinking. The more I look, the more I think that there were several ways of fitting mail hoods. Some use separate flaps, but others seem to just gather up, or tuck in, the looseness of the facial edge.

I am struck by the similarity between how the artist has treated the hoods here .....


......and how this hood has been gathered and tucked.



Both of these things are dealing with the same issue. That is, how to make a hood that both fits closely to the face, and can be made to fall back when not in use.

Has anyone tried anything like this? I imagine the "cap" of the hood to be attached to the lower part with a cross grain joint. This takes the artist quite literally.

I have some doodlings in my notebook about how this might work. I will try to make up a presentable sketch and post it today or tomorrow.

Mac

[Mart Shearer]

I've done a 90 degree join at the brow line when making a copy of the Sankt Maurice of Magdeburg coif with the square panels. It can certainly be done that way. The statue has gilt paint on that brow band, which might be interpreted as some sort of latten rings, or as the color of the band itself--'cause he's a saint and all. The profile certainly makes it look like a cervelliere could be under the mail, or it could simply be cinched tight over padding. IIRC the laces at the bottom are red.

http://www.medievalart.org.uk/Germany2007/Mag...C_0306.jpg

[Brian Robson]

I honestly can't think of any reason to alternate the direction of the weave at the brow, my only conclusion was that an additional layer of mail was added either on the top or bottom half.. The top makes some sense if no helmet is worn under (or over!) - but the bottom makes more sense if a helmet is worn - so that's what I went for..

There are also plenty of depictions showing this kind of break in weave direction, but with it looking like a bend in direction at the back of the head - like on William Marshall here (5th/6th one down):

http://www.themcs.org/armour/14th%20century%20armour.htm

I wonder if this was simply a tube extending up from the hauberk and 'bent' over the head so the opening is at the face - then closed up slightly with a cord encircling the opening...

See ways to wear a buff and consider that a buff is simply a tube - specifically the balaclava style..:

http://blog.tiso.com/2012/02/buff-dont-leave-home-without-it/

But I guess that was probably another style altogether..

And I'm speculating on yet another possible style too:
I was also thinking this morning about some images that show a v-necked opening where they sides of the coif seem to cross each other (one going behind the other) and wonder if this was another design.. While also looking at the effigy posted by Harry earlier in this thread and carefully looking at the strange direction of the weave at the left of the chin - there appears to be a 'line' coming from the side of the neck, coming up to the bottom edge of the opening under the mouth and then goes up the other side of the face.. I was wondering if the other side of that coif was the same shape, but wrapped under neath, giving 2 layers at the neck... They would be pulled up together at the chin by the cord lining the face-opening...

[Brian Robson]

Edited - double post.

[Mart Shearer]

Here's another peculiar looking example. It's another reason why I try to shy away from any suggestion of "the" right way to tailor a coif, since I suspect there were many methods. Of course some will argue that the depictions aren't realistic enough to use for such detailed reconstruction.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/bible-avranches-bm-ms03/4018/


One of the problems in interpretation after surcoats arrive on the scene is in determining if the coif is still attached to the hauberk, or is a separate piece with the mantle beneath the cloth. The ventail sometimes appears on separate coifs as well, as seen in ONB 2554's fo37r, so in itself is not proof that the coif is attached.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/bible-moralis...2554/3828/ (The fellow with green tunic and yellow surcoat)

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/bible-moralis...2554/3830/ (The fellow in the green tunic)

Likewise, the fact that the coif is pulled "back" instead of "off" is not proof that the coif is attached rather than separate, as the club-wielding man on the left shows.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/aschaffenburg...ms13/1409/

[Mart Shearer]

[Mart Shearer]

I've tried to go through effigiesandbrasses.com and tag both "ventail" for the single-side examples as well as "mail coif, doffed" to go along with the manuscript examples.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/?tags="ventail"
[url]http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/?tags="mail coif, doffed"[/url]

The best example of the dropped single-side ventail seems to come from the effigy of 'Hugo II, Lord of Heusden, kastelein of Gent (+1232)'. Roel Renmans has again provided us with excellent photographs.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilami/1637...530183550/
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/hugo_ii/

The extended turtleneck/buff form is well seen in the effigy of Robert de Roos, as previously noted.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/robert_de_roos/

Some seem clearly split at the center front, while others do not.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/guerin_de_friaize/

While I was at it, I also tagged the peculiarly English "flat-top coif". Whether this an arming coif shape, or a helmet beneath the mail is open to debate.
[url]http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/?tags="flat-top coif"[/url]
There's also some garters, belts and through-ring cinching systems under "mail laces".
[url]http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/?tags="mail laces"[/url]

[Robert MacPherson]

I find two things compelling about the idea of a change of direction at the "hatband" level.

The first is about interpretation of art. Artists are, of course, prone to taking shortcuts in their work. There job is to give the feeling of a thing, but not necessarily supply every detail. An artist is more likely to leave out a constructional detail than to invent one. If an artist has goon out of his way to show a change of mail direction, I am inclined to consider that he might be showing us something real. The fact that the change happen in a nice neat line out in the open, rather than (say) concealed under a surcoat, belies a deliberateness that makes it more likely to be real.

If we take the artist of the Maciejowski bible in particular, we see great attention to detail. Unlike most medieval representations, this artist has shown the direction of the mail in the sleeves to be the way that is in all (?) surviving examples. This makes me feel pretty good about trusting his details concerning the direction of the mail in the hoods.

The second thing is a practical matter about working with mail. If the mail the goes from temple to temple and across the chin all one continuous row, it is possible to put it in tension in a way that is not possible if there are "corners" at the bottom of the facial opening.

Sketches to follow......I have been "on a roll" with Doug Strong's illustrations, and have not found the time to sketch out my ideas about the mail.

Mac

[Harry Marinakis]

[Robert MacPherson]

I have been doodling and thinking. I am no longer convinced that the change of direction at the "hatband line" is critical. I am beginning to think that there are a couple of different possibilities.

I continue the think that the facial edge gets folded and tucked in, but I am at the limits of what I can imagine and sketch. I need to have a mail hood to modify and experiment with.

This will have to go in the back burner until I have more time to play around with it as a real 3D thing. I will probably pick up a cheepy at Pennsic and return to this in the fall.


Mac

[Corey Skriletz]

So I took the advice of Mr. Marechal, and ordered some rings from the same guy who made my maille hauberk to begin with. This is how she looks now, and I'm very pleased. I know that it isn't very Norman to have a separate coif and hauberk, but when I make my new surcoat I'll make it so I can just wear the coif under it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bullets4brains/8945554796/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/bullets4brains/8945553940/

The only problem I have with my new look is form the profile. I'm not a fan of how the rings on my chin flap outward. But I'm still pretty happy with it.

[Mart Shearer]

It appears that your face opening is square, with the same number of open rings across the brow as the chin. This is likely the cause for the falling open at the chin. If the bottom is loose when you pull it over your nose, it is too big. You should taper the corners of the face opening too as is done on the Edinburgh coif, and Wisby Inv. No 175 30 A2. This will leave about half the number of open rings at the chin as at the brow. That is to say the face opening should appear as an uneven octagon rather than as a square.

[James Barker]

I recently did some tailoring on my maille coif. I started by doing a short row where I wanted it to fut right on my chin. It was several links less than the opening that existed in the first place, I did a few rows like than then did and expanding row to match the original opening.

This does not make it fitted under the chin, it just closes the opening up to my chin, fitting it would require some cutting and reworking.

[Brian Robson]

[Mart Shearer]

Stumbled across these ventail depictions today, where the overlapping neck closure might be of interest. I think the artist moves the ventail flap from right to left to make it visible, as it seems they appear on whichever side is facing the viewer.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7100723j/f46.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7100723j/f161.item

[Eric S]

No everyone agrees that this is actually a completely separate coif, I interpret this artists rendering of a mail coif as having a flap under the chin and neck which wraps around and hooks on the side allowing the appearance of being one piece. I have examined a few authentic mail coifs and I do not see any way to achieve a form fitting coif with out being either drawn tight with lacing or having some sort of flap which can be wrapped around the chin and neck area,.....just my personal opinion.

[Mart Shearer]

I'm not sure why Blair would think the coif was attached to the pair of plates in some way. I generally agree that the only way to get form fitting around the chin is through lacing (at the rear like the Edinburgh coif, or at the neck) or a ventail, both of which can appear on separate coifs as well as integrated ones. The Magdeburg St. Maurice shows no sign of a ventail in my opinion. The lace or band immediately below the gilt or latten rings is evident. The edging around the face is also seen in the Peterborough Psalter. I don't think the change of direction in the mail is sufficient evidence for a ventail.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4748/10670/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4748/10672/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4195/13151/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4937/14857/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4937/14858/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4937/14874/

[Mart Shearer]

Here's an image of the martyrdom of St. Eustace and his family. I'm not sure if this is an artist's error, or evidence of dual layers of mail.
BNF Français 412, fo. 209r, 1285, Hainaut, Belgium
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84259980/f427.item

[Elliot R.]

I want to apply a similar modification to my allthebeststuff coif that I purchased a few months ago with a hauberk and chausses. I plan to add some sort of ventail with the excess maille that I trimmed off of the hulkingly large aventail.

[Stephen Curtin]

Hmm. That's a strange configuration Mart. Initially I was thinking that this must be an artistic mistake, but how often did these guys make mistakes?