Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Most authentic(ish) mail for a viking. Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben Joy wrote:
One of the antique suits you even put up had a listed weight of 47lbs, which is still in the same realm as the other two shirts in question. Whether you think it's questionable or not, it's still the recorded weight, and needs to be taken at face value. That 47lb. shirt from Kuwait actually puts it around the same weight as the Ashland shirt .


Ben, that is the Ashland shirt!!! I took the image from the pdf and posted it here. Read the Sugarbaker paper again and refresh your memory. There is not another known antique riveted mail hauberk in the world that even comes close to 47lbs, and until one of found and verified anyone should be highly suspicious of this 47lb weight. You can do whatever math you want based on link size etc but facts are facts, come up with a verifiable example and then we can talk.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben Joy wrote:
One of the antique suits you even put up had a listed weight of 47lbs, which is still in the same realm as the other two shirts in question. Whether you think it's questionable or not, it's still the recorded weight, and needs to be taken at face value. That 47lb. shirt from Kuwait actually puts it around the same weight as the Ashland shirt .


Ben, that is the Ashland shirt!!! I took the image from the pdf and posted it here. Read the Sugarbaker paper again and refresh your memory. There is not another known antique riveted mail hauberk in the world that even comes close to 47lbs, and until one of found and verified anyone should be highly suspicious of this 47lb weight. You can do whatever math you want based on link size etc but facts are facts, come up with a verifiable example and then we can discuss this further.


Ben Joy wrote:
Just because the "average" shirt weighs in at 30ish lbs. doesn't mean that there aren't going to be outlier shirts made that are exceptionally bigger and heavier.

Ben, the "average" antique hauberk does not even come close to 30lbs, take a good look through the images on my European riveted mail page, there are quite a few listed weights, I can not even think of one that weighs over 25lb or so, the exception is the 37lb one, if that is even the correct weight and that one may not be European, James may be able to verify that it actually weighed 37lb. Indian mail and plate shirts are heavier than hauberks, they can approach 30lbs, they have very thick links and heavy steel plates, they are not small or tiny, just holding one up is a chore. No unmounted warrior / soldier would be walking around with a 47lb hauberk for long, last time I checked Vikings were not mounted.

https://www.pinterest.com/worldantiques/european-mail-armor/


Last edited by Eric S on Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric S wrote:
Ben Joy wrote:
One of the antique suits you even put up had a listed weight of 47lbs, which is still in the same realm as the other two shirts in question. Whether you think it's questionable or not, it's still the recorded weight, and needs to be taken at face value. That 47lb. shirt from Kuwait actually puts it around the same weight as the Ashland shirt .


Ben, that is the Ashland shirt!!! I took the image from the pdf and posted it here. Read the Sugarbaker paper again and refresh your memory. There is not another known antique riveted mail hauberk in the world that even comes close to 47lbs, and until one of found and verified anyone should be highly suspicious of this 47lb weight. You can do whatever math you want based on link size etc but facts are facts, come up with a verifiable example and then we can talk.


I already did make real comparisons that validate it. If you don't want to acknowledge it, just because it's compared to a non-antique reproduction, then that's up to you. We agree to disagree and move on. However, you've presented no suits of armor that include detailed dimensions, measurements, and weights to make comparisons with. Also, you shoot yourself in your own foot, because the Kuwait shirt you list is coming in at 47lbs . . . Ashalnd shirt or not; and you're refusing to acknowledge it and list the weight as "questionable" strictly because you don't believe it. Again, things like that need to be taken at face value.

You are refusing to acknowledge comparisons strictly because they don't involve antiques. I would think that if one were to turn around and say that nothing is valid because it doesn't involve a true antique then there'd be a whole lot of smiths, armorers, documentary creators, and re-enactors that'd have some serious bones to pick with you.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte


Last edited by Ben Joy on Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:29 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To cover your edit:
Eric S wrote:

Ben Joy wrote:
Just because the "average" shirt weighs in at 30ish lbs. doesn't mean that there aren't going to be outlier shirts made that are exceptionally bigger and heavier.

Ben, the "average" antique hauberk does not even come close to 30lbs, take a good look through the images on my European riveted mail page, there are quite a few listed weights, I can not even think of one that weighs over 25lb or so, the exception is the 37lb one, if that is even the correct weight and that one may not be European, James may be able to verify that it actually weighed 37lb. Indian mail and plate shirts are heavier than hauberks, they can approach 30lbs, they have very thick links and heavy steel plates, they are not small or tiny, just holding one up is a chore. No unmounted warrior / soldier would be walking around with a 47lb hauberk for long, last time I checked Vikings were not mounted.

https://www.pinterest.com/worldantiques/european-mail-armor/


1. Pinterest is not a valid source. Period. Just plain images do not mean anything.

2. Images with just a listed weight are not covering what I'm talking about and cannot be used to make the kind of assessment that I made. Dimensions. Sizes. Metal Gauges. More detailed measurements are required to make a proper analysis and comparison. You can't list an image and say "it's huge and it only weighs this much". That is relative and non-conducive of analysis.

3. You're getting hung up on "average" and assessing that everything must be "average". It's not possible to have outliers, or things that don't match the norm? Again, you list the Kuwait armor that does come in at 47lbs as "questionable" just because you don't agree with it. That, honestly, is a close-minded approach. Here you even have another example that doesn't match the norm and you aren't honestly acknowledging it.

4. Again, you're skipping size and biology here. If it takes 47lbs of steel to cover a very large person, then guess what, he gets to walk around in 47lbs of steel whether he likes it or not. However, when scaled up and placed on the person of relative size that the armor would fit, then he should be able to carry it around and wear it as needed.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben Joy wrote:
Also, you shoot yourself in your own foot, because the Kuwait shirt you list is coming in at 47lbs . . . Ashalnd shirt or not; and you're refusing to acknowledge it and list the weight as "questionable" strictly because you don't believe it. Again, things like that need to be taken at face value.


The Kuwait / Ashland shirt weight is questionable, in any type of serious research when anything is way off the scale you have to question the results, it is part of the process, I have to consider the source and the fact that it is supposedly 10lbs heaver than the heaviest known hauberk in the world. Why not contact Sugarbaker and ask him if he actually weighed the Ashland / Kuwait shirt.

I recently had a very similar episode, someone I know showed a picture of a very rare Japanese kanabo to me, he posted a weight, it is wood with iron studs, somehow it weighed more than a very large all steel Indian mace that I have. He told me he weighed it himself, I asked him the recheck, when he did he found that he did not make sure that his scale was zeroed out / calibrated properly, when he did this and reweighed the kanabo it was several pounds lighter.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 10:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric S wrote:
Ben Joy wrote:
Also, you shoot yourself in your own foot, because the Kuwait shirt you list is coming in at 47lbs . . . Ashalnd shirt or not; and you're refusing to acknowledge it and list the weight as "questionable" strictly because you don't believe it. Again, things like that need to be taken at face value.


The Kuwait / Ashland shirt weight is questionable, in any type of serious research when anything is way off the scale you have to question the results, it is part of the process, I have to consider the source and the fact that it is supposedly 10lbs heaver than the heaviest known hauberk in the world. Why not contact Sugarbaker and ask him if he actually weighed the Ashland / Kuwait shirt.

I recently had a very similar episode, someone I know showed a picture of a very rare Japanese kanabo to me, he posted a weight, it is wood with iron studs, somehow it weighed more than a very large all steel Indian mace that I have. He told me he weighed it himself, I asked him the recheck, when he did he found that he did not make sure that his scale was zeroed out / calibrated properly, when he did this and reweighed the kanabo it was several pounds lighter.


Same can be said for your theories . . . if you won't believe it until you've measured it yourself then see if you can go measure it and do your own detailed assessment of it. I would love to see more full and thorough assessments of armors that have all the detailed measurements and breakdowns of the suits involved. A mere picture and weight doesn't mean much without the measurements . . . especially when the pictures don't even provide anything to give a sense of scale (it blows my mind that more of those pictures don't even have a yard/meter stick in the picture to provide a better sense of scale).

Until you've gone and measured it yourself, you need to take what is said and assessed at face value. However, I've done a detailed breakdown of another suit at a similar weight, from a credible vendor with accurate measurements, and proved that the dimensions and weights both come in at very similar values. Thusly, from that perspective it makes the weight perfectly plausible. There is nothing outside the realm of reality that it is a hauberk made for an exceptionally large person (after all, the Battle Merchant suit, of similar dimension and construction, is their massive XL size), which would make it an exceptionally heavy hauberk.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 11:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben Joy wrote:
Pinterest is not a valid source. Period. Just plain images do not mean anything.

The weights on the hauberks shown on my pinterest site come from museums and auction houses etc, the fact that they are on Pinterest has nothing to do with the validity of an image or its description, it is just a place to host images.

Three hauberks that come from the same part of the world, with very similar shapes and link types but somehow one is 20lbs or more heavier than the other two......im just saying.

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 3:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've PMd Sugarbaker on another group to see how the measurement was obtained. Maybe he'll respond. Clearly something like a postal scale or even a scale at a grocery store is more accurate than a bathroom scale. It would be nice if he had noted how the measurements were obtained, but even I have failed to mention which tools I have used, or when I start rounding numbers. (Really, do we need to know within a thousandth of a millimeter how thick the wire is?)

I think it is important to remember that most things have a range within that pesky bell curve. And while the majority of things fall within two deviations, there's always some small percent of object which fall at the extremes, both high and low. As a percent, is the Ashland weight any further from the norm as the Wallace Collection's A1 at 4.479 kg / 9.875 lbs?
http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMus...detailView

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links that make up this mail shirt suggest that it is reasonably early in date, that is, not later than the beginning of the 15th century.


74 cm long? Uh - oh. I think somebody better ask Dr. Capwell to look into this. That just ain't right.

jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2016 9:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
I think it is important to remember that most things have a range within that pesky bell curve. And while the majority of things fall within two deviations, there's always some small percent of object which fall at the extremes, both high and low. As a percent, is the Ashland weight any further from the norm as the Wallace Collection's A1 at 4.479 kg / 9.875 lbs?
http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMus...detailView


Thank you for the post, and in particular for this point here that's quoted.

It points out that armors can come in at both ends of the spectrum . . . extremely heavy and big or extremely light and small. It puts all of the suits of armor discussed well within the realms of reality for their listed weights.

Thusly, it wouldn't be out of the question for the OP to go out and purchase a 22.5 kg shirt if he wants/needs that XL Battle Merchant hauberk to provide full coverage for his person; and have a reasonably accurate suit of mail at his disposal.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Tord Grasmo





Joined: 05 Feb 2007

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 1:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's important to also remember that people have grown since the time period in question. A suit of mail that fits the average viking would not fit an average Norwegian today. Modern armour must be bigger than their antique equivalent, just like the clothes we use are bigger. No one would scoff at a large guy wearing a large tunic, because historically tunics were never that big.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 4:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
Quote:
The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links that make up this mail shirt suggest that it is reasonably early in date, that is, not later than the beginning of the 15th century.


74 cm long? Uh - oh. I think somebody better ask Dr. Capwell to look into this. That just ain't right.


The 73.7 cm length looks to be directly taken from the Mann catalog from the early 60s. Some of the Wisby armours look absolutely boy-sized, too. I've never had the pleasure of going to the Collection, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the length.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 8:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The whole description is taken from the old catalogue. If that length is taken hung on a manikin, it's a good length. It's the description of "The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links" combined with the given weight being about the same as a titanium alloy shirt of the same dimensions that has my ears back. As far as heights go, anybody know of an actual statistical study? I've got the impression that for the 15th century, the average height in England was about two inches shorter than at present, and in the 16th century you had some mighty big Germans (I know that from their armour).
jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 8:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
I've PMd Sugarbaker on another group to see how the measurement was obtained...........................

I think it is important to remember that most things have a range within that pesky bell curve. And while the majority of things fall within two deviations, there's always some small percent of object which fall at the extremes, both high and low. As a percent, is the Ashland weight any further from the norm as the Wallace Collection's A1 at 4.479 kg / 9.875 lbs?
http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMus...detailView


Mart, thanks for attempting to contact Sugarbaker as I had no idea how to find him, if he answers you can you ask if he has additional images of the Ashland shirt or at least the larger sizes of the originals, that would be very helpful.

As for the 4.479 kg / 9.875 lbs Wallace hauberk....I am just as suspicious of this weight as the 47lb weight, I own a antique hauber that is around 12lbs and you can see it is of a lighter construction by looking at it. This is not to say that there are not antique 9lb hauberks or 47lb hauberks, in fact there is mention of very heavy hauberks made for jousting but I can not remember seeing a weight. I personally think that anything that falls considerably outside of the norm should be looked at a bit suspiciously.

As for weighing things, I use a digital scale and weigh myself on it first then I weigh myself with the object, I then subtract the two weights, the difference is the objects weight.


Wallace Collection's A1 at 4.479 kg / 9.875 lbs? I personally think there is as much chance that this particular hauberk weighs just under 10lbs as the Ashland hauberk weighing 47lbs, I of course may be wrong but I just do not see either weight being accurate based on the available evidence.




View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 9:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
The whole description is taken from the old catalogue. If that length is taken hung on a manikin, it's a good length. It's the description of "The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links" combined with the given weight being about the same as a titanium alloy shirt of the same dimensions that has my ears back.


Quote:
The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links that make up this mail shirt suggest that it is reasonably early in date, that is, not later than the beginning of the 15th century.



Can you really have it both ways with large heavy links and a light weight, unless the proportions are of a boy and the manikin is a minature? 2.3ft / 73cm in length and 9.8lbs / 4.4kg???????


Last edited by Eric S on Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:51 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alan E




Location: UK
Joined: 21 Jan 2016

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 10:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
The whole description is taken from the old catalogue. If that length is taken hung on a manikin, it's a good length. It's the description of "The comparatively large, heavy construction of the links" combined with the given weight being about the same as a titanium alloy shirt of the same dimensions that has my ears back. As far as heights go, anybody know of an actual statistical study? I've got the impression that for the 15th century, the average height in England was about two inches shorter than at present, and in the 16th century you had some mighty big Germans (I know that from their armour).

Not so much, about 4cm according to https://owlcation.com/humanities/Myths-and-misconceptions-about-history-people-were-shorter-back-then. Then they don't go into standard deviations, regional differences (genetic or diet causation), nor the fluctuations around the Black Death (higher population, more heads per unit cultivated land, lower population, fewer hands to work but more cultivated land per head = better diet etc). It varied a lot over time and place before dropping drastically with the industrial revolution (AIUI).

Member of Exiles Medieval Martial Arts.
Currently teaching Fiore's art in Ceredigion
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 4:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The weight of the Wallace shirt is absolutely feasible. There are multiple factors for this. I'm going to make comparisons to the Battle Merchant XL RRR Steel Hauberk that the OP brought into question originally.

1. Size: It's a mere 2/3 the length, if the 73.7 cm length is accurate, of the Battle Merchant shirt. It's also only 3/4 length sleeves instead of full sleeves. This shirt is significantly smaller in size overall. Also, just looking at the scale shots and looking at how it sits on the rather small-framed manikin indicates that it's a pretty small and light suit that wouldn't have been made for even remotely the same kind of person as the Battle Merchant XL Hauberk. It isn't exactly billowing in spare room, especially around the shoulders.

2. Volume: Those links are wafer thin flat rings. The scaled ruler shots and the other close-up shots show that the rings are about 2mm flat width of metal with a wafer thin build that appears to be no more than a 1/4-1/2mm thickness. Compare that to a 1.4mm round ring and you've got significantly different area or relative volume per ring. At eyeball measurements based off the scale shots we're looking at about flat: 2mm * .5mm = 1mm^2 area vs. round: .7mm^2 * Pi = 1.54mm^2 area . . . so about 50% more metal in area. I'm stopping there and not taking it to the ^3 level of true volume because the rings are actually near-identical in size, with the Wallace piece having 1.11cm rings and the Battle Merchant Hauberk having 1.08 cm rings (8mm ID + 1.4mm*2 ring width = 10.8mm or 1.08cm). Therefore I'm leaving that portion within the margin of error here and will say that, theoretically, they're about the same size rings.

Those first two points, when combined, would effectively take the Battle Merchant Hauberk if shrunk into the Wallace shirt from roughly 22.5 kg to . . . 22.5kg * 66% size = 14.5kg weight just by shrinking the size and then down to * 50% less volume = 7.25kg weight reduction in the suit. A little rough math and it's already looking reasonably in line to say that the Wallace shirt is accurate in weight.

But weight, there's more (sorry for the bad pun) . . .

3. Metallurgy: This part gets really fascinating. Now, the base description states that it's made up of a low carbon steel and copper alloy. Given that there's no comma (indicating a list separation of materials), I'm presuming we're talking about a uniform metal of an Iron Copper alloy using carbon as a combining agent (especially since the shirt looks like it's made of uniform links of the same metal). There's another modern alloy that's done in this fashion that's truly fascinating from a metallurgical standpoint: Manganese Bronze. It's an alloy that is somewhat more difficult to make, but the results are amazing; however it does use Copper and Iron with Magnesium, instead of Carbon, as a binding agent.

Now WAIT A SECOND! Copper is heavier by volume than Iron . . . this should increase the weight! Well . . . that's where the alloy properties of an Iron Copper alloy come in to play. The alloy actually provides a hardness and tensile strength that is better than many steels (especially mild steel by itself) in lower volume; and it's also exceptionally corrosion resistant. This would let an ancient smith (and of course how many smiths took their secrets to their grave? a lot, from what we can tell) create a corrosion resistant armor that'd be able to use lighter links that would still put up to just as much punishment as thicker plain mild steel. This explains the much lower volume of metal in the links used. There are also many Manganese Bronze and similar Copper-Iron alloys that are nearly 40/60 or 50/50 split, with trace amounts of Magnesium or Carbon as binding agents (in fact American Patent "Copper-iron alloy US 1999850 A" from American Brass Co. is one such alloy with amazing properties).

However, the process to make the alloy is tricky, because copper and iron have melting points that are approximately 500 kelvin apart; and copper tends to flow off as slag during iron refining . . . and vice versa. This is why Manganese Bronze (the aforementioned Copper Iron alloy) tends to be hot-forged and then machined or cold-pressed (or in this case probably pulled into wire or poured into sheets, rings made, and rivet holes punched). If this shirt is made out of said alloy, then not only does it explain the smaller size and rarity of the piece, but it also explains why the shirt is in the amazing condition that it's in, because of the corrosion resistance.

Now, is this analysis fool-proof . . . no. It's a pretty rough analysis, but it's enough to get the points across and provide a reasonable argument that the Wallace piece is perfectly within its realm to be the weight it's supposed to be, as well.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 9:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anybody want to instruct Mr. Joy in how to read a museum catalog entry? Wink
jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 10:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
Anybody want to instruct Mr. Joy in how to read a museum catalog entry? Wink


Just going off what I see on the webpage. I take it you've got something to throw in there about it, or just making jabs?

If it's the fact that museum catalogs don't use commas to create a list of different materials; and there's steel, and copper links separately . . . then *shrugs* y'all get a free little lesson posted on some Manganese Bronze and Copper-Iron alloys' metallurgy and their properties. Otherwise, the entire first half still applies; and it puts both shirts well within the bounds of reality. The weights listed are completely feasible in the grand scheme of things.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2016 11:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
Anybody want to instruct Mr. Joy in how to read a museum catalog entry? Wink


The problem is that these have been shown to be wrong more than once. If a curator hasn't confirmed the catalogue entry then it is in dispute as far as I'm concerned.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Most authentic(ish) mail for a viking.
Page 3 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 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