Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Help Selecting Chain Mail Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
William Frisbee




Usergroups: None

Location: South Shore, MA
Posts: 93
PostPosted: Wed 20 Apr, 2011 12:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It was my understanding that TYPICALLY a full haubegeon from the late 14th, early 15th century was 15-20lbs with some approaching 25lbs at times.

Not unlike the flat riveted stuff we see from GDFB and Jeffery Hedgecock...


Johan is very right. I make every effort to wear my haubergeon under my Churburg kit as often as possible, unless I'm doing SCA style fighting during the summer. But for my WMA instructing and fighting, I've almost always wearing my haubergeon.
View user's profile Send private message
Christian G. Cameron




PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 6:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have the chance to buy a good 17th c. Persian coif--not the tourist stuff from the 19th c. It's all riveted, round, and nicely done on good metal. And available for pennies on the dollar of what it should cost.

My question--and this may be a supremely stupid question--is--do I want to buy it to use with my late 14th c. Italian kit?. I would literally cut it up and refashion it to size, thus destroying it as an historical object. No, this doesn't worry me at all. Museums are full of them, and modifying it for combat is just what people have done to kit throughout the ages.
My question is, will I end up with a nice, historical chain coif or aventail, or will I end up with a 17th c. Persian ringed aventail? Is the Persian maille enough like the "real thing" to be better than commercially available items? Better? the same? Worse?

It SEEMS both lighter and more like the aventails attached to at least one existing 14th c. bascinet. But my ignorance is fathomless...

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Paul Hansen




Usergroups: None

Location: The Netherlands
Likes: 5 pages
Posts: 683
PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
My question--and this may be a supremely stupid question--is--do I want to buy it to use with my late 14th c. Italian kit?. I would literally cut it up and refashion it to size, thus destroying it as an historical object.


NO!!!

For exactly the reason you mention... Confused

If you can buy it cheap, then do so and resell at profit. Then use the profit to buy some modern mail of reasonably good quality. Or leave the opportunity for someone with a different appreciation of antiques.
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Curl




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Northern California, US
Posts: 436
PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 9:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree with Paul, no one in this hobby should ever destroy or damage (even if you call it a modification) any historical artifact. What's the point historical reenactment or living history if we are going to destroy all the history around us? By doing so you are getting rid of a irreplaceable part of the past, doesn't matter if their are other pieces. Imagine if we had a few more pieces of armor or swords, how much more could they tell us? We will never know.

@Johan Gemvik\\

What harness weighs 12kg? I have never heard of a full harness that weighed less than 45lbs.

E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Christian G. Cameron




PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't agree. I understand, but there are so many items in circulation...

I carry 18th c. items to reenact the 18th c.--swords, watches, jewelry--precisely because they are original and allow me to show the public EXACTLY what an 18th c. watch looked like--and how well it still runs. And the argument you both make is utterly rational--and yet, would, by logical extension, suggest that we shouldn't conduct archaeology (we disturb the sites and ruin more artifacts than are preserved...) and we shouldn't have museums (where artifacts are constantly tinkered with and damaged,. and if you think otherwise, you haven't worked in one!).

I grew up with artifacts--and I don't think they're special unless they are. Every item in my basement is an artifact in the making--but most of them are only worth preserving in a sort of transcendent long range kind of way.

But okay--if I could preserve the item--if I could leave the chain untouched--would it be a BETTER representation? because from what I can see, none of the GDFB or Indian mailles bear any resemblance to medieval maille...

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 3:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
I don't agree. I understand, but there are so many items in circulation...

I carry 18th c. items to reenact the 18th c.--swords, watches, jewelry--precisely because they are original and allow me to show the public EXACTLY what an 18th c. watch looked like--and how well it still runs. And the argument you both make is utterly rational--and yet, would, by logical extension, suggest that we shouldn't conduct archaeology (we disturb the sites and ruin more artifacts than are preserved...) and we shouldn't have museums (where artifacts are constantly tinkered with and damaged,. and if you think otherwise, you haven't worked in one!).

I grew up with artifacts--and I don't think they're special unless they are. Every item in my basement is an artifact in the making--but most of them are only worth preserving in a sort of transcendent long range kind of way.

But okay--if I could preserve the item--if I could leave the chain untouched--would it be a BETTER representation? because from what I can see, none of the GDFB or Indian mailles bear any resemblance to medieval maille...


Just because it is"historical" doesn't make it authentic. What makes you think that 17th century Persian mail has any more in common with 14th century European mail than the modern examples? What you are proposing is pure vandalism IMO.
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Curl




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Northern California, US
Posts: 436
PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 4:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I would literally cut it up and refashion it to size, thus destroying it as an historical object.


I understand you point but there is a difference between wearing historical mail, and cutting it up and editing it. That's like taking a 18th century watch, breaking it into pieces, and tapping it to your car as art. I understand that a certain amount of damage is caused whenever someone handles any item, but that is different from intentionally destroying it. You won't see a museum cutting the mona lisa up because it would make a sweet set of doylies.

E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Christian G. Cameron




PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 5:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Okay. I surrender. I was asking that very question, Dan. IS it correct?

Apparently not, but was the tone required? It was meant as a genuine and respectful question. And I appeal to anyone who has ever seen a museum mount a major exhibit--you know they break Egyptian columns, duct tape chariot wheels, etc, right? Historical objects have no sacred presence.

But I apologize if I've offended, and I'll go back to my hole.

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Johan Gemvik




Usergroups: None

Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 793
PostPosted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 5:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
none of the GDFB or Indian mailles bear any resemblance to medieval maille...


Depends a lot on what you've been looking at.
The newer type single side round head riveting used by the higher quality indian and pakistani maille today can be seen in the Buskerud maille, which is most likely from 15th century, but might be somewhat older. This riveting though not yet perfect, is historically accurate to a fair degree, just not the only or even the most common way to rivet europeean roundhead maille. It might be more common in eastern maille though. What is moslty wrong in these mailles is the way they flatten the overlap of round rivet rings and drill instead of drift holes for them, but I see steady improvement here also and have high hopes for the futre.
There's also the wedge riveted mailles, especially the posh flat ring mailles are getting pretty close to perfect these days. I run into these being worn at festivals and marvel at the accuracy today, the best of them are even drifted holes with the real deal watershed. Still these are all made from modern steel, and 100% accurate in that regard just can't be had in a reproduction being sold commercially.

"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Hansen




Usergroups: None

Location: The Netherlands
Likes: 5 pages
Posts: 683
PostPosted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 12:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
And the argument you both make is utterly rational--and yet, would, by logical extension, suggest that we shouldn't conduct archaeology (we disturb the sites and ruin more artifacts than are preserved...)

I think that archeology should be limited to sites that will be destroyed anyway, because of new building development or so.

Of course it's better to leave sites as untouched as possible.

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
and we shouldn't have museums (where artifacts are constantly tinkered with and damaged,. and if you think otherwise, you haven't worked in one!).

Hmm, I'm not so cynical as that... Museums do "restore" items.

I think there is a difference, although it can be vague, between destroying an object or restoring it.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 1:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
Okay. I surrender. I was asking that very question, Dan. IS it correct?

Without seeing it all I can say is "probably not". Johan gave you some points to look for.

Quote:
Apparently not, but was the tone required? It was meant as a genuine and respectful question.

I'd like to apologise for my tone but not the sentiment. The thought of someone cutting up an antique to make a costume is just wrong. It would be like ripping up the first edition of a book for writing paper or using Egyptian mummies for firewood.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 1:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Paul Hansen wrote:
Christian G. Cameron wrote:
And the argument you both make is utterly rational--and yet, would, by logical extension, suggest that we shouldn't conduct archaeology (we disturb the sites and ruin more artifacts than are preserved...)

I think that archeology should be limited to sites that will be destroyed anyway, because of new building development or so.

Of course it's better to leave sites as untouched as possible.

Christian G. Cameron wrote:
and we shouldn't have museums (where artifacts are constantly tinkered with and damaged,. and if you think otherwise, you haven't worked in one!).

Hmm, I'm not so cynical as that... Museums do "restore" items.

I think there is a difference, although it can be vague, between destroying an object or restoring it.


Personally I'd rather see the more valuable items restored as little as possible. They should be preserved to prevent further deterioration and then a replica made to go on display along with photos of the original. The original can be stored safely and only brought out for special exhibitions and for study.
View user's profile Send private message
Eric G.




PostPosted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 5:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

I have seen you share a great deal of your opinions on armor over various threads. It seems to me that you have some level of expertise regarding mail.

I still have not made my purchase, but per the recommendations of others I am planning on getting this piece What do you think?

Would you have anything positive to say about anything on the market today? Can you make me a recommendation? I'm not looking for what not to get as much as I am looking for a positive recommendation.

Eric Gregersen
www.EricGregersen.com
Knowledge applied is power.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 11:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

What do you want it for? If you want something that kind of looks like medieval mail then any of the mass produced stuff is ok. It is lighter and more protective than the butted mail that people used to wear. Most of the riveted mail is all made in the same workshops in India and Pakistan and sold to different distributors so it doesn't really matter who you buy it from. May as well google for the cheapest price.

If you want something that functions the same as historical mail then you buy it from Erik. AFAIK nobody else commercially makes museum quality mail. A few other people can make mail that looks and functions a lot like the originals but they do it for research not for sale.
View user's profile Send private message
S. Sebok




Usergroups: None


Likes: 7 pages
Posts: 73
PostPosted: Tue 16 Aug, 2011 1:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I got my maille at Ice falcon armories which I was impressed by the quality, if you want a smaller sized garment and a more accurate looking early medieval hauberk then go for their stuff I highly suggest it as it's better tailored than the GDFB hauberk which my friend bought and in his words he said it was made for someone with bingo wings. Their stuff only comes in large and XL as well leaving a lot of extra weight if you're a thinner person. For the shorter shirt I am not sure how their stuff is.
View user's profile Send private message
Nadeem Ahmad




Usergroups: None

Location: Nottingham / Sheffield, UK
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 11:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry if this is digging up an old thread, but lots of useful info here.

What do you think to the long-sleeve shirt posted here? Full dimensions for the sleeve and taper are given.

http://www.getdressedforbattle.co.uk/acatalog...sades.html

It is not toooo expensive. I understand that the exact ring shape is not what it would have been, but I'm asking mainly about the fit.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari




Usergroups: None


Posts: 143
PostPosted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 2:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nadeem Ahmad wrote:
Sorry if this is digging up an old thread, but lots of useful info here.

What do you think to the long-sleeve shirt posted here? Full dimensions for the sleeve and taper are given.

http://www.getdressedforbattle.co.uk/acatalog...sades.html

It is not toooo expensive. I understand that the exact ring shape is not what it would have been, but I'm asking mainly about the fit.

The 8mm inner diameter for the rings is fairly accurate for medieval mail. But the problem with this mail coat is that it is made of flattened rings rather than round rings. For the late medieval period, flat rings would be just fine, but if you are aiming for an earlier period (pre 14th century) then the mail might be slightly off. But if you are not overly concerned with period accuracy, I think this mail is fine.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 2:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ahmad Tabari wrote:
The 8mm inner diameter for the rings is fairly accurate for medieval mail.

You can find examples of rings of all sizes from all time periods. You can't look at the size of the rings and discount any country or time period.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari




Usergroups: None


Posts: 143
PostPosted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 3:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Ahmad Tabari wrote:
The 8mm inner diameter for the rings is fairly accurate for medieval mail.

You can find examples of rings of all sizes from all time periods. You can't look at the size of the rings and discount any country or time period.

Agreed.

Edit: Note however that I was giving a general statement about 8mm being a historically accurate id for mail rings. A question with regards to the mail's accuracy for a particular historical period and culture would no doubt require a much more detailed and in depth answer.

Nadim, is there any particular historical period and civilization you wish to base your persona on?
View user's profile Send private message
Hadrian Coffin




Usergroups: 
Industry Professionals

Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 314
PostPosted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 5:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello,

The mail I have been purchasing is from Find-It Armory. The quality is basically the same as the GDFB/CAS-Hanwei stuff except that it is zinc-plated (easy to remove). I own three shirts that I have tailored, the Flat Ring Full Sleeve, the 8mm "Roman Hamata" half sleeve, and a 6mm Roman Hamata with attached doublet and no sleeves. The 8mm and 6mm have alternating rows of flat punched rings and round riveted ones. The "8mm" one I own is my favourite, the size of the flat rings is about 8mm and the riveted rings about 7mm. The size of the rings and the alternating rows are correct for the time period I am trying to represent, once it was de-zinced and tailored it is pretty close to historical examples. It is far from perfect, but is better than any of the other examples I have seen.

The flat-ring one has overly thin rings, but this is the same on most of the flat-ring indian made mail I've seen. The 6mm looks a little off, but is still great, off-the-rack it is the best mail I have seen.

Cheers!

Historia magistra vitae est

www.hadrianscustomshop.com
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Help Selecting Chain Mail
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 2003-2013 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum