[Bruno Giordan]

[Randall Moffett]

I am not sure what a european size 60 is but my head is 22 and 1/2 (I think) inches-which is a medium or so. If 60 is in CM's then your head is a bit large but not abnormal or anything. I had the benefit to work in a museum with the arms and armour and do not think any of the helmets were so small they would not fit on an adults head with some padding, usually a knit cap as we let the public try them on. I have the interier dimentions of the York (coppergate) helmet, which was actually bigger than the repo I made of it so I had to make it a bit smaller to fit my fairly padded head. The bascients I looked at at the RA and sallets and other helmets all fit in the same catagory. Aside from the helmets themselves looking at the skull themselves measurements there is not much difference in size from the little reading and research I have done on graves (I am not terribly into that but they are in the reports so I read them). You may have seen childrens helmets as they have a small collection of childrens armour at the RA as well (mostly after the medieval period). The only helmets I have seen that I have not figured how they fit on an adults head were corinth style greek helmets from 400 plus BC. They looked smallish but I did not want to try one on to check. Apart from those three though the other helmets would have fit my head with some padding, particulary a mid to late 15th armet was much larger than my head. I have tried on about a dozen or two dozen 16th century helmets and a easily twice that or more of 17th century ones (I think I have some pictures floating around of a suit I cleaned up with me in the close helmet). I would be interested in the circumferance of them to see what they run.

Don't worry I don't think you are calling me a liar or anything, I figure on the forum it is here for us to compare what we have seen, read and learned.

RPM

[Torsten F.H. Wilke]

Now that I have given this subject more thought, I am noticing that Merv makes some very good points. Why do we so easily suppose that all period pieces must be of medium to high quality, in order to be genuine? Are we left over with only the creme-de-la-creme of arms and armour by default, since we as a society really only keep the better examples of historic things around? Would "practice" pieces ever have been used in combat by participants of limited wealth, or those behind on their luck? How many "first-" or "second" tries at usable arms or armour would have been around in those times? Could there have been theater type groups in need of stage pieces during those times? I'm quite sure that purchasing the "real" thing might have been prohibitively expensive.

As a child, I personally tinkered with making semi-functional armour pieces for play combat with my friends. They were made very rudimentarily, with only the finest pieces of scrap HVAC ducting, lol. I even went to the local university library to learn about how armour was made during medievil times. I had breastplates with tassets, great helms, spaulders, and mail items. Nothing was dished very much, if at all. These pieces served my friends and I well, and gave us a decent amount of use. I also found out why cod-pieces were invented, lol.

A few years ago, about twenty seven years later, I came across these items in my storage while getting rid of useless stuff. I relived fond childhood memories as I inspected the pieces, they seemed having been an admirable effort for a thirteen year old. They currently reside in the dump. I kept the shield, since I liked it's well-painted black tuetonic eagle motif... case in point!

[Randall Moffett]

I think my main reason for thinking it is fake is it is similar to other fakes out there. The fact it is also a combination of a much earlier helmet with a jousting attachment also seems a bit off as well. I have no doubt many helmets existed of various qualities but this one just does not look right to me. F. Laking had a really interesting section in his series on fakes that help elaborate this more.

RPM