|
Author
|
Topic: Your opinion about this arming doublet
|
|
|
Chevalier
unregistered
|
posted 01-28-2006 03:23 PM
 
Looks more like armour, rather than something to go under armour. Looks very stiff. Where's the waist? Early 15th c, while it doesn't have as defined a waist as later 15th c., still -has- a definite waist. Yours appears to be pretty straight in the body. The sleeves should be fully stitched to the body. Seems to me you might want to reconsider the silhouette and definitely lose the studs/rivets. If rivets appear, either practically or decoratively, they're on the armour, probably not on the undergarments. What I can see of the workmanship looks good, though. [ 01-28-2006: Message edited by: Chevalier ]
IP: Logged
|
|
T1R1ON
New Member
Member # 969
|
posted 01-28-2006 04:01 PM
 
Yes, you've taken it right, it's stiff enough.
But it is far from brigandine cause there are only rivets and no steel plates between cloth at all. I consider it to be a jack rather than a doublet, cause there's no buffed sleeves.In Russia the mentioned jack is considered to be the under-armour harness, though it stands a good steel falchion hit itself (but it is not recommended  ) I think it is near to item "E" from the plate (from "Medieval Military Costume by Gerry Embleton") The Source: Memling, Reliquary of St. Ursula, circa 1489. [ 01-28-2006: Message edited by: T1R1ON ]
Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 01-29-2006 12:55 AM
You've done a fair job of interpreting a drawing. But at the end of the day a drawing is just a drawing, and this one is an old drawing at that. Gerry Embleton is not infallible in his research, and what may have been adequate research when the drawing was done probably doesn't hold a candle to what we've learnt since then.Most here would agree that what you're wearing, while well made and stout would not fit what we recognize as an arming doublet. Based on images from the period, we understand an arming doublet to be a foundation garment made specifically to support armour. Most would agree that research does not bear out the idea of tied on sleeves or any sort of nail or studs being used to quilt fabric. Like Jeff said, your garment looks very well made and sturdy! Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Chevalier
unregistered
|
posted 01-29-2006 01:49 PM
So what you're trying to make here is a -Jack-, which is armour in itself, not an -arming doublet-, which is a foundation garmet for wear with a full plate armour. Apples and oranges. I was coming from the point of view that you were after the latter, so many of my comments don't apply to a jack. The lack of an identifiable waist still applies, though, and is one of the defining factors of later 15th century clothing and armour. Gotta have a definite waist. I'd suggest going directly off of the painting on Memling's reliquary, rather than Gerry's interpretation of it. I think you might end up with a different interpretation that perhaps doesn't include the studs.
IP: Logged
|
|
Thomas james hayman
Member
Member # 655
|
posted 01-29-2006 02:12 PM
I'm making a jack based on the original painting of The death of St Ursula and have interpreted those as knots rather than studs. It's been proven that the knots create the squares which look very cool :-)If you are making it 30 or so layers thick, simply trim it down to 10 or so around the armpit and shoulder and you should still have the range of motion fo an ordinary doublet. do note, this is what i THINK, i haven't tried it yet. -------------------- The allotment spot
http://tomsallotment.blogspot.com/
Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged
|
|
gregory23b
Member
Member # 642
|
posted 01-30-2006 05:43 AM
I have to concur you seem to have made a jack with fake brig nails. Lose the studs and waist it, also bring the tops of the sleeve edges to past your shoulder joint (nearer the neck not the arm) not on itThe Embleton drawings show either jacks or brigandines, not arming doublets, except possibly a bit of one on K.
If you look at an image of the actual reliquary you will see the dots on the jack are not metal, there is a clear difference between the metal on his other garments and the knots - for lack of better options.
http://www.wga.hu/art/m/memling/4ursula/36ursu06.jpg
Your garment looks like a jack, it has the bulk that you would expect and is too bulky to be an arming doublet - or at least what I think is one. Nice sewing and finishing though.
But interestingly it does re-raise the question about what we call one thing and another.
[ 01-30-2006: Message edited by: gregory23b ] -------------------- history is in the hands of the marketing department - beware!
Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
