posted 01-01-2001 08:00 PM               

Thats what happens when someone who deals with documents starts dealing with manufactured goods.

Ok. lets say you were gonna do replicas of these peices. about what modern gauge would you use for it to be within the common range of the period in which the item is from.

1)late 13th century greathelm
2)mid-14th century cote of plates
3)same period bascinet
4)early 15th century chest peice
5)same period helm
6)WOR period brest plate
7)same period salet

Basically what gauge would you use to recreate these peices. And about what gauge equivilant would it be after being worked.

I think thats still a bigger answer than I want but not sure yet.

posted 01-03-2001 01:55 AM               

Ok. lets say you were gonna do replicas of these peices. about what modern gauge would you use for it to be within the common range of the period in which the item is from.

1)late 13th century greathelm

Extant examples weigh about 5-6 pounds, so that puts them at about 16-18 ga.

2)mid-14th century cote of plates

Should end up about 8-10 pounds. Assuming Wisby style, I'd expect plates of about 18-20 ga.

3)same period bascinet

Skull should be about 4-5 pounds with a visor at 1.5 - 2 pounds. Skull should be about 14 ga at the apex, thinning as you go down the sides to about 18 ga. Visor probably 14 at its thickest, thinning to 18 in places.

4)early 15th century chest peice

Let's talk a globose. Probably 14 ga thinning to 16.

5)same period helm

see above.

6)WOR period brest plate

What type? German, Italian, Export, Flemish??

Entire cuirass is very generally about 16-18 pounds with most of the weight in the front. Front is about 14-16 in the plackard, perhaps somewhat thinner in the upper section. Backplate even thinner; probably 18 and 20.

7)same period salet

Usually about 6-8 pounds, again depending on the style. Skull should be about 14 ga, perhaps 12 in some places, thinning to perhaps 18 or thinner at the edges. This is one of the reasons to roll hems.

------------------
Cheers,

posted 01-03-2001 10:12 AM               

Dr. Williams has published thicknesses (and hardness as well) for A22 from the Wallace Collection. The suit dates to 1510, but perhaps the information is helpful to you in some way. To me, it is exciting to see how *thin* this heat treated armour really was!
http://www.the-wallace-collection.org.uk/i_s/conservation/analysis/investigate_armour .htm

Dr. Williams' measurements are in mm, not inches or gauges, so here's a guide for sheet gauges:
Gauge Thickness
Inches Dec-Inches Metric (mm)
===== ==================================
12 7/64" = 0.109375" = 2.778125
13 3/32" = 0.09375" = 2.38125
14 5/64" = 0.078125" = 1.984375
15 9/128" = 0.0703125" = 1.7859375
16 1/16" = 0.0625" = 1.5875
17 9/160" = 0.05625" = 1.42875
18 1/20" = 0.05" = 1.27
19 7/160" = 0.04375" = 1.11125
20 3/80" = 0.0375" = 0.9525
21 11/320" = 0.034375" = 0.873125
22 1/32" = 0.03125" = 0.793750

This puts the thickest part of that suit (the skull of the armet), to be between 16 and 17 gauge. The breastplate was just a hair over 18 gauge.

--James--

posted 01-03-2001 12:43 PM               

Also, we were talking about 14th and 15th century armour, and it appears that metalworking and heat treatment technology encountered some drastic advances in the early 16th century.

The Wladislas armour is German, of course, so I don't know if it's wise to compare this with the other examples we mentioned, which would mostly be Italian.

------------------
Cheers,

posted 01-10-2001 08:29 AM               

quote:

---

Thank you for your interest.
The thickness is fairly consistent; in fact, some sort of range should have been indicated, but it wwould not have been more than +/- 0.2 in 1.5 and frequently less. The armour is made from plates, which were the article of commerce in the 16th century, and not forged from a bloom . The frequently repeated assertion that armour was thickest in certain places is a mistake. Shaping the metal will produce changes in thickness, of course, but controlling the thickness really has to wait until cast tank armour.

With all good wishes,

Alan

---

I don't know that this really adds much clarity to anything, but I wanted to share the information that I had received from Dr. Williams.

posted 01-10-2001 11:12 AM               

So are these same plates common articles of commerce in the 13th & 15th C? Were the same plates used in the 16th C. used in the 13th and 15th? It seems to be comparing apples and oranges unless they are. It seems to me that materials and how they are manipulated can change *radically* in 100-300 years.

I'm no metalworker, so I'm just applying what I know from historical clothing. I could be completely off base.

posted 01-10-2001 11:34 AM               

Perhaps I should have started another thread, but I didn't...

--James--

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:

So are these same plates common articles of commerce in the 13th & 15th C? Were the same plates used in the 16th C. used in the 13th and 15th? It seems to be comparing apples and oranges unless they are. It seems to me that materials and how they are manipulated can change *radically* in 100-300 years.

I'm no metalworker, so I'm just applying what I know from historical clothing. I could be completely off base.

Gwen[/B]

---