Cabasset circa 1600 (with arsenal marking to identify)
 

Hi guys,

Here is a cabasset from the early 17th century, it has a crest and is made in two parts. With its original black color. We can easily compare this cabasset to the engravings of Jacob De Gheyn in his work published in 1608 "Handling of arms". It is an unattractive model, but one that I find very interesting. This type of helmet had to exist in large numbers to equip the infantry. And ultimately very few have come down to us.

Here is the digital version of Jacob De Gheyn's book. Good viewing.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bt...6571r/f7.image

Cabasset
 

Where did this come from ? Provenance ?

Any pictures of the insides as I'd like to see any washers left in place

It comes from Germany, I will take more photos later, there is a fragment of leather under the chinstrap rivet.

Not a work of art, but as you say quite important from a functional standpoint. Munition-quality equipment like this had to be both sturdy to protect the soldier wearing it, and procurable in sufficient quantity and at affordable price for the state. Considering the frequency of wars, and the tendency of old helmets to be repurposed into things like buckets and basins, it's no wonder that they are scarce today.

Question: Is it possible to measure the thickness of the metal at and around the top, as opposed to the brim or lower round the sides? Noticeable difference between those regions, or uniform thickness? Am interested to know if the workshop made an allowance for thicker iron in the more crucial areas.

I just made a surprising discovery! When taking close-up photos, I notice a workshop punch, it looks like an angel! I am happy, maybe you know more?
To answer Philippe, the metal is indeed very solid, and of the same thickness everywhere. The total weight is 1190 grams.

The same thickness all over is a little concerning as that indicates rolled plate, not hammered plate. But it's

Weight wise it's fine.

The other area that concerns me is the lack of washers. It's possible this helmet suffered restoration in the 19th Century, which lost any surviving washers. The tiny piece of leather under a doesn't rule that out as that may be part of that restoration.

17th Century washers were cut from a strip so weren't round.

Forgot another point

The edges where the metal is folded over looks OK and a period technique, rather than wrapping the fold around wire.

For examples of other helmets of the same style look here

http://www.allenantiques.com/Armour-...ollection.html

Having marks, even if unidentified, is always a good sign ... and value.

Not tremendously heavy, but heavy enough to be the real thing ... don't you agree, Filipe ?

True Fernando, in my opinion, cabassets and morions generally weigh between 1kg and 1.6kg, it all depends on the quality of the manufacture. By comparing with my other pieces.

Nice helmet , the weight of these can indeed vary a lot , the same goes for close helmets of this period they can vary from 2 kg to 7 kg
helmet for troopers produced in high numbers as these and as the lobster tail helmet were mostly not that heavy , but there are betters quality exceptions out there.

Yes, Nando, it's definitely kosher... The weight alone is not a sole indicator of authenticity, recall that a good number of Victorian-era copies of earlier pieces were made of cast iron, or had parts produced in that way, so that they are excessively heavy compared to the real thing.

We should also consider that by ca. 1600, the improvements in firearms would have required heavy enough armor to reduce mobility and increase cost to unacceptable levels. Unless in the case of specialized units like siege troops who were expected to experience concentrated fire from larger-bore weapons like rampart rifles and falconets (as well as cannons) as they approached the walls of fortresses or cities. For most soldiers operating in the field, protection against secondary projectiles like shrapnel, and of course swords and other hand weapons, was considered sufficient. (keeping in mind, also, that for speed of fire, infantry muskets were typically loaded with unpatched balls so accuracy and velocity declined markedly after 50 m). Officers and others who could afford to purchase their own gear could of course opt for higher quality and more protection, hence the better-made and more substantial armors that we sometimes see.

Do you think this punch could be that of Munich?

Info as referenced in Art Gogan, Fighting Iron: A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors ( 1999 ):

1. First plate mill for armor production set up in England during reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), as mentioned in a text published 1624.

2. By the mid-1550s, rolling mills to produce silver and gold in sheets of uniform thickness operational in France for the royal mint.

****

So it would seem that the concept existed in theory and practice by the time this helmet was made.

Of course, even if the raw material reached its initial format via some sort of machine, in those days the helmet would be given its final form by hammering on various bench stakes since machinery capable of die-stamping the asymmetrical components for large objects like this had to wait for the Industrial Revolution. Thus, tool marks from the shaping processes would still be apparent on the finished product.

Adding some closeups of my De Gheyns.

[QUOTE=Lansquenet59]I just made a surprising discovery! When taking close-up photos, I notice a workshop punch, it looks like an angel! I am happy, maybe you know more?
To answer Philippe, the metal is indeed very solid, and of the same thickness everywhere. The total weight is 1190 grams.[/.

Dutch pickman pot.
This mark :double headed eagle of the city Maastricht.

Thank you very much Cerjak. I came across one of your subjects from 2017, with the same model of helmet.

http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=214741