Identifying BREASTPLATE

[Cerjak]

Hi everybody
I need your help for this breastplate in excavation condition.
Weight around 7500 gr .
No mark only many bullets impact
Any comment on it are welcome.
Regards
CERJAK

[Cerjak]

I Hope that someone could tell the period and origin ..

[A Senefelder]

Jean, this appears to be of 17th century form with residual peascod shape. The simple incised line decoration and method of attaching over the shoulders ( leather straps with steel/iron plate at the end with several holes to accept the two eyes at the nipples ) are both typical of the 17th century. What i'm currious about is the several points, at one shoulder, down at one corner of the waist, that seem to show delamination. The pics of the inside don't indicate and old patches. Is it possible this is of laminated construction?

[fernando]

Nice piece, Jean .
Funny the 'modern' topic rust
Do i see some similarities between yours and mine ?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=BREASTPLATE

The more i look at mine, the more i find strange that it is so short in height... less 5 cms. than yours and with practicaly the same width.
Would mine be for a youngster or is it a different type of outfit ? ...
What do you say, Allan?

[A Senefelder]

Fernando, 5cm is not that great a variation and when taking sizing into account could still have it being in the realm of for and adult, albiet one of lesser physiological stature perhaps. Breast plates, in order to accomodate human physiology are not particullary " tall ". They can only come down to roughly the lowest rib of the rib cage as, in a full plung,bend at the waist, the entire midriff " dissapears " so if the breast plate were much longer than that it would interfere with the ablility to bend fully ( especially important in an uncontrolled movement like say a fall from a horse ). With that said 5cm would fall inside the realm of variance for fitting adults of a bit different sizes.

There were some types of breast plate that allowed them to be long/come farther down the abdomen, but they were not of one piece construction. The two to three piece breast plates of the 15th century ( which actuated on slot rivets and leathers ) could be longer due to thier ability to collapse/articulate, and the l'anime type breast plates that were fashionable mid16 century around Europe and stayed fashionable in Eastern Europe well into the 17th and even 18th centuries were made up of a series of lames articulating on slot rivets that could also extend to cover more of the abdomen due to thier ability to collapse/articulate when the body bends. Maximillain armours often adopted a two piece construction where the entire waist portion was a seperate assembly and articulated on rivets on either side, aloowing the waist line to be lower as the bottom/waist protion would articulate up inside the top portion in a bend.

As far as the period for yours I would place it as contemperaneous to Jeans and I had one very similar back in the late 90's with the same incised line decorations around neck and arms which Jeans has a well. I had one until a few years ago that was of the same period but was especailly nice as the area betwee the incised lines around the neck and arm openings had been ehat blued ( Lee got to see this one at several events )I remember when you posted yours and I was still a lurker. The sets of holes one either side above the waist line, which was a topic for discussion, are in my opinion likely for the attachment of tassets by large metal hinges as was seen sometimes on 17th century pikemans armours, especaily some of the nicer ones out of Greenwich in England. Whilst a late 16th century attributation certainly not out of the question, i'm used to encountering the small residual form of peascod in a 17th century context ( which oddly hangs on till late in the century, whilst eventually often, breast plates come to be made with just a simple medial ridge by mid century, you can still find examples of that little " nub " of the peascod, pronounced and keel like at its hieght in the 16th century, still being pounded into the occasional example in the harquebussiers breast plates at the last quarter of the century ).

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by fernando

Nice piece, Jean .
Funny the 'modern' topic rust
Do i see some similarities between yours and mine ?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=BREASTPLATE

The more i look at mine, the more i find strange that it is so short in height... less 5 cms. than yours and with practicaly the same width.
Would mine be for a youngster or is it a different type of outfit ? ...
What do you say, Allan?

Hi Fernando

I have seen your old post ,yes it is same design but more rust in my side ,I will have some works on it this weekend !
Do you know the weight from yours ?
Kind regards

Jean-Luc

[fernando]

Thank you so much for the authentic treatise, Allan
I will digest that with enthusiasm

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Cerjak

...Do you know the weight from yours ?...

Circa 4,4 Kgs.

[Cerjak]

So near 3500 gr less ,how we can explain a so big differences of weight ?

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

Fernando, 5cm is not that great a variation and when taking sizing into account could still have it being in the realm of for and adult, albiet one of lesser physiological stature perhaps. Breast plates, in order to accomodate human physiology are not particullary " tall ". They can only come down to roughly the lowest rib of the rib cage as, in a full plung,bend at the waist, the entire midriff " dissapears " so if the breast plate were much longer than that it would interfere with the ablility to bend fully ( especially important in an uncontrolled movement like say a fall from a horse ). With that said 5cm would fall inside the realm of variance for fitting adults of a bit different sizes.

There were some types of breast plate that allowed them to be long/come farther down the abdomen, but they were not of one piece construction. The two to three piece breast plates of the 15th century ( which actuated on slot rivets and leathers ) could be longer due to thier ability to collapse/articulate, and the l'anime type breast plates that were fashionable mid16 century around Europe and stayed fashionable in Eastern Europe well into the 17th and even 18th centuries were made up of a series of lames articulating on slot rivets that could also extend to cover more of the abdomen due to thier ability to collapse/articulate when the body bends. Maximillain armours often adopted a two piece construction where the entire waist portion was a seperate assembly and articulated on rivets on either side, aloowing the waist line to be lower as the bottom/waist protion would articulate up inside the top portion in a bend.

As far as the period for yours I would place it as contemperaneous to Jeans and I had one very similar back in the late 90's with the same incised line decorations around neck and arms which Jeans has a well. I had one until a few years ago that was of the same period but was especailly nice as the area betwee the incised lines around the neck and arm openings had been ehat blued ( Lee got to see this one at several events )I remember when you posted yours and I was still a lurker. The sets of holes one either side above the waist line, which was a topic for discussion, are in my opinion likely for the attachment of tassets by large metal hinges as was seen sometimes on 17th century pikemans armours, especaily some of the nicer ones out of Greenwich in England. Whilst a late 16th century attributation certainly not out of the question, i'm used to encountering the small residual form of peascod in a 17th century context ( which oddly hangs on till late in the century, whilst eventually often, breast plates come to be made with just a simple medial ridge by mid century, you can still find examples of that little " nub " of the peascod, pronounced and keel like at its hieght in the 16th century, still being pounded into the occasional example in the harquebussiers breast plates at the last quarter of the century ).

Hi Allan
I was expected your comment ,yes it seems to be of laminated construction but you are the specialist about the construction so I'm not 100 % sure.
And may be it could explain the difference of weight ( 3500 gr) with Fernando's example ?
Kind regards

Jean-Luc

[A Senefelder]

I was expected your comment ,yes it seems to be of laminated construction but you are the specialist about the construction so I'm not 100 % sure.

Jean, here is, I believe, why. " Laminated " construction happened for basically two reasons. 1) thrift, steel and iron were expensive and thus the best possible use was made of all scrap so the forge welding togther of " drops " ,of left over pieces after cutting out parts could be forge welded togther to create a new usable piece of steel or iron from which to make something else. 2) and this is I think what I see with yours, late laminated construction was done as musketts and gun powder weapons were becomming the dominante factor on the battle field in the later 16 and 17th centuries. What was done was that extra steel/iron was forge welded into a finished piece to make it thicker ( I have seen pics of Xrayed examples where it is clearly visible that tassets and other armour plates have been forge welded inside a breast plate to make it thicker ) or on occasion an actual " doubling up " where essentially two similar pieces ( i'm unaware of this having been done with anything but breast plates but that certainly doesn't rule out its possibly having been done with other armour components ) ie. two breast plates, one inside the other, being forge welded completely togther to yield a thicker, shot proof piece. I believe this is what I am perhaps seeing with yours Jean. It allowed pieces that had been made of a weight/thickness to resist edged weapons to be thickened to resist shot. It wasn't common, the majority of shot proof armours being built from material of the requisit thickness, but there are examples of this method of late laminated construction out there. Fernandos is likley not shot proof and thus weights less than your's does.

This is of course all based on what I seem to be seeing in photographs so it is simply " my best guess " based on that. It's certainly possible that piece in hand, I or others may conclude differently.

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

Jean, here is, I believe, why. " Laminated " construction happened for basically two reasons. 1) thrift, steel and iron were expensive and thus the best possible use was made of all scrap so the forge welding togther of " drops " ,of left over pieces after cutting out parts could be forge welded togther to create a new usable piece of steel or iron from which to make something else. 2) and this is I think what I see with yours, late laminated construction was done as musketts and gun powder weapons were becomming the dominante factor on the battle field in the later 16 and 17th centuries. What was done was that extra steel/iron was forge welded into a finished piece to make it thicker ( I have seen pics of Xrayed examples where it is clearly visible that tassets and other armour plates have been forge welded inside a breast plate to make it thicker ) or on occasion an actual " doubling up " where essentially two similar pieces ( i'm unaware of this having been done with anything but breast plates but that certainly doesn't rule out its possibly having been done with other armour components ) ie. two breast plates, one inside the other, being forge welded completely togther to yield a thicker, shot proof piece. I believe this is what I am perhaps seeing with yours Jean. It allowed pieces that had been made of a weight/thickness to resist edged weapons to be thickened to resist shot. It wasn't common, the majority of shot proof armours being built from material of the requisit thickness, but there are examples of this method of late laminated construction out there. Fernandos is likley not shot proof and thus weights less than your's does.

This is of course all based on what I seem to be seeing in photographs so it is simply " my best guess " based on that. It's certainly possible that piece in hand, I or others may conclude differently.

Allan

As usually very clear explanation it is always very pleasant to read your great comments
Many thanks

Jean-Luc

[fernando]

Maybe things are not so exponential (is this the term ?).
If we analize the differences with a metric criteria, we may find they are not so great in proportion terms.
Starting by double checking the weight of each example; mine weighs precisely 4,500 Kgs ... so a little more than originaly quoted. Is the weight of Jean-Luc's example a straight one or is it (also) passive of a double check ?
Then, and above all, we have the shape of each breast plate; mine has a much lower cut on the neckline and armpits. A lot of material less = a lot of weight less.
Concerning strenght and speaking of laminated construction, as tought by Allan; my example may not have multi disperse drops, but surely has a whole double layer.
Finaly the shot proof detail; not discussing the strength of the bullets used by different smiths , i would swear the dimple in the middle of my example is (also) the reflex of a shot.

.

[A Senefelder]

Nando, the pics inside do appeare to show delamination. How " flakey " is it at the points where its lifting away?

[fernando]

Ho Allan, i wouldn't resist answering such technical lexicon ... and the breastplate is already back to the wall where it hangs.
But i have three pictures left; i hope they speak by themselves.
If it weren't for your enlightening on the laminated construction, i would (still)think my example is forged from two whole layers
Apart from the edges, the whole interior seems to be an entire part; but i am an ignarum in this field

.

[A Senefelder]

Nando, next question, as you can see in Jeans pics the inside of his breast plate is flat ( not shiney ) rusting metal, yours is glossy ( shiney and reflects light, except where delamination has occured ( the piece that has split away is shiney, the metal underneath, is flat like Jeans ). I'm guessing that the " shiney " is either A) varnish to seal the surface, or B) and older treatment museums used to use ( I don't think they do this anymore ) a special wax. From you obsevarions, what is the treatment over the inside of the metal? I'm looking to determine which as if it is the older wax, they could sometimes get a little overzealous with it and if thick enough just might give the appearance of small delamination points ( i'm looking to as near as possible from pics make sure i'm seeing what I think i'm seeing ).

Side note, Jean got your email, will respond with a book list. Had a very busy week finishing a few things to meet completion dates.

[Cerjak]

[QUOTE=A Senefelder]Nando, next question, as you can see in Jeans pics the inside of his breast plate is flat ( not shiney ) rusting metal, yours is glossy ( shiney and reflects light, except where delamination has occured ( the piece that has split away is shiney, the metal underneath, is flat like Jeans ). I'm guessing that the " shiney " is either A) varnish to seal the surface, or B) and older treatment museums used to use ( I don't think they do this anymore ) a special wax. From you obsevarions, what is the treatment over the inside of the metal? I'm looking to determine which as if it is the older wax, they could sometimes get a little overzealous with it and if thick enough just might give the appearance of small delamination points ( i'm looking to as near as possible from pics make sure i'm seeing what I think i'm seeing ).

Side note, Jean got your email, will respond with a book list. Had a very busy week finishing a few things to meet completion dates.[/QUO
TE]
No problem Allan, you have all your time to answer me ..
Kind regards

Jean-Luc

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe things are not so exponential (is this the term ?).
If we analize the differences with a metric criteria, we may find they are not so great in proportion terms.
Starting by double checking the weight of each example; mine weighs precisely 4,500 Kgs ... so a little more than originaly quoted. Is the weight of Jean-Luc's example a straight one or is it (also) passive of a double check ?
Then, and above all, we have the shape of each breast plate; mine has a much lower cut on the neckline and armpits. A lot of material less = a lot of weight less.
Concerning strenght and speaking of laminated construction, as tought by Allan; my example may not have multi disperse drops, but surely has a whole double layer.
Finaly the shot proof detail; not discussing the strength of the bullets used by different smiths , i would swear the dimple in the middle of my example is (also) the reflex of a shot.


.

YES Fernando

Logical less metal less weight !

[fernando]

Allan, before any reasoning, let me tell you that i got the opportunity to hang off the breastlate to give it a thin bathing of olive oil, something i have been doing once or twice to all my pieces, to both preserve them and grow some patina.
Thsat's why the shine in these recent pictures.

[A Senefelder]

Allan, before any reasoning, let me tell you that i got the opportunity to hang off the breastlate to give it a thin bathing of olive oil, something i have been doing once or twice to all my pieces, to both preserve them and grow some patina.

Nando, that explains it perfectly. Based on that, and again this is only working from pictures, I would say that your's like Jeans, seems to be of late laminated construction, probably to thicken it to make it shot proof.

[Cerjak]

Some pictures from a smaller one weight 3500 gr
Any comment on it will be welcome...