Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 21st November 2014, 12:27 PM   #1
A Senefelder
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 214
Default

Quote:
There are remnants of the studs on the inside of the armour for both the
Ken my apologies I missed this part or your OP. Please ignore my first post.

The small residual peascod, somewhat ragged outer edges seen where the neck and arm openings are rolled ( i'm guessing over a heavy wire or shaped iron round stock ) and the straight break of the neck line ( meant to act as a gorget would thus obviating the need for one ) all indicate as you surmised 17th century date. I've owned several 17th c. breast plates over the years ( pics of the last one attached ) and all shared these features. The shape of the residual peascod can vary a bit. Given the point of purchase, an ECW attributation in natural to assume but English manufacture is not. The English imported large quantites of continental armour from a Europe glutted with it from The 30 Years War so it is an either or as far as point of manufacture.
Attached Images
   
A Senefelder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2014, 04:56 PM   #2
Kmaddock
Member
 
Kmaddock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 543
Default

Hi All,
I appreciate the time you have all taken to reply to my enquiry.
As a new forum member who does not know a lot about such things I do not like always to be asking questions without giving much in the way of contributions.
Great to get a confirmation that my hunch was correct, I have some French armour form the 1830's and the difference in weight was what made me think this might be the genuine item, for the price of 2 take out pizzas I was prepared to gamble.

I have put up some pictures of the remnants of the studs and the mark on the neck for the sake of completion of the post, I do not think the mark will tell much as there is not a lot of definition.

I am not much into cleaning things beyond active rust, not laziness mind you, just I question too much restoration and patina removal. However, would it be wise to remove the varnish or just leave it as part of the history of the item, I have full access to any solvents and fume hoods as I work in chemistry so if you know of any good varnish removers please advise, di chloromethane would be my first choice but am open to suggestions.
Again thanks and regards
Ken
Attached Images
    
Kmaddock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2014, 06:14 PM   #3
Ken Maddock
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Posts: 104
Default

Last of pictures above is the indentation of the armoury mark on the neck of the breast plate, the proceeding ones are the inside of the breast plate showing the stud remnants, I used a triangle of paper to show the remnant on one side of the armour which is quiet small
Note the shinyness is all due to the varnish on the inside
Regards
Ken
Ken Maddock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2014, 08:12 PM   #4
A Senefelder
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 214
Default

Ken, at this period armour of munitions quality like this were being produced in large quantities so the stamp at the neck line is as likely to be an armoury control mark as any sort of makers mark. As for cleaning it, that of course is your call but I left things as they were baring aggressive active rust on armour. If it was varninshed I left the varnish in place.
A Senefelder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.