Lobster tailed helmet circa 1640

[AHorsa]

Dear all,

I just acquired one of their brothers. "L" stamp on the nasal bar and the front cap. I wonder if this is a makers mark or an armoury mark.
Here is an example of the armoury in Graz (Austria):
http://www.hermann-historica-archiv....db=kat58_a.txt

The discription says that there is the armoury mark and makers mark (Jakob Topf) on the front cap. Assuming that the squiggly mark is the one of the maker, the "F" might be the mark for Graz´armoury. So I tend to assume that the "L" or "M" and "H" and what letters else appear are armoury marks. If so, it would be great to find out to which armoury the letters (especially the "L" ) belong.

Kind regards
Andreas

[Victrix]

According to Dudley Hawtrey Gyngell, Compilation of known Marks of Armourers, Swordsmiths and Gunsmiths the F is the armourer’s mark. The crowned mark must then be the Graz Armoury mark. Would dearly like to know what that looks like assuming Hermann Historica is correct in their product description.

[AHorsa]

Great! Thanks for clarifying this, Victrix.
That does also mean, that this piece here: https://www.hermann-historica.de/de/...s/lot/id/33749
is also to date as early as 1618 - 1628. I was always assuming that the helmets with the higher calottes (like the one in the link of my last entry) where more early (around 1630). But that means, that also earlier helmets have "medium high" calottes. Am I right?

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by AHorsa

Great! Thanks for clarifying this, Victrix.
That does also mean, that this piece here: https://www.hermann-historica.de/de/...s/lot/id/33749
is also to date as early as 1618 - 1628.

These marks are a bit of a minefield unfortunately and books on them can’t be relied on uncritically. I think the book tells you that the author identified items with that mark from that time period. It’s unlikely that the Master armourer himself churned out dozens of zischägges but more likely they were produced by his workshop and perhaps by his descendants. So I think you need to not take the dates literally. The below is taken from The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in ...
by Alan R. Williams.

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by AHorsa

I was always assuming that the helmets with the higher calottes (like the one in the link of my last entry) where more early (around 1630). But that means, that also earlier helmets have "medium high" calottes. Am I right?

I think generally the less standardized looking Austrian zischägges tend to be earlier, and that includes the ones with higher calottes. In Peter Krenn’s excellent “Imperial Austria, Treasures of Art, Arms & Armour from the State of Styria” he writes of a new arms boom starting in 1619 when Gabor Bethlen Prince of Transylvania rose and marched on Vienna. The Styrian government then stocked up on arms based on the then modern Western European and Dutch models, based on the military reforms of Prince Maurice of Orange. The new designs became known from a drill book by Jacob de Gheyn, which illustrated the new fashionable arms in detail and inspired the local arms industry in Graz. Your helmet seems to be the “modern” style from this time which explains why they are virtually identical with Northern European and Dutch specimens.

That’s a very nice helmet by the way. I love that glint of steel. Do the neck lames articulate or are they fairly rigid?

[AHorsa]

Thank you so much for this extensive explanation and for sharing your knowledge Victrix!

Originally Posted by Victrix

That’s a very nice helmet by the way. I love that glint of steel. Do the neck lames articulate or are they fairly rigid?

One can move the neck lames slightly but I don´t want to try to what extend as I do not want to damage the old leather.
I like the overall shape of this helmet with its downward curved end of the tail:

[AHorsa]

One more question :
Have all Zischägges originally been blackened or are there assured examples that were originally bare?

Kind regards
Andreas

[Victrix]

I think some zischägges and other helmets and armour were blackened whilst others were not. Probably some of the more munitions grade items used in the field/in action were blackened, but some more decorated items clearly were not. On some items the partial blackening form part of the decoration. I found this in Peter Krenn and Walter Karcheski’s “Imperial Austria, Treasures of Art, Arms & Armour from the State of Styria” (1998).