From: kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu (David Kuijt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Aluminum Armour (was Re: HELP WANTED RE KINGDOM AWARDS)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:30:07 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Greetings to the rialto;

Dennis O'Connor wrote mentioning the aluminum armour he is going to make;
Kwellend-Njal responded "Sigh";

Dennis O'Connor then wrote back:

>I'm not sure what the sigh means. It's not like many people use
>the _real_ material for functioning SCA armour : hand-forged iron
>or steel, as opposed to modern cold-rolled steel, or period-tanned leather,
>or actual forge-welded links for chain. We are not a museum, after all.
>ANd period armour was meant to stop sharp swords, not rattan.
>I'd certainly be duly impressed by someone who DID make their
>armour out of really period material, but I don't bemoan it's absence.

This is tantamount to saying "We can't be perfect, therefore X is fine."
In this case X is aluminum armour.  This is just plain wrong.  In the
words of that famous follower of the false prophet Mahound, don't make
the best the enemy of the good.  The fact that we cannot be perfect
should not stop us from trying to be good.


>Non-period _looking_ armour, such as uncovered white plastic, does tend
>to detract from the mood of an event, but, it's all some people
>can afford, so I don't hold it against them. That's why I want to
>anodize and dye the aluminum : painting and laquering was period,
>and anodizing will look more like that than aluminum looks like steel.

This is all fine.  Aluminum armour that looks like lacquered steel armour
is nicer than aluminum armour that looks like a stop sign.  In the same
way that hidden zippers are much better than obvious zippers, and that
hidden velcro is much better than obvious velcro.


>Why anyone would object to period-looking SCA armour, regardless of the
>details of it's construction, I really don't understand.

We must all draw our own lines somewhere--I wear a plastic cup, I fight
in an barred-visor bascinet, etc.  Like many people, my lines are forced
upon me by cost, time, material, and knowledge constraints.  However, I
look longingly across the lines, and when possible I attempt to move
them farther towards a better recreation.  This takes money, or time,
or research, or effort, so I can't do as much as I'd like to.

If everyone looked upon their personal constraints as obstacles to be
overcome when time, cost, material, knowledge, and energy permits, our
recreation in the SCA would be far better.  I have only respect for a
poor young student who pieces together shoddy armour out of old road
signs, if that student longs for the day when he or she will be able
to own fine armor of leather and steel.  If this young fighter decides
that aluminum armour is "good enough" I am sometimes saddened.  That
reaction was what I had to your statement about aluminum armour.
Kwellend-Njal's sigh could as well have been mine.

For me the question is not whether Aluminum, Titanium, and other modern
metals (or plastics, for that matter) are acceptable.  The question is
rather whether they are an appropriate final goal.  If everyone who had
plastic armour wished for metal or leather; if everyone who had aluminum
armour wished for steel; if everyone who had butted chainmail wished for
welded mail,....  If all this happened, I would be very happy.  Because
those who defend their personal level of authenticity as the right one
miss the point.  None of us have done as much as we might.  The sad thing
is the people who do not wish for more.


This was longer than I thought it would be; I apologize for the length.




	Dafydd ap Gwystl			David Kuijt
	Barony of Storvik			kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu
	Kingdom of Atlantia			(MD,DC,VA,NC,SC)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca