From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: Inexpensive, good looking armor
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 14:08:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <17741@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> helm@jade.ucdavis.edu writes:
>ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
>>
>>Twcs suggested that armor that was safe and looked reasonable 
>>would cost a lot more than $150. The helm I have used for years 
>>was purchased from Get em on the Field. I have a version with a 
>>removable grill, which I rarely remove; the version with the 
>>fixed grill, which several of our people got, cost something like 
>>$60.

      To buy a 60$ helm in montengarde, An Tir, you would
      have to get an old beat-up rusty on-it's-last-legs
      *JUNKER* that needed all it's welds redone, and would
      also be extremely ugly no matter what you did to it.

      An *acceptable* (I do not mean terribly pretty) helm
      runs around 150-300$ here. The reason is fairly simple,  
      out here almost everyone makes their own armour. There
      just isn't a big enough market to allow economy of
      scale to lower the prices.

      You can buy helms for 60$, as Cariadoc mentioned, but
      you have to drive to Estrella or Pennsic to do it.

>I do confess, Cariadoc is right.  I err on the side of gothic
>armour, so you won't see me in anything less than 15th century.

      And I salute you for it. Speaking as one who wore
      milanese 1420 (though leather/metal composite)
      weighing in over 90lbs, I like to see anyone with
      the gumption to cart that much ironmongery about
      the field.

>>Everything except the helm can be made out of hardened leather, 
>>including gauntlets or basket hilts (see the expanded version of 
>>my T.I. article in the new Miscellany). A side of saddle skirting 
>>(about 22 square feet of 12-14 oz leather) will cost less than 
>>$100, including postage (The Leather Factory, when they are 
>>having one of their frequent sales). Add another $20 for the 
>>beeswax to harden the leather, cord to lace up the lamellae, and 
>>a few buckles, and you are done. You should have about a third of 
>>your leather left, so reselling that to someone else in your 
>>group ought to bring the price down close to $150. No plastic, 
>>and good protection.

     Here in Montengarde, that side of heavy saddle skirting
     will run between 150-200$, and that's getting a good 
     deal from MyFriendTheWholesaler (and if you think he
     gets a bottle of good scotch for christmas, you're right)

     As for having leather left...Hmmm, I haven't ever made
     scale (having a life outside of cuttting little polygons
     out of a dead cow for hours on end), *but* it took me
     a hide-and-a-half to get enough good solid grained 14oz
     weight leather to make my whole harness, plus a half sheet
     of 16ga steel. I was able to flog away the belly and loin
     leather for 40$ though, mitigating my expenses somewhat.

>Yep, he's right again, if you go for a Visby or similar style of
>armour.  Guys, however, don't have the requirement of solid breast
>protection.  I will opine that ladies usually have to favor later
>styles of armour in order to have good looking and legal armour that
>will pass inspection.  (Ha!  I bet I just started another thread
>on the rialto.  Any lady fighters out there want to contradict me?)
>I myself wear a globulus gothic breast plate, and the thought of
>putting a domed get-em-on-the-field helmet on top of it just makes
>my aestitics cringe...  (Could it be?  Cound the Twcs be suffering
>from a case of incipient armour-foppishness?  Nah...   ;-)

     yeah, globular breast plates appear to be a necessary evil,
     we had to make one for lady Siobhan, and now we need to make
     another, as this one simply doesn't fit right. I tried to
     propose the amazonianm solution, but was shouted down...

     I'm pushing for barrel plastic, covered in suede in her
     colours, and then sprinkled with copper rivets. Cheap,
     attractive, and ver period in appearance.
 
>From all the responses I've seen to my original post, I'm beginning
>to think that my definition of what constitutes "good looking on the
>field" is damn close to "as much like a period illumination as possible."
>Mea Culpa!

     Yep, looking good on the field is the second most important
     responsibility of a fighter;-) Fighting well being the
     first.

     I don't think that the fighters should ever fail to realise
     that our big splashy tournies are likely the biggest
     newbie-attractant the SCA has.

Carolus Malvoix
Montengarde An Tir
Blithering, P.A.(mont), dep. const, 
humorous iconoclast.
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca