I owned an example of this type of zischagge back in the earlier 2000's. The are one of the more if not the most common types and seem to have been made in large quantities is Germany and the Low Countries. Constructionally, i'm seeing some features I like, both the hole for the set screw for the nasal and the two holes in the tail are punched rather than drilled, it appears from the photos that the overlapping plate edges of the tail are beveled, the lower profile domed head rivets ( most modern dome head rivets have a higher head profile than period rivet did ). Most 19th and earlier 20th century copies miss these sorts of finer details. The leathers of the cheek plates and it looks like possible the bowl of the helmet appear, as you observed, to have been replaced ( this is not a negative, they seem to have been done well and do have some age ) while the leathers of the tail portion seem to be original/older.
Quote:
|
The helmet has lost its screw threaded wing of the nasal bar.
|
Having a decent replacement for it made wouldn't be out of order nor should it be all that expensive. I used to make reproductions of this type of helmet and made the set screws, it took a bit of work but not that much.
Quote:
|
There are two pin holes at the very point of the lobster tail where the helmet at some time in its life has been screwed to a wall for decoration?
|
One or two holes in the brim or tail section of 16-17th century helmets was fairly common. The intent was to run a thong through the hole/holes to form a loop to hang the helmet from a belt or strap. While zischagges have the small ring riveted into the top plate at the peak of the bowl for suspension from a hook on the saddle this was not good for hanging from a belt at the waist or across the chest so the two holes in the tail would be for that.
Armour of munitions quality ( which this helmet is ) were being produced in very large quantities to equip the ever growing armies of a Europe being consumed by the ever growing " Wars of Religion " of the 16th and 17th centuries. The fact that there are no control, municipal armoury or makers marks isn't unusual at all.
Based on the available pics my feeling is that this is a decent 17th century example with some replaced leathers. If it is a reproduction it is very well done with attention to period construction details that are usually skipped but this piece doesn't " feel " like a reproduction to me. I'd like to see some more detailed pics of the inside of the tail plates and the bowl when you receive this, I think i'm seeing hammer marking from forging ( rather than being mechanically worked as a fair amount of Victorian repros were ) but can't be 100% sure from the available pics.