Identifying BREASTPLATE

[A Senefelder]

I was expected your comment ,yes it seems to be of laminated construction but you are the specialist about the construction so I'm not 100 % sure.

Jean, here is, I believe, why. " Laminated " construction happened for basically two reasons. 1) thrift, steel and iron were expensive and thus the best possible use was made of all scrap so the forge welding togther of " drops " ,of left over pieces after cutting out parts could be forge welded togther to create a new usable piece of steel or iron from which to make something else. 2) and this is I think what I see with yours, late laminated construction was done as musketts and gun powder weapons were becomming the dominante factor on the battle field in the later 16 and 17th centuries. What was done was that extra steel/iron was forge welded into a finished piece to make it thicker ( I have seen pics of Xrayed examples where it is clearly visible that tassets and other armour plates have been forge welded inside a breast plate to make it thicker ) or on occasion an actual " doubling up " where essentially two similar pieces ( i'm unaware of this having been done with anything but breast plates but that certainly doesn't rule out its possibly having been done with other armour components ) ie. two breast plates, one inside the other, being forge welded completely togther to yield a thicker, shot proof piece. I believe this is what I am perhaps seeing with yours Jean. It allowed pieces that had been made of a weight/thickness to resist edged weapons to be thickened to resist shot. It wasn't common, the majority of shot proof armours being built from material of the requisit thickness, but there are examples of this method of late laminated construction out there. Fernandos is likley not shot proof and thus weights less than your's does.

This is of course all based on what I seem to be seeing in photographs so it is simply " my best guess " based on that. It's certainly possible that piece in hand, I or others may conclude differently.

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

Jean, here is, I believe, why. " Laminated " construction happened for basically two reasons. 1) thrift, steel and iron were expensive and thus the best possible use was made of all scrap so the forge welding togther of " drops " ,of left over pieces after cutting out parts could be forge welded togther to create a new usable piece of steel or iron from which to make something else. 2) and this is I think what I see with yours, late laminated construction was done as musketts and gun powder weapons were becomming the dominante factor on the battle field in the later 16 and 17th centuries. What was done was that extra steel/iron was forge welded into a finished piece to make it thicker ( I have seen pics of Xrayed examples where it is clearly visible that tassets and other armour plates have been forge welded inside a breast plate to make it thicker ) or on occasion an actual " doubling up " where essentially two similar pieces ( i'm unaware of this having been done with anything but breast plates but that certainly doesn't rule out its possibly having been done with other armour components ) ie. two breast plates, one inside the other, being forge welded completely togther to yield a thicker, shot proof piece. I believe this is what I am perhaps seeing with yours Jean. It allowed pieces that had been made of a weight/thickness to resist edged weapons to be thickened to resist shot. It wasn't common, the majority of shot proof armours being built from material of the requisit thickness, but there are examples of this method of late laminated construction out there. Fernandos is likley not shot proof and thus weights less than your's does.

This is of course all based on what I seem to be seeing in photographs so it is simply " my best guess " based on that. It's certainly possible that piece in hand, I or others may conclude differently.

Allan

As usually very clear explanation it is always very pleasant to read your great comments
Many thanks

Jean-Luc

[fernando]

Maybe things are not so exponential (is this the term ?).
If we analize the differences with a metric criteria, we may find they are not so great in proportion terms.
Starting by double checking the weight of each example; mine weighs precisely 4,500 Kgs ... so a little more than originaly quoted. Is the weight of Jean-Luc's example a straight one or is it (also) passive of a double check ?
Then, and above all, we have the shape of each breast plate; mine has a much lower cut on the neckline and armpits. A lot of material less = a lot of weight less.
Concerning strenght and speaking of laminated construction, as tought by Allan; my example may not have multi disperse drops, but surely has a whole double layer.
Finaly the shot proof detail; not discussing the strength of the bullets used by different smiths , i would swear the dimple in the middle of my example is (also) the reflex of a shot.

.

[A Senefelder]

Nando, the pics inside do appeare to show delamination. How " flakey " is it at the points where its lifting away?

[fernando]

Ho Allan, i wouldn't resist answering such technical lexicon ... and the breastplate is already back to the wall where it hangs.
But i have three pictures left; i hope they speak by themselves.
If it weren't for your enlightening on the laminated construction, i would (still)think my example is forged from two whole layers
Apart from the edges, the whole interior seems to be an entire part; but i am an ignarum in this field

.

[A Senefelder]

Nando, next question, as you can see in Jeans pics the inside of his breast plate is flat ( not shiney ) rusting metal, yours is glossy ( shiney and reflects light, except where delamination has occured ( the piece that has split away is shiney, the metal underneath, is flat like Jeans ). I'm guessing that the " shiney " is either A) varnish to seal the surface, or B) and older treatment museums used to use ( I don't think they do this anymore ) a special wax. From you obsevarions, what is the treatment over the inside of the metal? I'm looking to determine which as if it is the older wax, they could sometimes get a little overzealous with it and if thick enough just might give the appearance of small delamination points ( i'm looking to as near as possible from pics make sure i'm seeing what I think i'm seeing ).

Side note, Jean got your email, will respond with a book list. Had a very busy week finishing a few things to meet completion dates.

[Cerjak]

[QUOTE=A Senefelder]Nando, next question, as you can see in Jeans pics the inside of his breast plate is flat ( not shiney ) rusting metal, yours is glossy ( shiney and reflects light, except where delamination has occured ( the piece that has split away is shiney, the metal underneath, is flat like Jeans ). I'm guessing that the " shiney " is either A) varnish to seal the surface, or B) and older treatment museums used to use ( I don't think they do this anymore ) a special wax. From you obsevarions, what is the treatment over the inside of the metal? I'm looking to determine which as if it is the older wax, they could sometimes get a little overzealous with it and if thick enough just might give the appearance of small delamination points ( i'm looking to as near as possible from pics make sure i'm seeing what I think i'm seeing ).

Side note, Jean got your email, will respond with a book list. Had a very busy week finishing a few things to meet completion dates.[/QUO
TE]
No problem Allan, you have all your time to answer me ..
Kind regards

Jean-Luc

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe things are not so exponential (is this the term ?).
If we analize the differences with a metric criteria, we may find they are not so great in proportion terms.
Starting by double checking the weight of each example; mine weighs precisely 4,500 Kgs ... so a little more than originaly quoted. Is the weight of Jean-Luc's example a straight one or is it (also) passive of a double check ?
Then, and above all, we have the shape of each breast plate; mine has a much lower cut on the neckline and armpits. A lot of material less = a lot of weight less.
Concerning strenght and speaking of laminated construction, as tought by Allan; my example may not have multi disperse drops, but surely has a whole double layer.
Finaly the shot proof detail; not discussing the strength of the bullets used by different smiths , i would swear the dimple in the middle of my example is (also) the reflex of a shot.


.

YES Fernando

Logical less metal less weight !

[fernando]

Allan, before any reasoning, let me tell you that i got the opportunity to hang off the breastlate to give it a thin bathing of olive oil, something i have been doing once or twice to all my pieces, to both preserve them and grow some patina.
Thsat's why the shine in these recent pictures.

[A Senefelder]

Allan, before any reasoning, let me tell you that i got the opportunity to hang off the breastlate to give it a thin bathing of olive oil, something i have been doing once or twice to all my pieces, to both preserve them and grow some patina.

Nando, that explains it perfectly. Based on that, and again this is only working from pictures, I would say that your's like Jeans, seems to be of late laminated construction, probably to thicken it to make it shot proof.

[Cerjak]

Some pictures from a smaller one weight 3500 gr
Any comment on it will be welcome...