Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Armor question

Expand Messages
  • bronwynmgn@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/31/2003 7:50:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/31/2003 7:50:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:


      <<Here is a armor question for every one. What would you
      rather see on the field:

      A) Armor that is made from plastics but hidden by
      other clothing to look like period armor

      OR

      B) Armor that is not quite period for the given
      persona but uses "SCA style" armor for certain areas.>>

      A, definitely. I have a real problem when SCA rules get in the way of doing
      good recreation. I understand the need for the armor bits that weren't used
      at certain periods (my husband fights, and I certainly don't want him to have a
      smashed knee or anything), but I don't think there's any reason to degenerate
      to standard "SCA style" armor if there is any way to make it look more
      accurate.

      Brangwayna
    • William Leo Harrington II
      THe cold I understand, but let me add another perspective on the use of plastic for armor. Museums, when restoring swords, commonly replaced grips with plain
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        THe cold I understand, but let me add another perspective on the use of plastic for armor. Museums, when restoring swords, commonly replaced grips with plain wood, even though, actually precisely because, it was obvious that that was not the original material or construction technique. They wanted it to be very obvious what parts of a restoration were not original. In the SCA, this could be applicaple. When trying to combine SCA safety rules with an authentic recreation of fighting gear, why not use obviously non period materials or construction for the parts that are required by the SCA but have no place in the gear of your persona? This would be a true authenticist and teaching apreach. THe only reason not to do this is to avoid offending the esthetic principles of some of the people watching. Which should come first, authenticity or esthetics?

        Dorje
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Kareina Talvi Tytär
        To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:55 PM
        Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Armor question


        I'd go with:

        C) Armor that is made from leather or metal or other things available in
        that period, but then cover it with the garb to give the correct overall
        look for that period. But given a choice between hidden plastics, and
        hidden pieces (like knees and elbows) made of materials they _could_ have
        used if they wanted to protect their knees and elbows, I'd go with the
        period materials! Remember, well hidden is well hidden when the kit is
        new, but during use things can get damaged, and the plastics might show
        thorough a hole. (I've also got the Oerthan bias against plastics, which
        have a nasty habit of shattering when struck in extreme cold temperatures!)



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Despair Bear
        ... The problem is that the plate armor necessary for those spots is not represented anywhere in the archaeological evidence, in my mind not making it really
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Kareina Talvi Tyt�r <kareina@...> wrote:
          > I'd go with:
          >
          > C) Armor that is made from leather or metal or
          > other things available in
          > that period, but then cover it with the garb to give
          > the correct overall
          > look for that period. But given a choice between
          > hidden plastics, and
          > hidden pieces (like knees and elbows) made of
          > materials they _could_ have
          > used if they wanted to protect their knees and
          > elbows, I'd go with the
          > period materials! Remember, well hidden is well
          > hidden when the kit is
          > new, but during use things can get damaged, and the
          > plastics might show
          > thorough a hole. (I've also got the Oerthan bias
          > against plastics, which
          > have a nasty habit of shattering when struck in
          > extreme cold temperatures!)
          >
          > --Kareina

          The problem is that the plate armor necessary for
          those spots is not represented anywhere in the
          archaeological evidence, in my mind not making it
          really any better that plastics. Also, yes plastics
          can shatter in the cold but not all plastics are
          subject to that flaw.


          Godric Of Castlemont



          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
          http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
        • Tom Knighton
          My answer to this question is to look at it this way. How would your persona have solved the problem of SCA legality in relation to armour with thier
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            My answer to this question is to look at it this way. How would your
            persona have solved the problem of SCA legality in relation to armour with
            thier materials. This avoids the "If they'd have had it, they'd have used
            it" arguement since they DID have it, they just didn't need to do it this
            way.

            As for plastic being used exposed, that is a major criticism of the SCA by
            many other historical groups. If you can tell it's plastic, then it should
            be kept hidden. There are some plastic lamellar plates out there that look
            a lot like different types of metal (I personally like the bronze colored
            ones!).

            If it can be seen at all, I'd rather it not be plastic. I think that
            plastic is a horrid material for use in armour, and that metal and leather
            are both superior to it in just about every way. Even if it is hidden, I
            think fighters owe it to themselves to use the best material for required
            bits of armour. Metal and leather hold up much better than plastic, and not
            just in the frigid north.

            As for things like body armour, you can use period materials for most any
            thing.

            In short, I hate plastic and wish it would be banned from the field.
            However, as long as its not obvious that you have it, I tolerate it.

            Not that anyone really cares what lil ole me thinks :)

            Bran
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.