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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Armor question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.