Some art huhu (noodity warning)

MRPolo13

The Arbiter of the Gods
Thanks! Overall it's good. I'm not going to comment on the art itself since you're so far ahead of me you don't even register on the horizon. It's honestly amazing.

The image below will hopefully help me illustrate some of these points. It's a pretty accurate drawing of the Avant Armour at the R.L. Scott Collection in Glasgow (the barbute helmet likely isn't a part of the set).



The helmet is good. It's a representation of a griffon bascinet, which though didn't exist historically are perfectly viable (modern reenactors use them a lot. I think they look awesome, they're just not historical in the form they're commonly shown). The arms are good. Though pauldrons weren't really blocky even on kasten-brust armour, which is honestly the most amazing armour ever, there is no reason that couldn't work. I'd say that the besagnes, which are the floating disks meant to protect the armpits, are too small, and perhaps the upper arms should end in cannons, which are fully or partially closing tubes that start at around the middle of the bicep and cut in just at the elbow.

The breastplate appears to go down too far. It's quite common in cheap reenactment to have the breastplate go down all the way to the hips, but this severely limits the wearer's movement as the bending point of the person is actually around the natural waist, which is more or less at the height of the belly button. That's where the breastplate should cut in. If you look at the image above, the faulds don't really protect the legs, but rather the lower stomach and groin. The shape of the breastplate should be more globose. In this case it goes pout far enough, but it has a V shape. To illustrate what I mean (really badly), I did the below:

upload_2018-4-25_18-9-47.png

Honestly the Avant Armour picture shows the shape of a breastplate better than I could.

Furthermore the faulds usually started as entire lames and would only end in tassets. This is because again, their job was protect the stomach and so they had to be solid. I wouldn't worry about them being solid rings though, because they were only suspended on leather straps riveted to the metal. This allowed them to move pretty much freely.

The gauntlets should have wrist guards attached to them that would overlap the vambraces, but since they could be articulated this might be the case here.

Again, with all of this said I must reiterate that this drawing is absolutely gorgeous, and I don't mean to detract from it in the slightest. I hope this can be at least slightly useful (even though I'm very wordy. Sorry!) If you have any questions regarding armour at any point I'm more than happy to help. :D
 

Elz

Secretly Niah
Staff member
Thanks for being so in depth with it, I do appreciate it and I may edit parts of it soon to try work better. (At the very least I'll consider it if I do another armoured piece in the future) I think the biggest fault (maybe fault) is that I wasn't using any one set of armour to work from, so it won't match anything that existed at one point and that makes it hard to work with if you know your stuff I imagine. I didn't realise the breastplate was/could be so short either, and had assumed the bits over the tops of the thighs would somehow attach to it under the belt and that was that. I'll see how it looks with shortening it and adding beneath but knowing me it'll look a bit weird and I'll get stubborn and not want to change it.
 

Kamaoe

The Green One
Staff member
Kamaoe
Kamaoe
Thanks! Overall it's good. I'm not going to comment on the art itself since you're so far ahead of me you don't even register on the horizon. It's honestly amazing.

The image below will hopefully help me illustrate some of these points. It's a pretty accurate drawing of the Avant Armour at the R.L. Scott Collection in Glasgow (the barbute helmet likely isn't a part of the set).



The helmet is good. It's a representation of a griffon bascinet, which though didn't exist historically are perfectly viable (modern reenactors use them a lot. I think they look awesome, they're just not historical in the form they're commonly shown). The arms are good. Though pauldrons weren't really blocky even on kasten-brust armour, which is honestly the most amazing armour ever, there is no reason that couldn't work. I'd say that the besagnes, which are the floating disks meant to protect the armpits, are too small, and perhaps the upper arms should end in cannons, which are fully or partially closing tubes that start at around the middle of the bicep and cut in just at the elbow.

The breastplate appears to go down too far. It's quite common in cheap reenactment to have the breastplate go down all the way to the hips, but this severely limits the wearer's movement as the bending point of the person is actually around the natural waist, which is more or less at the height of the belly button. That's where the breastplate should cut in. If you look at the image above, the faulds don't really protect the legs, but rather the lower stomach and groin. The shape of the breastplate should be more globose. In this case it goes pout far enough, but it has a V shape. To illustrate what I mean (really badly), I did the below:

View attachment 92322

Honestly the Avant Armour picture shows the shape of a breastplate better than I could.

Furthermore the faulds usually started as entire lames and would only end in tassets. This is because again, their job was protect the stomach and so they had to be solid. I wouldn't worry about them being solid rings though, because they were only suspended on leather straps riveted to the metal. This allowed them to move pretty much freely.

The gauntlets should have wrist guards attached to them that would overlap the vambraces, but since they could be articulated this might be the case here.

Again, with all of this said I must reiterate that this drawing is absolutely gorgeous, and I don't mean to detract from it in the slightest. I hope this can be at least slightly useful (even though I'm very wordy. Sorry!) If you have any questions regarding armour at any point I'm more than happy to help. :D
*She takes notes*
 

MRPolo13

The Arbiter of the Gods
Thanks for being so in depth with it, I do appreciate it and I may edit parts of it soon to try work better. (At the very least I'll consider it if I do another armoured piece in the future) I think the biggest fault (maybe fault) is that I wasn't using any one set of armour to work from, so it won't match anything that existed at one point and that makes it hard to work with if you know your stuff I imagine. I didn't realise the breastplate was/could be so short either, and had assumed the bits over the tops of the thighs would somehow attach to it under the belt and that was that. I'll see how it looks with shortening it and adding beneath but knowing me it'll look a bit weird and I'll get stubborn and not want to change it.
Even working from references can be problematic unfortunately, unless they're actual extant pieces. Reenactors often get things wrong. But yeah, the mistakes you made are very common because they on paper make sense, and if you look at my much older art, I used to make them too. Hell, I've been learning about armour for around 4 years and only about a year ago I realised that the faulds weren't meant to protect the legs but the stomach. I'm glad I could help! :D