06-22-2014, 11:40 AM
Doc, in your reply to Patrick you said....Annealing the brass as you have done and working the material will allow you to get good detail. Its a pain because you have to constantly heat. Large pieces of armor I think were done by repousse. Belt plates and scabbard parts were stamped out.
Pretty clear to me that you are implying all belt and scabbard parts were stamped/punched. Maybe you are the one who should choose your words more carefully.
The ornate belt plates I was referring to are the so called Pompeii plates...the ones in almost perfection condition. They weren't found in Pompeii, rather Stabia from what I understand. Anyway there is no question they were punched/stamped, the reverse side clearly shows this. You ask why would less ornate plates be repousse', well I would ask why not? I believe to achieve the finest detail they would have to be stamped like the Pompeii plates, in one go, not as you or Matt Lukes suggest going back over with chasing. Chasing is done in conjunction with repousse' not stamping or punching. If a good die set is made correctly then then the sheet of metal will show the exact relief/pattern perfectly. I have inquired of artisans who make die sets, and the results from a set will give you a perfect image of the pattern...no working over again in pitch. Of course pressblech dies are different again....the sheet is beaten and worked over the die.
Ok, less ornate (and detailed) pieces could have been done in repousse' because punching was not required. Like the Fulham lockets.
I personally believe that the dies used on scabbard plates like the Tiberius could have and would probably have been one piece, because if you look at pressblech dies they are one section for a locket of decoration. In fact maybe the lockets on many Roman scabbards were pressblech? Matt Bunker could possibly shed some light on this. I know that Dave Roper a member of Wulfheodenas is probably the leading expert in this craft.
I think in some areas we are all in agreement that some were punched and some were repousse'
Pretty clear to me that you are implying all belt and scabbard parts were stamped/punched. Maybe you are the one who should choose your words more carefully.
The ornate belt plates I was referring to are the so called Pompeii plates...the ones in almost perfection condition. They weren't found in Pompeii, rather Stabia from what I understand. Anyway there is no question they were punched/stamped, the reverse side clearly shows this. You ask why would less ornate plates be repousse', well I would ask why not? I believe to achieve the finest detail they would have to be stamped like the Pompeii plates, in one go, not as you or Matt Lukes suggest going back over with chasing. Chasing is done in conjunction with repousse' not stamping or punching. If a good die set is made correctly then then the sheet of metal will show the exact relief/pattern perfectly. I have inquired of artisans who make die sets, and the results from a set will give you a perfect image of the pattern...no working over again in pitch. Of course pressblech dies are different again....the sheet is beaten and worked over the die.
Ok, less ornate (and detailed) pieces could have been done in repousse' because punching was not required. Like the Fulham lockets.
I personally believe that the dies used on scabbard plates like the Tiberius could have and would probably have been one piece, because if you look at pressblech dies they are one section for a locket of decoration. In fact maybe the lockets on many Roman scabbards were pressblech? Matt Bunker could possibly shed some light on this. I know that Dave Roper a member of Wulfheodenas is probably the leading expert in this craft.
I think in some areas we are all in agreement that some were punched and some were repousse'
