Deepeeka helmets and drooping crests...

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

[size=150:1cyrdyhd]J[/size]ust a thought and comment... Looking at pix of the real Gallic "G" on www.romanhideout.com ([size=75:1cyrdyhd]one o' my more favorite sites[/size]) [click here to see the real helm]. Anyway, the biggest thing I noticed was just how CROOKED this original helmet was made. :roll:

Hell, if you showed up at some Roman event w/ a DEAD-ON, balls-perfect helmet copied off the orginal, people would just spaz!!! "What, why that thar helmet is CROOKED -- NO Roman soldier would ever be allowed ta wear somethin' like that!" Really, you know I'm right about this -- the stuff we have today is WAY, WAY too perfecty ([size=75:1cyrdyhd]is that a word?[/size])... I guess what I'm saying is that while a lot of the craftsmen out there make BEAUTIFUL stuff, w/ all the characteristics of the real thing, they are making them NICE, vs. all crooked and off center like the real thing is. I am so tempted to have my blacksmith friend make a direct copy of the real thing -- crooked, off center and looking crappy, just to cheese the super perfecty crowd. >;-D~

Anyway, what do I know? I'm just a dumb-ass truck driver... Just thought I'd throw this opinion out there. He-he-he!

[Matthew Amt]

That's the sermon I've been preaching for a good 10 years, Marsh! It's also incredibly difficult to break people out of the mindset of wanting everything as nice as possible. There is always a tendency to go with Gallic helmets and the fancy beltplates, when Coolus helmets and plain or ring-motif plates were more common (at least through mid-first century AD). I never force people to abuse or "age" their gear--I think it SHOULD be kept in good repair--but I do try to push for the plainer stuff. And I try to get them to appreciate some Roman sloppy details. When I'm trimming neckguards on Deepeeka helmets or adding chinstrap rings and such, I do as little measuring as possible, working fast and by eye. Gives it that realistic touch.

One thing to remember about all the crooked and lopsided original stuff is that it would still look great once it's buffed up! Only up close would you be able to spot the sloppy work.

Deepeeka does have at least a little of that cranked-out sloppy look. The problem is that they also put in all kinds of modern mistakes, as well as the good Roman ones.

Valete,

Matthew

[Batavian]

Yes I agree with you too Marsh, but spending hundreds of dollars on something and then making it deliberately sloppy just isn't right. :lol:

I do see what you mean though, so I wouldn't mind having a plain Coolus helmet someday too.

I have the same with swords; I own a very expensive Bugei katana and I wouldn't dream of actually using it... it may get a scratch or something. :wink:
My cheaper plainer swords with heavy grind marks are looking much more accurate, much more like tools instead of works of art... and I'm not afraid of scratching them either.
So yes the "sloppy" stuff can have its charm too.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

That's the sermon I've been preaching for a good 10 years, Marsh! It's also incredibly difficult to break people out of the mindset of wanting everything as nice as possible.

It's more than that... yeah, they all wanna look shiney and "kewl" but they also want to look like the nice shiney pix in Dan's book :-0 I wish there was more than one copy of the Gallic G left. I often wonder just HOW identical they were, bearing in mind the roughness of this one that is left.

I never force people to abuse or "age" their gear--I think it SHOULD be kept in good repair--but I do try to push for the plainer stuff. And I try to get them to appreciate some Roman sloppy details. When I'm trimming neckguards on Deepeeka helmets or adding chinstrap rings and such, I do as little measuring as possible, working fast and by eye. Gives it that realistic touch.

You don't have to "abuse" it or "age" the gear.... wear it! That will do it for you. Really, people forget that. It's like these Silly War goobers who dry clean their uniforms every week.

One thing to remember about all the crooked and lopsided original stuff is that it would still look great once it's buffed up! Only up close would you be able to spot the sloppy work.

I dunno, that "G" is REALLY crooked. Really, but I love it. Can't you jsut see some surly slave worker banging it out. Hell, maybe I'm wrong, but to me, this stuff, in the amount they manufactured it, probably DID look crappy. Yeah, they were probably made to polish it, but I don't think they had the same ideas about the word "indentical" as we do. I bet it was more, okay, it looks like "this" not, okay, we shall place this rivet exactly HERE.

Deepeeka does have at least a little of that cranked-out sloppy look. The problem is that they also put in all kinds of modern mistakes, as well as the good Roman ones.

Again, for what it is, I think if they just nailed down some of the details, they're stuff would be perfect. Okay, well it is still TOO NICE for the original stuff, but it is better than, say a Michael Simkin's jewelry-quality helmet... my opinion, mind you, but... I don't know where it will go w/ Deepeeka -- if you ask Dan, he will admit they don't much worry about changing stuff as it is making money now... it's unfortunate, but until one of us wins the lotto and can go down to Mexico and get it done, it ain't gonna be right. Even then, I fear, it will still have problems... I guess what they say is true "A bitching sailor is happy sailor!" 'Member when one couldn't even GET a Roman helmet for less than $500. :-0

[Tarbicus]

I wish there was more than one copy of the Gallic G left. I often wonder just HOW identical they were, bearing in mind the roughness of this one that is left.

Aye, but the Worms Weisenau doesn't even have matching cheekplates and a different number of rivets on each: Weisenau helmet Worms 1. As far as I know Robinson made the only accurate reconstruction of it. That's the kind of accurising I'd like to see. A Weisenau in the Zagreb museum also had 3 layers of tinning and such, and the brow edging was just added right on top of the existing rosettes' bottom halves. I fancy mixing and matching different cheekplates. Maybe Deepeeka should do accessory kits for their helmets - Mix-n'-match cheekpieces; come with a mixed bag of copper, brass and iron rivets, etc.

[Peroni]

Salvete,

There is a wonderful and very accurate reconstruction (not Robinson's) of the Worms Gallic G pictured in Dan Petersons' book.



Regards,

[Tarbicus]

:oops: Okay, I didn't look. Very tasty, and no doubt I'm about to be bombarded with reconstructions :roll:

[Magnus]

Hey Batavian, what you can also try is making a paper form using a thick type of paper (like cardstock), and wrap it around the first 2-3 inches of the horsehair, or more in order to keep it's shape. What the paper will do is in essence act as a support for the hair. It might look goofy though, so you could also try using some type of clear material, or a waxed linen thread and make a weave around the hair part of the crest that accomplishes the same thing.

[Matthew Amt]

Yes I agree with you too Marsh, but spending hundreds of dollars on something and then making it deliberately sloppy just isn't right

Ha, you just proved our point! You're saying that you would pay more for a *less* accurate helmet--you SHOULD be more willing to spend more for an item which is MORE accurate! (I realize you were speaking at least partly in jest, but you played into my hands so beautifully!) Though it should be possible for a custom armorer to charge a little less if he doesn't have to be so perfect and careful.

I wish there was more than one copy of the Gallic G left. I often wonder just HOW identical they were, bearing in mind the roughness of this one that is left.

Well, if you look through Robinson, you'll see that Gallic G is a LOT like Gallic F, only with *slightly* wider eyebrows (not as wide as on most repros) and squarer cheekpieces. Robinson shows 3 Gallic F helmets, and I know there is at least one or two more. They are all darn similar in shape and general details. There are also 3 or 4 Gallic E helmets, all very similar, and Gallic H matches them except for the slope of the neckguard. The fragments from Colchester could match any of those helmets, easily. The distinctive details of the 3 Gallic A helmets that I've seen are startlingly close to each other, yet distinct from most any other Gallic helmet.

Certainly they weren't concerned about the exact placement of a rivet, or details like that. But they were very much stuck in fashion ruts. A workshop might crank out a couple dozen helmets day after day, all the same style, yet with numerous little differences in details. But there'd be no reason for them to suddenly make a helmet with 4 occipital ridges when all the others had 3.

I don't know where it will go w/ Deepeeka -- if you ask Dan, he will admit they don't much worry about changing stuff as it is making money now...

Right, only a very tiny percentage of their customer base is made of reenactors who actually care about such details. When they tried to discontinue their "trooper" helmet, their vendors howled because it was their hottest item. So no incentive to change!

Valete,

Matthew