I recently bought a Deepeeka Italic D, unfortunately I was not aware Deepeeka made an older version of this helmet, I simply compared photos quickly to make sure it was a Deepeeka as far as the general shape, accents, and ornamentation. I quickly snapped up the helmet, but upon closer inspection I noticed the details although similar were not as sharp, and that it appeared to be a pre-N series.
Unfortunately the helmet database is down, and this is what shots I could find of the original:
http://www.reenactor.net/marsh/
Aside from the little issues Marsh pointed out on the link, does this helmet overall have any real issues? It actually looks much more like the original than I give some of Deepeeka's other pre-N series helms. It doesn't have a stupidly large or awkward size or something does it?
The old version:
[attachment=4372]ItalicD2.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=4373]ItalicD.JPG[/attachment]
The N series, from Rusty's site:
http://legvi.tripod.com/armamentarium/id148.html
The thing that jumps out is that the decorative pieces are not attached with rivets and the temples and eagles don't have the engraved lines in them. Also the neck guard appears to be too sloped and the ridges at the back are too wide.
You would know best Jay lol. I know it would bother the stitch counters, but I can live without the engravings, as they are minor details on the original:
http://www.reenactor.net/marsh/images/wo...nt-qtr.jpg
http://www.reenactor.net/marsh/images/wo...d_back.jpg
I have given up trying to have an exact replica of an exact helmet, it is almost impossible unless you get a custom helmet, even Deepeeka's best helmets have minor differences, the fact that the temple on the older helmet is a bit lower isn't so much a problem, hundreds of these helmets were cranked out and no doubt had minor differences (Krefeld Italic D for example). That said I do strive for authenticity, but I'm trying to make the most of this helmet
Yes the pinned on brass accents are irking, as do the ridges, hopefully the neckguard is not too big, nor the slope to steep to wear with a seg. Perhaps some older RAT members who owned this type of helmet can tell me a little about their experiences, as I have not received the helmet yet.
And yes, I am kicking myself for jumping on this helmet so fast
Well, live and learn..
I had both, I....donated the old version to the group.
mile:
The newer version is viewable on Armamentaria's website.
People still wear the older deepeeka helmets. The price ofthese makes them
more affordable than the custom or replacements.
I often try to work out why people make a helmet then add things to it that should not be there such as the hooks to hold a crest for this particular helmet has a T shaped crest holder on the top with the two elongated studs at the peak which held the crest and it would have been a transverse one at that.
Why can't they also learn to countersink the rivet holes at the outside of the decorative pieces, so that when flat head rivets are put in from the inside of the bowl and peened over they can be cleaned down to look invisible and the decor' would look so much better.
At least this way they might just get a little bit nearer to it looking like the original and not a re-designed load of rubbish.
Byron, can you tell me, was the neckguard too large to wear with a seg? I know my old (pre-N)Gallic G was huge and sloped. I just might know someone who could trim off some of the neckguard if this is the case
Brian, as someone who makes these helmets, seeing these little things is understandably very vexing I'm sure, the "trooper" Italic D (sadly there are some floating around on ebay as "Emperor's helmets" would make you absolutely scream lol. What is funny is that they were able to attach the "temples" on the cheekguards without having huge rivets popping out, but they failed to do this with the rest of the brass accents
If I recall, they were about the size of the Gallic H neckguards...
so you could wear it with a seg, some guys were in fact when I first started.
Yeah, that's the old crappier one. The bands are raised and the eagles look like drunken Pterodactyls... Still, w/ some work (cutting out and making NEW eagles) and doing some minor engraving, you could make it look right. Oh, and the brow guard "milk bottle" nuts... make the smaller.
I have repeatedly asked Deepeeka to sell their stuff as kits or the parts separately...
Best, Marsh
P.S. Nice to see my old website still gets visits.
Are the overall proportions of the helmet correct Marsh?
That Deepeeka model looks like they used 18 guage/1-2mm to do the decoration, however looking at the original the brass work looks to be no more than about 22guage/0-6mm or even 0-5mm.
They also appear to go overboard with rivets to hold the decoration onto the bowl but if thinner brass were used and fitted against the bowl correctly in parts. They could then braise all the decoration bits together the way I have done with this helmet in the past and simply apply the whole decoration thing like a basket over the bowl and then lock it down with only the rivets showing on the original which is how I think the original may well have been done.
When I look again they have not even done the notched edge on the front of the reinforce peak, then also the neck guard of the Deepeeka has round corners that are incorrect where they should be almost at a right angle.
Hey Matt, an easy project, and kind of fun would be to use thin hobby sheet brass to re-do the ornamentation, then re-attach using brazing (or metal glue if you are ok with it).
Quote:That Deepeeka model looks like they used 18 guage/1-2mm to do the decoration, however looking at the original the brass work looks to be no more than about 22guage/0-6mm or even 0-5mm.
They also appear to go overboard with rivets to hold the decoration onto the bowl but if thinner brass were used and fitted against the bowl correctly in parts. They could then braise all the decoration bits together the way I have done with this helmet in the past and simply apply the whole decoration thing like a basket over the bowl and then lock it down with only the rivets showing on the original which is how I think the original may well have been done.
When I look again they have not even done the notched edge on the front of the reinforce peak, then also the neck guard of the Deepeeka has round corners that are incorrect where they should be almost at a right angle.
Thanks for the input Matt & Brian, though I only plan at this point on replacing the eagles, and when I get to that is beyond me. Though I agree with you that the original used very thin brass. I don't even know of the cross braces on this helmet would have been very useful with how thin they are, but since I'm doing a Dacian-era legionary, perhaps I upgraded for a better reinforced corssbrace, we know at least one Gallic type helmet was modified with cross braces.
Looking at the original:
[attachment=4469]RomanMainz_italic-d_top.jpg[/attachment]
I think the Deepeeka reproduction over emphasizes on the notched edging on the browguard, the Krefeld Italic D (Deepeeka repro anyways, I can't view the original in the database) doesn't have notched edging. In my opinion the notching is almost negligible on the original, though this I imagine could be easily remedied with a file. As far as the neckguard, I can't see the older version's angle enough from the picture to say the angle is off, but it very well may be.
I thought about removing the eagles and just flattening them out with a hammer and recutting them, and putting them back on, but this would most likely make them too thin to be useful I'm thinking?
I've also just noticed that both old and new Deepeeka versions, as well as the Lonely Mountain Forge version all have the "ear guard" shape incorrect.
They should come to a point on the ends:
Original:
[attachment=4470]RomanItalic-d_lft-frnt-qtr.jpg[/attachment]
Deepeeka:
[attachment=4471]casque_romain_imperial_italique_D_HL127A.jpg[/attachment]
Matt,
I would also not put lines or decoration on the eagles. As far as I can saw (I used to have very hight resolution photos before a computer crash and I lost all my files) there was no evidence of such decoration as seen on the Deepeeka helmet. Now there are some people that believe there is a line on the neck of the bird right below the head. But that is the only one and it could be there for many reasons. Furthermore, the temples in the back have their decoration nearly intact as are all the other details on this helmet. So why all of a sudden do the eagles lack all of their detail?
I would just redo the eagles the way you see them on the original. Leave out the details. I know it is tempting since all sculptures and certain phalerae appear to show feather details. However, on the original helmet, I just do not see anything conclusive.
I do agree with what has been said about the decoration being too thick and the fact that too many rivets are shown.
Quote:Matt,
I would just redo the eagles the way you see them on the original. Leave out the details. I know it is tempting since all sculptures and certain phalerae appear to show feather details. However, on the original helmet, I just do not see anything conclusive.
I do agree with what has been said about the decoration being too thick and the fact that too many rivets are shown.
I agree absolutely about the eagles details being too well "detailed". I don't know where Deepeeka got that idea, even the temples on the back have little engraving. Of course the rivets are obnoxious and need to go. I know the crossbar plates are too thick, I have to agree with Robinson that the dating of this helmet starts Mid 1st Century, as the thin brass sheets were not designed like the later crossbars used after the Dacian wars, they would be too thin to be applied specifically to counter a falx, the older Deepeeka version would have a more preferred thickness to counter a falx blow, which is ok by me.