Wow, what a cool thread.
First off thanks to all the nice words about my website. That's really awesome to be quoted like I'm some authority or something.
Second, thanks to Jaime for bringing this to my attention.
Now some comments.
The masada loricae look good in terms of anatomy, but as usual, are undecorated, so it's hard to tell. Also, the picture quality is really fuzzy.
About finishes and polish etc. I think a good place to start is to discuss whether such finishes were possible first. Showpieces like the Derveni Krater, and a couple of fabulous vases in the Metropolitan Museum, have really bright polished surfaces, but they are the exception. Bronze doesn't come out all shiny, you need to polish it, excessively. The athens museum has a couple of bronze mirrors that were protected from corrosion, so that we can see the mirror like polish on them, but aside from those examples, I've never seen anything so bright. The kraters in the Met for example are bright, but no where near as shiny as most of the polished metal I've seen in reconstructions.
Most of the everyday tableware, and bronze fixtures never had a polish like that. The naturally dark brown patina is easy to obtain and protective, and maintainable with a minimum or effort, so there is value in having bronze that isn't super shiny either, since it requires less effort to maintain and is less vulnerable to corrosion.
Having said all of that, the above only applies to pots, pans, vases and furnishings. I've never seen a bronze piece of armor from the Greek period that survived well enough to tell what kind of finish it had. There is value in both a polished and natural (what we might call antique) brown finish. The one is spectacular and showy, the other very functional and resistant.
Now polishing is separate profession in the Byzantine era, I suspect there must be some reference about polishers as a trade in the Roman literature, but I don't know that literature as well. Somebody's got to look into that. Even then, I don't know if that will tell you if they polished armor, but it would add to the argument that they did.
I totally disagree with the idea that parades are a modern thing. The pageantry of Romans in triumphs, games, processions and religious festivals is well documented.
We have some polished and gilt statues, it's true, but that's another matter. The famous equestrian portrait of M. Aurelius in the Campidoglio was gilded all over, including the horse, and I wouldn't use that to suggest that Romans were painting horses gold! Polished or gilt surfaces in statuary may indicate that the object was a luxury object, and have nothing to do with whether the original was polished or not, so seeing polished surfaces may not solve the problem.
I will add one more monkey wrench to this thing. Whenever we find traces of paint of these loricatae, the paint is red or brown or green or blue. Not colors we would use if we were trying to mimic a metallic surface, polished or otherwise. Marble statuary, unlike bronze statuary that was polished or gilt for it's luxurious effect, was painted to resemble life, so I think it may be a more reliable standard for how things really looked. If that's the case, these loricae shouldn't be polished or antiqued at all, but should be painted bright red or blue or maybe even green! When (and if!) I ever make my reconstruction, I will be painting it with encaustic wax-based paint.
Now, just to clarify my position on leather vs. bronze. I have no doubt that they made lorica from bronze. Some of the details in decorations are too high to make in molded leather. It's also clear that MOST of the loricae have leather parts, the shoulder harnesses and tongue pteruges are, in my opinion, indisputably leather 99% of the time. I also think that they made cuirasses in leather. There are some representations that can't be explained any other way. I also believe that a good number of the cuirasses COULD be entirely leather. It just isn't an "either/or" thing for me anymore. If you backed me into a corner and forced me to decide, which I am reticent to do, I would say that I think that, of the ones we can see, about 40-50% are probably leather, 20-30% are clearly bronze and 20% are unidentifiable. I'm hedging my bets it's true, but take that for what it's worth.
So, now that that's clear as mud, a few minor points.
First, the shoulder harnesses.
The vast majority of reconstructions I've seen recreate the shoulder harness system from the Primaporta Augustus. Yet the PA is completely atypical. It is the only one that uses this system. Nearly all others use the shoulder straps. Something to think about.
Second, the "daisies" chrysanthemum's or whatever you want to call them, are always referred to as "rosettes" in art historical literature. I'm not sure where they get that from, but modern hybrid roses are unknown in the ancient world. Wild roses in and around the mediterranean look a lot more like the kind of flowers you can see here for example:
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... modeta.jpg
Like the acanthus motif on this same statue they are highly stylized but I think they are meant to represent wild roses.
Which brings me to my biggest beef about these loricae. The decoration!!
Nearly all the loricata are lavishly decorated, yet almost none of the reconstructions have them.
So this raises a couple of issues that I would like discussed.
In your opinion...
1.) Is the sculpture representative of actual armor, or is it more stylized than actual armor? Specifically, would we really see armor like this on a campaign or is it just for show? Or in other words are we only looking at showpiece examples of the musculata?
2.) Even if this stuff is somewhat atypical, it's the only real evidence we've got. How does a re-enactor balance the issues of questionable evidence against even more questionable speculation? Or in other words, is it better to base your kit after a genuine fake rather that a realistic fantasy?
Hope this helps generate some interesting discussion!!
Travis