LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost

LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost (/showthread.php?tid=2591)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost - Anonymous - 03-05-2005

The LaWren sites images aren't very clear. Can anyone comment on the H004 helmet and the W016 gladius? What type of helmet is it, a "G"? How accurate is it and can it be reworked into something usable? Same for the sword.

Re: LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost - Anonymous - 03-05-2005

The H004 is the Trooper (though the picture is of a Gallic G) so unless its for theatrical use you might want to invest in a more accurate model. For $35 more you could get the H018 or H019 on that same page. They are Gallic G which gets you much closer to authentic. 
 
The W016 is the Deepeeka 3311 which is on the forbidden list for reenactment. They have, at times, had Deepeeka's Mainz (4209) or Pompeii (4211) in the regulat bargain basement for around $75-$100.

H018 - Anonymous - 03-06-2005

Does anyone have one of the H018 helmets or have they seen them up close? I would really like to know the mods I would have to make to it to bring it up to standards.

Re: LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost - Robert Vermaat - 03-06-2005

Quote:<hr>The H004 is the Trooper (though the picture is of a Gallic G) <hr> 
La Wren's pictures can often be deceiving. The sold me their 'late' lorica hamata (#RLO3867) but I received one that was 20 cm shorter and sleeveless. They said it was the wrong picture but it's still there, 3 years later. Caveat Emptor. Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

Re: LaWrens Bargain Basement Crosspost - Marcus Seneca Cato - 03-09-2005

Is the lorica segmentata any good? I've been wanting to do Roman re-enactment for a long time, but I'm rather below the poverty line, so cheap is the only way for me.

cheap gear - Anonymous - 03-21-2005

Has anyone gotten any of the cheap gear yet? If so could you give a short review?

"forbidden helmets" - Daniel S Peterson - 03-21-2005

quote: "this helmet is on the forbidden list for reenactors" 
 
What an absurd and uinformed statement. Someone who has never seen an original Roman helmet in his life, and is only familiar with a small sampling of the few, best known helmets from obsolete and "general" publications, makes a website and proceeds to dictate what is authentic and what is not..... and ignorant people accept his word as gospel? If ever there were a case of "the blind leading the blind" it is this. Just because this helmet may be "forbdden" to the <members of one group> it is inacurate to say everyone in the hobby - or even a small percentage of people in the hobby, accept this <> as the gospel truth. 
 
Please refer to the Gallic Browguard thread, and see an original helmet which if perfectly copied would probably also be on the "forbidden list" because it doesn't look like a perfectly made Simkins or Robinson replica, which obviously is what this "expert" uses to base his observations instead of real artifacts. When every Imp Gallic helmet ever found, (and there are quite a number since Robinson), are still markedly different from each other, how authentic can it be for every helmet in a group to look exactly like everyone elses? Believe it or not, reenactors, Roman helmets were not stamped from the same die like the nazi stahlhelms of your previous "hobby", but were handmade, and often extremely crude. Many would never even pass the "quality control" inspector of Deepeeka (yes, they really have one). 
 
I have held both the original "Type" Gallic G in Mainz, and Gallic H. in Augsburg that are pictured in Robinson, and can say the Deepeeka copies, made quickly, somewhat crudely, and probably on an assembly line like the Roman originals, are more characteristic of real Roman helmets than the "too perfect" copies of certain British craftsmen. Are you <> trying to reenact the real Romans, or reenact a modern collector who has enough money to buy a complete kit of "too perfect" Michael Simkins armor, because that's all many of your are doing by your website worship. 
 
Dan 
 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=caiusfabius>Caius Fabius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROMANISROMANORVM/files/C%20Fabius%201988b.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/24/05 1:16 am

helms - TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX - 03-21-2005

although strongly worded, I do agree with you. I have seen websites that say the amount of ridges are excessive on the deepeeka helms, yet I have seen part of a helmet in a museum with at least 5 ridges (I think it was supposedly from the civ-war of 69 era). I cant remember where the museum was, It was small, I want to say tuscany, but cant be sure. I very much regret not having my camera.

cheap helmets - Anonymous - 03-21-2005

I would like to add that the back ridges on the helmet on the brow guard post look suspiciously like the "Bump" ridges on the Deepeekas. Are what we have come to call "types" of Gallic or Itallic helmets really different models or just variations of the same helmet but produced in different parts of the Empire. But, back to the original question, has anyone ordered any of the cheap helmets?

helms - TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX - 03-21-2005

I ordered one for loaner gear, it hasn't come yet, ill let you know how it turns out.

Re: helms - Crispvs - 03-21-2005

Dan, 
 
I appreciate that I am not one of the moderators, but you appear (in two posts so far) to have started up your abusive tirade against Matt Amt again. It also appears that you are acting abusively towards other members of this forum. Please, for the sake of harmony, re-read the rules on posting and remember why it was that we heard nothing from you for a little over six months. 
 
Crispvs

Re: helms - Tarbicus - 03-21-2005

Quote:<hr>It also appears that you are acting abusively towards other members of this forum.<hr> 
 
Crispus has a point, but I feel okay now about my pair of Deepeeka Gallics, which as far as I'm concerned are as legit as any other Gallic - I've seen the photographic proof (unwittingly posting it in the first place ). I'd hate to see you go Dan, but that said, a bit of passion about what you love ain't a bad thing either. 
 
Jim/Tarbicus Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tarbicus>Tarbicus</A> at: 3/21/05 10:32 pm

Re: helms - Anonymous - 03-21-2005

Without knowing JSW personally (and whom I have no doubt is probably a first-rate reenactor), I also feel his/her comment about any item being "forbidden" to all reenactordom was a bit over the top. No one person can plausibly forbid an item of reenactor equipment to anyone other than his/her own members, assuming that person actually runs a unit (and even then, it's a free country). The required added verbage in this instance should have been the qualifying "IMHO". 
 
We all do what we can... some of the most accurate guys I know began life with a Trooper and/or a MuRep lorica. Evolution. 
 
Severus

Re: helms - Anonymous - 03-21-2005

No offense intended but perhaps it would be good to REREAD my post. The phrase "on the forbidden list for reenactment" referred to the 3311 (THE GLADIUS--NOT THE HELMET which you wrote three paragraphs about). 
 
<img src="http://www.lawrensbasement.com/basement%20pics/w016.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
As for the blanket statement regarding the GLADIUS, it is true that I should have written "on the forbidden list for many reenactment GROUPS"......there, now it's a true statement as opposed to an ignorant statement. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jsw@romanarmytalk>JSW</A> at: 3/22/05 12:45 am

misunderstanding - Marcus Mummius - 03-22-2005

Indeed JSW meant the sword. But if you read Mr. Amt's critiques on the deepeeka Imperial Gallic H he states that one of the helmet's largest (because it's so difficult to alter) problems are the non-stepped ridges on the back of the helmet. This, as we have now all learned, is in fact not a problem and this is backed by archaeological proof. It is always a tricky thing to make hard rules while you do not know about every item in the archeaological record (and this is almost impossible). It would be wise to update ones critiques regularly lest problems like this arise. 
 
I own a Imperial Gallic H helmet and must say that I too was thinking that it had problems with the ridges. Thank you for opening my eyes Mr. Peterson, I am (foolish as it may sound) a lot happier with my helmet now. The ridges didn't bugger me that much, nor do the other little differences of the deepeeka helmets have in comparison to the idealised types. I strongly believe (from my experience as an arcaeology student) that typology is a very dangerous thing. Typology should just be considered a useful aid in our atempt to understand the past, it is NOT a cause on itself and this is often forgotten. 
 
Kind regards, 
MarcusMummius