01-23-2008, 01:08 PM
Ok Giannis - you really have got the bit between your teeth mate haven't you!! :lol:
We (HA) have NEVER claimed - nor ever will in our lifetime - that our kit is perfect and we are always looking for better - your suggestion that we have at last 'admitted' suggests we were not honest before (I actually take exception to that) - you should come to a show and you will see - imperfection is our starting point for any display.
Shields - again you miss the point. You are also crossing old and new manning shields and to a degree, having a couple of discussions in one. The shape affects the way it is carried and there are variations of bowl depth even in statues. Art, we can accept, will mimic but not fully imitate reality. So the starting point for defending detail on a mass level is a bit unstable.
One of our prototype shields is about 17/18lbs - noticably on the heavy side to pick up - but the shape makes it much easier to carry and use than one of 14lbs with a different bowl shape. This is the point of reconstructive archeology - to find out stuff like this and try and make some sense from the variations we see.
Something, incidentally, which costs money - so by default, after investing £800 in a prototype to test something - we continue to use it THUS we have inbuilt innacuracies to our display BUT it gives us demonstration pieces to show the public and explain.
You comments on not being bronze faced - so they all were were they? (Rhetorical question!) Also, the bronze face is thought to have been very thin (like the old ancient brit shields) and thus the weight added would have not been that great HOWEVER, and this is the real point, the general conjecture is that they would have been around (that is an approximation) 14lbs (faced or not) and so we build to 14lbs to get a relatively accurate finished weight.... oh, and that is a finished weight, not just the weight of the bowl. Another point I think you missed.
Finally - and I think this point has been made - there was no such thing as standard issue. There would have been similarities, familiarities, etc - but with scant data and even less chance of getting it, we have to work to something to get it done. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that the build process would have been consistent in any timeframe - but we are looking at 6-700 years worth of building...and technologies do evolve. Sadly there is little to support the process being consitent throughout that period or changing over time.
So - Manning - authentic? Well perhaps a good representation of one variation and build hypothesis, absolutely. The later pattern (we have not examined) certainly looks far better than the early one (we have examined), which is actually - and no offence Craig - very difficult to use for any period of time. However - everyone has to start somewhere and we have an awful lot worse from our first attempts, so no criticisms beyond what has been said in a practical vein.
Personally - I think the bowl price for a manning represents good value for the work involved - albeit very expensive if having it shipped - and I am certain that whoever had one would be pleased with it.
Personally, however, it still seems a bit shallow to me....but what do I know, I only carry them all summer :wink:
I am also intrigued that you do not trust vase painting when it comes to deeper bowls???? You trust it for shallow bowls so what's the difference??
Don't you like the colour??
We (HA) have NEVER claimed - nor ever will in our lifetime - that our kit is perfect and we are always looking for better - your suggestion that we have at last 'admitted' suggests we were not honest before (I actually take exception to that) - you should come to a show and you will see - imperfection is our starting point for any display.
Shields - again you miss the point. You are also crossing old and new manning shields and to a degree, having a couple of discussions in one. The shape affects the way it is carried and there are variations of bowl depth even in statues. Art, we can accept, will mimic but not fully imitate reality. So the starting point for defending detail on a mass level is a bit unstable.
One of our prototype shields is about 17/18lbs - noticably on the heavy side to pick up - but the shape makes it much easier to carry and use than one of 14lbs with a different bowl shape. This is the point of reconstructive archeology - to find out stuff like this and try and make some sense from the variations we see.
Something, incidentally, which costs money - so by default, after investing £800 in a prototype to test something - we continue to use it THUS we have inbuilt innacuracies to our display BUT it gives us demonstration pieces to show the public and explain.
You comments on not being bronze faced - so they all were were they? (Rhetorical question!) Also, the bronze face is thought to have been very thin (like the old ancient brit shields) and thus the weight added would have not been that great HOWEVER, and this is the real point, the general conjecture is that they would have been around (that is an approximation) 14lbs (faced or not) and so we build to 14lbs to get a relatively accurate finished weight.... oh, and that is a finished weight, not just the weight of the bowl. Another point I think you missed.
Finally - and I think this point has been made - there was no such thing as standard issue. There would have been similarities, familiarities, etc - but with scant data and even less chance of getting it, we have to work to something to get it done. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that the build process would have been consistent in any timeframe - but we are looking at 6-700 years worth of building...and technologies do evolve. Sadly there is little to support the process being consitent throughout that period or changing over time.
So - Manning - authentic? Well perhaps a good representation of one variation and build hypothesis, absolutely. The later pattern (we have not examined) certainly looks far better than the early one (we have examined), which is actually - and no offence Craig - very difficult to use for any period of time. However - everyone has to start somewhere and we have an awful lot worse from our first attempts, so no criticisms beyond what has been said in a practical vein.
Personally - I think the bowl price for a manning represents good value for the work involved - albeit very expensive if having it shipped - and I am certain that whoever had one would be pleased with it.
Personally, however, it still seems a bit shallow to me....but what do I know, I only carry them all summer :wink:
I am also intrigued that you do not trust vase painting when it comes to deeper bowls???? You trust it for shallow bowls so what's the difference??
Don't you like the colour??
Noli Nothis permittere te terere!!
Mark.
Mark.
