Belt plate thickness 1st Century AD

[Doc]

Does anyone know on average how thick belt plates were in the mid 1st Century AD specifically belt plates that had embossed decoration on the surface such as emperor/cornucopia and wolf/twins belt.

How thick were the above belt plates?

How were most of these types of embossed belt plates made? Were they punhed thin brass sheet wrapped around a thick brass plate that served as a backing or was the belt plate one piece punched out of a thick brass sheet.

I was under the impression that these embossed belt plates were about .5mm thick.

However, while I was speaking to certain people (out of respect I will not mention whom) it appears that .5mm is too thick for any embossed belt plate and that these types of plates (according to these people's opinion)were thin brass sheet wrapped around a brass backing plate.

Were embossed plates filled with pitch since they were thin brass sheet and then put on a backing?

Does anyone have a photo of the back of these embossed plates. Was the reverse flat or did it have the indents of the punch?

From what I read in B&C and other Roman books and then from what I hear from armorers, the story about the embossed belt plates gets muddled and keeps changing. I have no idea as to whom has a concrete idea


Thanks

Paolo

[Peroni]

There is a belt plate stamp of this type in the Castle Museum at Colchester. The associated belt plates I have seen are only about 0.25mm thick maximum.

[Matthew Amt]

Yeah, .25mm sounds about right. The ones I make are .010", so they're in that ballpark. I stamp them between a brass "positive" die and a lead block "negative", with a big hammer. So the back is just the negative impression of the front. I don't recall ever seeing any indication of any backing plate or filler on original stamped plates, and mine don't need any.

There are a very few originals that *look* like stamped embossed plates but are cast, so those would be flat on the back. And many of the narrower plates with geometric designs and inlay were cast, though some were apparently made with little chisel-like punches on heavier sheet, so the design is recessed into the face but the back remains flat. I've done a few like this, and it took about half an hour per plate--much faster than waiting for someone to cast the design I wanted!

Vale,

Matthew

[Matt Lukes]

The Lupercal and Acanthis (?) plates listed in 'Ad Arma' are stated to be 1mm in thickness. I've got several different style plates in my collection, the thinnest one is 0.6mm but I'd have guessed it thinner- can you guys actually reference the 0.25mm thickness you mentioned?

[Tarbicus]

The Lupercal and Acanthis (?) plates listed in 'Ad Arma' are stated to be 1mm in thickness.

matt, is that the thickness of the sheet used, or from the most extreme points front and back?

[Matt Lukes]

It's specifically the thickness- the raised image is more like 5mm high

[PhilusEstilius]

I would like to ask Matt Lukes, are these plates you refer to in your collection originals. If this is the case can any pictures be shown of the reverse side of them. I am also aware as Matthew Amt points out that some belt plates were cast, infact not to many years ago I put a Roman belt buckle with it's attached plate into the British Museum. It was one that I found with my metal detector, and both myself and Mick Bishop were of the opinion that the buckle was the first of it's type ever to be found in Britain. That's the reason why I decided to put it into the museum, rather than sell it to a private collector. The plate was cast and the decoration was Vine leaves which had been appllied in punctim, this plate was in the region of 0.5mm in thickness.