Muscled Cuirass- Prodromi Iron type & NEW Copper Alloy Type

[Kineas]

Hmm. I need to rexamine my definition of "mirror" since I think we're in substantive agreement.

'really, really smooth and bright and capable of returning a good reflection' ???

Anyway, all good. Back to work--I'm doing a repousse shield band/porpax with Herakles killing the Nemean Lion.

[Matt Lukes]

Well thanks everybody- I really appreciate the kind words I was pretty pleased with how this piece is turning out, and it's nice to know I'm not just deluding myself that it is LOL

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, its pretty damned awesome! And thanks for the mini tutorial!
I would love to try that one day!

[Matt Lukes]

I've been messing about again on yet another muscle cuirass, this time in heavy copper alloy; the iron piece was tough to make because sheet steel isn't so easy to work cold and work hot is problematic (can't use wood forms, cools quickly, etc.), but I really wanted to see just how heavy copper alloy would be. The data I was provided by a couple of fellow RATers showed that an appropriate starting thickness would be 1.6mm (0.064"), since quite a number of artifacts are listed as being between 1.5 and 1.7mm thick, with some areas as thin as 1mm, and that's very thick metal. Copper alloys can be softened significantly by annealing of course, but on this scale I wondered really how it'd be- luckily it was just fine Easier on the arm than steel of 75% the thickness in fact and it can be entirely worked cold, a benefit to be sure. The downside is that it work hardens rather quickly, unlike steel seems to, and requires frequent annealing to be sure to avoid cracking (and to make the work actually productive since the hardened metal doesn't move much compared to the annealed).

It's quite heavy at around 3300g, although that'll come down some when I finish the surface. One whole cuirass in the BM is listed at around 3.3kg- both front and back together- so that one must be somewhat thinner but it is certainly rather smaller, which really the majority of artifacts are; mine's around 56cm high whereas on artifact listed at ranging from 1-1.5mm thickness is just about 42cm high. It's still certainly a managable weight and really rather light compared to mail, for example- and it's a damn sight prettier :wink:

This fellow's made of brass because I had it on hand (been meaning to try a muscle cuirass for years), and it's a whole lot cheaper than bronze- and of course there's the aforementioned difficulty in actually obtaining sheet bronze of the necessary size; neither makes a first try in anything but brass such a great idea LOL This much brass is still damned expensive, so thanks much to commodities speculators :evil: Still, I'm very pleased with the results thus far- the musculature is, I think, a reasonable version of the average muscle cuirass (or is thorax a better term?), certainly at leat since it has the proper smooth transitions and not the sharp deliniations between muscles that some reconstructions have (despite no original I know of looking that way). It's made to fit me- one could expect all the originals were made to fit the owner- so since I'm not exactly Schwarzeneggerish, the sides of the upper chest aren't as far out as some originals, but otherwise the shaping is consistent with most real, non-cavalry (since their belly sections were very angled out) pieces. I still haven't decided on the nipples- maybe silver, maybe bronze or even copper for some nice contrast.

I'm also still studying the way the neck, arm hole, and belly hems were done- clearly there are two major methods: 1) simple flare where the edges are just bent out, and 2) rolled in, where a tunnel is created making a round, protruding but very soft edge is formed. The rolled edge is no problem, but the nature of the flare type I'm looking into; the best images I have are of pieces from the ex-Guttmann collection and unfortunately many are heavily restored so it's not easy to be sure just how possibly thinner, more subject to degradation and damage- such as the edges- looked originally. I'm also looking at which is most appropriate for the style I'm looking at.

I also have the basic impression that there are two styles of closure patterns: 1) a long hinge on one side and two short ones on the other, both covered with a wide decorative strip bearing a 'wave' pattern on one edge, and 2) 4 simple hinges, two on each side- I want to reconstruct my cuirass with the former because it's rather more ornate and I like the look. I am curious if there's a temporal or stylistic association between the hinges and the edges: all of those with the 'wave' strips seem to have flared edges, and while most of those with just 4 small hinges have rolled edges, a few have just flared edges as well. The rolled edge is certainly superior for comfort and protection, so I'd wonder if it were a progression in design- it could just be a cost issue, but really rolling the edges isn't SO much more work when considered in the context of what must have been very expensive armour in the first place. The same goes for the ornate hinge vs. the simple ones, only the reverse- I would wonder if the ornate 'wave' strip were an earlier feature, discarded in favour of the simpler 4 small hinges for a functional or visual difference (the sides aren't hidden by the big strips) as opposed to a cost one. Does anyone know if there's any support for the latter idea at least? Could the 'wave' strips be an earlier feature? Or does anyone know of an artifact that has the 'wave' strips and rolled edges?

Anyway, the photos show a quick progression for interest sake (since the basic steps were outlined previously)- hammering out the pectorales majors initially (quite large since the later hammering of the upper abdominals and rib cage area will raise these and thus inherently reduce the 'projection' of the pectorals); then the basic shapes in place, with the sides curved- this is where most reconstructions seem to stop, leaving the 'cuirass' rather barrel-like and not at all as the real thing is; then the piece as it is now, with all the waisting and rebating of the abdominals done, and of course refinement of the whole thing (no small amount of hammerwork!)

[Kineas]

Beautiful, Matt. Really handsome and I thin the sahpe is right.

Now, how about making me an archaic Bell cuirass...

[Matt Lukes]

That's next on the list Well a true bronze muscle cuirass is really next, but a bell cuirass is the next new type I want to have a go at. It's a much simpler form, it should be far easier to make; I have to find some better photos of the originals though, particularly close-up, high-resolution type images. I really like the well preserved one from Olympia, but the one from Argos, as shown by Connolly, is pretty nice too.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Heeeeyyy!!!
You beat me to it! I was ready to ask how about a bell cuirass too!In bronze. There aren't so many good examples where the shape is not significally altered.
Your last thorax is the best thing out there,congratulations for finding out how they were being shaped! Trully perfect!
Khaire
Giannis

[Matt Lukes]

Another update- I 'flared' the neck and arm hole edges, did some finish grinding and polishing on the upper body section and added the side connector 'hinges' (since they don't flex, I wonder if it's really appropriate to refer to them as hinges?). It seems that for edge finishing, flaring and rolling (in) appear about equally among the extant examples of this armour, and I can see no clear evidence of a temporal relation or design evolution, so am left with the idea that it was simply a decorative choice as to which was used. I, myself, rather like the flared look on this form of cuirass- perhaps partly because the archaic Bell form seems not to have used it and it's always nice to have a little variety among details. I can now also clearly see the use of the little flaps that appear on some Roman statuary at the lower edge of the arm opening- even the rebated flare there is not terribly comfortable for the inner arm, so something to 'soften' the area is highly desirable.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

This looks more and more excellent! Do you plan to reshape again the lower part of the belly?
Khaire
Giannis

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It certainly makes a difference on segs too!

That is really nice work, Matt. What are you charging for one of these?
PM me with details, please!

[Matt Lukes]

Thanks guys. Yup, the belly line isn't quite done yet- it needs a bit of refining and of course the lower edge needs to be flared a bit as well. You can see in the photo the marker line I drew to help guide me where to make the slight bend :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,i got a bit surprised and i asked,because in the older photo the belly was better shaped!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clairity/3 ... 4/sizes/l/
Have you come across this photo? It has a huge resolution,perhaps you can see interesting details, especially in the edges,the niples and the belly button!
Khaire
Giannis

[Matt Lukes]

Actually I just saw some excellent photos of this and the other cuirasses in the Met- I was surprised to see the little 'X' in the navel, which is a neat detail. It only appears on two of four, and I haven't seen it on any others, but it's certainly anatomically-correct and adds one more level of realism.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

MATT your work is simply STUNNING !!!

M.VIB.M.

*Hasta pura nomination would be in order here!