Re: Bell cap how to

[Matt Lukes]

Matt.

It becomes clear from a statement you have made in your previous post that you do not understand the porpose or the function of these bell-caps. Then where you mention the artifacts that you have not seen yet, it becomes clear that you did not take too much notice at all of the pictures put forward by Jurjen at the beginning of his topic.

Hardly. The function and purpose of the washers is quite obvious- the only thing I'm debating is the correctness of the term and the prevalence. Thus far there's been no reason given to support the term, save appealing to the user (which is not a good argument), and the mention of a couple of artifacts, only one a belt, with no timeline, or anything else to support them being used as widely as you seem to be advocating. And I obviously had a perfectly good look at the photo Jurjen posted- otherwise how could I have pointed out, way back, that it was not really good enough to properly evaluate- since you said that the modern washer, which does match Jurjen's reconstruction, was not like the real thing.

In my opinion it becomes clear that you are not too familiar with the Vindolanda or the Trimontium horse chamfrons where this term has been used, I first of all gave the reference given by Carol van Driel Murry now I shall give the actual statement.

Quote. "The large studs and attachments were securly bell-capped at the back, presumably for the comfort of the horse. Several of these caps remain on chamfrons I and III, in place still holding the leather together ( fig 2d ). The metal of the bell-caps has caused extensive staining of the outer surface of III, and they are so firmly hammered on that the impressions are visible on the inner lining too." Unquote
I wonder now would you dispute this matter about her terminology or are you prepared to be more polite and contact this lady to do so.?

Nope, I'm not familiar with these chamfrons nor that text- I did ask for examples way back though but all I got was a mention of the Velsen dagger's belt. So these horse-armours had these toroid washers- good- but the debate is not that they weren't ever used, but whether or not their use is prevalent on baltei- right? That is again what is advocated? What does horse-armour suggest about that? And all the talk of van Driel-Murray is completely misplaced- once more I'm not concerned with the sources or users of the term, but the term itself. You seem to think I'm criticising your use of it, and projecting that on to others, but I'm hardly doing so. None of this is personal and neither should it be made so.

Then where you say that the reconstruction made by Jurjen has it's countersink at the same plane as the outer rim I would ask not just youself but all who have followed this topic to go back and look at it again please, for indeed it begins to appear that you are not just disputing the terminology and nomenclature you wish also to dispute any other technical discussion whatever.

I'm not seeing different pictures than you, but it sure looks like the hole's perimeter and the outer one are in the same plane- and really I'm just trying to be totally reasonable to consider the issue, becasue I really don't see what a half millimetre or maybe less has to do with the matter. Am I missing something significant? The technical discussion is the root of the terminology issue- a bell is a bell, and if the centre is significantly depressed such that it becomes a ring, it's no longer a bell, right?

Then also where you say you are tiring of this so called non- debate you should please let it go and allow Jurjen to have time to carry on with his "How to" instead of him having to waste his time.

Well the how-to ended with the last post of 'how to', no? And this debate could have been quite short if it were conducted as it should have been- I keep asking for proper support for the bell cap side but all that is forthcoming is appeals to source, which isn't a real argument. I keep saying if there's reason my observations are wrong I'd like to hear it, but once more all I get is who, not why. THAT'S why I keep getting drawn back LOL I would happily move on if the matter weren't just 'I like it' and 'xyz uses it' because that is not a resolution to the question.

Actually, I'm beginning to see that the real issue here could be that some consider the people who uses a term and how long it's been in use as the most important thing, whereas I evaluate things on their own merit, independently of any individuals. This is an irreconcilable difference to be sure, so if that's the case this would go around forever like a religion vs. science debate LOL and there truly is no point in going on.

Since this thing is a shaped washer, my and anyone else's describing them as such is perfectly correct- thus even if there is a truly reasonable argument for also calling it a 'bell cap', that won't be any more correct. I'll still be left uncertain just what anyone is referring to if they use the term, but that's hardly going to cost me any sleep. Anyone later reading all this will see the term and the object's use is controversial, and be able to read the presentations of each side as they're written and can make up their own minds. I just wish it could have been a debate of the facts- then there might have been some kind of conclusion...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Matt, I understand what you are saying about the donut shape of the one in the photo.
But the whole idea of the ones I saw and have made and saw Brian making is, the outer rim is the one which makes contact wit hthe leather, the center hole will be an indent, ontop of the bell / dome shape, but not in contact with the leather.
There fore the reduced effort required to peen the rivet into the hole/depression in the top of the cap does not require the center rimm to meet the leather. So the reality is the washer is more bell dome than donut dome.

[Magnus]

So you are saying Byron, that the "half milimeter" difference in the outer diameter touching the leather, and the inner diameter not touching, is what classifies it as a bell cap vs washer? hock:

I've seen some "technical" debates here on RAT, but this is rediculous LOL. C'mon guys...has anyone actually measured these artifacts to see if the inner diameter is in fact touching the leather, or are you all judging them from a top-view? In which case I would beg to argue that it is nearly impossible to tell (especially if there is a rivet in it still) that the inner part is touching the leather. And even then...it still looks like a washer to me. Serves the same purpose, it's just a bit easier on whatever it's rubbing against.

"NO!!! IT'S A BELL CAP!!!"

Whoah, sorry...my mistake LOL LOL LOL

[PhilusEstilius]

I don't know if there is anyone who has noticed at all where a very dedicated and enthusiastic young Gentleman has now left this topic, and I would consider rightly so when a request for Moderator intervention clearly fell upon deaf ears.

What began as an enthusiastic and interesting How--to has now become more of a ding dong argument other than a sensible discussion, indeed I would even go further to say that with the PM system we have there should be a few Apologies going out on it and I would include myself amongst those who should do so.

[M. Demetrius]

If anything I've said on this thread has been offensive or considered to be out of line to anyone, I am sincerely sorry that I've written it. I have no intention of being controversial here.

I did assist in hijacking the thread...though that wasn't really my intention, either. But it didn't seem to me that would be the result.

The How To portion of this thread is really great. I marvel at the skill of the maker, and would like to ask, "How long would it take to make enough of these Unnameable Objects to make, say a belt with plates, say, forty or fifty of them?

[Magnus]

I don't know if there is anyone who has noticed at all where a very dedicated and enthusiastic young Gentleman has now left this topic, and I would consider rightly so when a request for Moderator intervention clearly fell upon deaf ears.

What began as an enthusiastic and interesting How--to has now become more of a ding dong argument other than a sensible discussion, indeed I would even go further to say that with the PM system we have there should be a few Apologies going out on it and I would include myself amongst those who should do so.

Actually, from what I am told, Jurjen has no issue with what has "happened" to the thread. I also see no reason for anyone to apologize. If you have a guilty conscience Brian, then fill your boots. And for the record, this is one of the least vitriolic threads that have been created on RAT where a debate between two people has carried most of the posts. You are over-reacting, and based on what has been said it looks like because you are unable to refute what Matt has posted. Even then, does it really matter? Two grown adults had a disagreement.... Get over it. There are bigger things in life to worry about. You can't convert everyone to your way of thinking, and should you?

So did this moderator request fall on deaf ears? Not even close. But it's apparent that your idea of what should be moderated and that of the rest of the entire mod staff differs. I can say with no ego, that we've done a pretty good job so far. But we don't need to intervene at every raised eyebrow or stubborn post. Again, we're adults here, we have a certain degree of trust in our membership that they will act accordingly.

And yes, it is being divided...(topic-wise).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yet, Matt, you've managed to ignore a simple explanation of what the bell-cap does. I cannot give a more simple explanation.
They are what they are. Live with it! :wink:

Where you get your measurement of a half a mm from I'm not sure of, but there you go.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Maybe it´s a bell-washer?
8)
*ducksandrunsaway"

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol:

[PhilusEstilius]

Byron

I have to agree with all that you have said and I would also ask the same question that you do, where has Matt got his 1/2 mm from and can he give the technical reason for any such difference between the two levels in question.

Then I would also say to Matt that I was given the same information from the same source that he got it from, however there is other information about much else that he is absoloutely ignorant of.

[jvrjenivs]

The How To portion of this thread is really great. I marvel at the skill of the maker, and would like to ask, "How long would it take to make enough of these Unnameable Objects to make, say a belt with plates, say, forty or fifty of them?

Thank. It's very good to hear this kind of stuff is of any use, as it takes some time to make such a topic. On your topic that infact depents mainly on the experience you have with the tools and making those, but any way it will take much time. Then, it's no fun job, so long shifts making those are no good (also not for my hands through). And I have to say I actually didn't measure the time I need for those, and I like to do more at the same time (so first making the basic pieces before going to make the centerhole, as that make less changing of tools in your hands). But with some little practise about 50 of them will take about 3 to 5 hours at the max. But it is really hard to say anything about this now as I don't want to count the hours I spend in my workshop on single pieces, as that probably will drive me crazy...

[Matt Lukes]

That's a very good point Jurjen- I've made similar objects by a slightly different method (although probably no better per se) and it was tough on the hands after a while; it's hard to imagine someone making hundreds of these things a day, perhaps every day- but then if that's one's daily bread, that's what they do; I can't even imagine how tough I'd find it to work on an assembly line either, but millions around the world do it...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The same issue was raised on the manufacture of chain mail, Jurjen. Undoubtedly the slaves were a vital part of Romes success.
.

[jvrjenivs]

I've made similar objects by a slightly different method (although probably no better per se) and it was tough on the hands after a while

That would be an interesting statement also. Could you share your method? Always good to know different methods to compare them. It's indeed just one way of doing it and there surely are others, so I'm interested, if you posted it.

And indeed slaves were probably important in this stuff. And sometimes when I did some work on a hamata and being doing some other big projects I'm currently working on I have to ask myself why I am doing all that. But it's fun in the end (as long as my hands don't start hurting after only 10 minutes of repousse work )

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That is a bummer, but seeing the results, it is worth it.
Having joint problems, I undestand where your coming from.
Pain takes a lot of the fun out of our favourite things.
Ibuprophen makes events a breeze at least.
When I get the time back home I will see if I can help make the process simpler, as I seem to recall there was a quicker way of doing these, where one step actually achieved 2 things in the production of these things. But as usual, don't hold your breath waiting for me, I often forget to do all the things I say I am goingt to when I get home. remind me if I don't.