Deepeeka got the idea from some people on this forum about a line or so visible on the neck of one of the eagles.
I would not read into the falx too much because I read that it was not really a weapon but possibly a farming tool that happened to be used by the Dacians to defend themselves from the Romans.
I do not recall if this had been discussed here on RAT or I read it in some book
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Quote:I would not read into the falx too much because I read that it was not really a weapon but possibly a farming tool that happened to be used by the Dacians to defend themselves from the Romans.
I do not recall if this had been discussed here on RAT or I read it in some book
I think you misunderstood me, I was agreeing that the original purpose of the crossbars on the original Italic D were designed for decoration rather than protection.
I was only implying that I could make up a story for the thicker crossbars on my helmet as being a retrofit for the Dacian Wars. As this helmet is dated as early as 69 AD, it is very likely it would have been used into the Second Century AD.
This isn't the thread for debating the effectiveness of the falx, however there is some particular reason that Roman helmets started appearing with crossbars in the Second Century AD, whether the falx in particular prompted it is lost to history, but it is as likely of an answer as any, given the particular shape of it.
In short, I'm not going to replace the thick crossbars, even though I agree they are thicker than the original. Some backstory about a retrofit for the Dacian wars will have to suffice for now
I see your point. However, you cannot use a retrofit argument for the Dacian wars because if you see the reinforcements for protection against this supposed weapon, they are not flat but tubular. Here is a picture of the Italic "G" from Hebron with the crossbars.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
You're not letting this go are you? lol. Well in that case I don't have an excuse, unless I could see some pictures of the original Guttman Italic H helmet and see just how thick those brass accents are. Failing that, I'll just have to hope that no one pulls out a measuring tape, but if they do I'll be inclined to tell them the newer Deepeeka model falls short a few ways too.
As I said, it is near impossible to replicate a specific helmet without having it custom made. Having a Gallic H in my collection, I can say that Robinson took too many liberties with his reconstruction, the cheek guardsa are based off of the Colchester findings, but hardly enough to conjecture a the whole cheekguard (plus why are they even on a helmet from Augsburg?). The original Gallic H was in such bad condition, I don't even know how much of the reconstruction is based off of the actual helmet.
The Deepeeka Gallic A's neckguard is too small in my opinion. Though it has been awhile since I have seen it on the database to compare right now.
On the NEW Italic D, we've already pointed out the overemphasized "notches" on the browguard, the overdetailed eagles, the incorrect earguards, and I just noticed the indentation on the top of the cheekguards that do not appear to exist on the original, not to mention the temple on the cheekguard is down too low and the tip of the temple should not touch the brass accents.
So we can play these games all day, even the N series of the Deepeeka helms fails to replicate small details. If you want to worry about these little things, it'll drive you and anyone else mad. The brass strips being a few gauges too thick is the least of my concerns
Well, if you are going to ask for opinions of any sort about any helmet, then you should be ready to get feedback of various nature. I am not discussing any other helmet nor do I care to refer to other helmets as you have. You asked about the helmet you purchased then offered some unreasonable reason as to why you will leave the brass thick.
Small details may drive you mad but they have not effect on me whatsoever. The fact is that the off details you consider small when added together make for a huge mess. An overall appearence is a sum of its parts. If there is one item that is a little off, then you are correct.....it can be overlooked. BUT this helmet has a list of things that are off its not one little thing here and there that you seem to think.
All reconstructions be they from Deepeeka or custom will always have deviations from the original because it is handmade and thus certain approximations must be made. However, gross errors as appear on the older Deepeeka helmet is not a matter of having some imperfections due to manufacturing but complete disregard by the makers of the details of the actual find.
Of course if in a replica or reconstruction the eagles is a little to the left, it is not a problem (at least for me). But when you decorate the eagle, that is another story.
This is my opinion, you can take it for what its worth. All my armor especially my helmets (my favorite part of Roman armor) are exceptionally researched. I am not a stitch nut but........
I fell into a pit the first time as well when I purchased the infamous trooper helmet. While I was waiting for it to arrive, I was searching the web for other armor when I came upon RAT and found that the trooper helmet was bogus. The same day it arrived, I returned it.
If I were you and you still can, return the helmet and get something closer. The new D is still better than the older one.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
When looking at your latest view of the original the left cheek piece does not belong to this helmet, I would say it is one that has been fitted by the museum that display it.
The two big studs showing on the cheek plate on each side of the shrine give this away along with the fact it has a plastic hinge holding it there, also the upper part of the wrap around brass decor' does not have the ridges as the cheekplate on the other side.
I would however like to say that when you come to refit the eagles countersink the outside of the rivet holes then this way when you refit with flat head rivets and they are peened down they can be filed and polished down at the front to hide the fact they are there.
A very useful hint about this kind of countersinking is not to countersink too far for when it comes to the peening and cleaning up afterward you get a more tidy job and they look more invisible.
Quote:Well, if you are going to ask for opinions of any sort about any helmet, then you should be ready to get feedback of various nature. I am not discussing any other helmet nor do I care to refer to other helmets as you have. You asked about the helmet you purchased then offered some unreasonable reason as to why you will leave the brass thick.
Small details may drive you mad but they have not effect on me whatsoever. The fact is that the off details you consider small when added together make for a huge mess. An overall appearence is a sum of its parts. If there is one item that is a little off, then you are correct.....it can be overlooked. BUT this helmet has a list of things that are off its not one little thing here and there that you seem to think.
If you thought I was at all patronizing you, I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what flaws are reasonable and unreasonable. I only mentioned other helmets. I only mentioned other helmets to illustrate flaws still current in even some of our highest rated helmets. I'm going to try and get this helmet more accurate, but there is only so much I can do for it, and my skills and tools are limited.
When looking at your latest view of the original the left cheek piece does not belong to this helmet, I would say it is one that has been fitted by the museum that display it.
The two big studs showing on the cheek plate on each side of the shrine give this away along with the fact it has a plastic hinge holding it there, also the upper part of the wrap around brass decor' does not have the ridges as the cheekplate on the other side.
I would however like to say that when you come to refit the eagles countersink the outside of the rivet holes then this way when you refit with flat head rivets and they are peened down they can be filed and polished down at the front to hide the fact they are there.
A very useful hint about this kind of countersinking is not to countersink too far for when it comes to the peening and cleaning up afterward you get a more tidy job and they look more invisible.
Hmm... interesting observation on the cheekguard. Again too bad the database is down and we can not read about what context the cheekguard was found, but it does seem off now that you mention it.
Thanks for the countersinking tip, I looked up this video to get a better idea of how to countersink. Would you agree with it? Metal work is new to me so I want to make sure we are on the same page. Thanks again Brian
That tool in the first video looks to be a more expensive and technical kind of tool, however you can buy a more simple countersink drill that will do the job just as well.
In the video it shows the rivet head going into the countersink but for the job you need it is the reverse of that where you need a flat head rivet going in the opposite direction, with about an 1/8th of an inch of rivet stem above the inside of the countersink then when you peen it over it not only fills the countersink but goes completely over it.
Then with a file you take off the over peen back down to the level of the brass decoration then when finished off with fine sanding you should not see the rivet and your decoration piece is held on with what I would call an invisible rivet.
That is why earlier I mentioned don't oversink and you get a better job done.
I am surprised that Deepeeka have not got around to doing this instead of having rivet heads all over the place when they could have a nice smooth and tidy looking decoration in the work.
Awesome helmet Brian! It pleases especially a narrowheaded/-minded guy like me, meaning that the standard Deepeeka helmets are dangling around my head...
Thanks for the picture Brian. I don't suppose you still have a picture of where the rivets were on the eagles? Mine already has 7 to choose from from lol
If memory serves me right I think the eagles had six rivets, 2 in the ends of the laurel ties that is held in the eagles mouth with 2 at the top curves of the wings and 2 at the tips of the wings.
Then the shrines had 5, one at the top point of the shrine, then 2 at the lower ends of the roof, and 2 in the scroles of the alter, where good photographs of this helmet are viewed it is found that there is brass decor' that extends below the peak to indicate that the eagles were on plinths that met the brow band.
The lower areas of the eagles are braised to the brow band and the lower areas of the shrines are also braised to the neck wrap around decor'.
The whole brass frame is lowered over the bowl like a basket held in place then the holes marked out on the steel bowl, but first of all the eagles and shrines needed to be made flush to the bowl first before any drilling.
It is a situation where the whole basket needs to be made flush to the bowl before final fitment.
![[Image: fectio.png]](http://s226.photobucket.com/user/sattuviitana/media/fectio.png.html)
