Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Royal Oak Armory Gallic D
#16
Here is an image of my recent reproduction, so that its features can also be compared with those of the original. I should point out that the dark separation between the copper and brass elements of the inlay seen in the litho is not evident in Robinson's photos, which led me to the conclusion that it was the result of retouching (for clarity) and colouring. I owe these observations to my training as a print-maker. I also inlaid the copper and brass elements into recesses in the brow peak of my helmet, as Brian did, but I chose to make a symmetrical laurel design and to make a smooth surface, rather than with definition between each leaf. The terminal leaf of the laurel is a detail that I added to fill in an unclear feature of the photos. I still maintain that the features that Brian labels as total inaccuracies are mere differences of interpretation, and no cause for such harsh denouncement.

[Image: 12845127095_b7573ae64f_z.jpg]

Thanks for your kind words, Jay and Evan. There was certainly nothing wrong with you posting my helmet here, Evan, it just changes the context for its reception a bit, not having the maker describe the intention of his work. Don't hesitate to post my work another time! :-)

-Jeffrey Hildebrandt
Reply
#17
Jeffrey, will the owner of this helmet step forward so I can make him/her an offer?

And what about MY new helmet? Matt Lukes considers this one of his best.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/20-roman-re...lic-c.html
Joe Balmos
Reply
#18
Hello folks,

I have spoken to Jeff about his helmet and he has already done work for me. He knows exactly the finish that ancient items require since when he presented me with the final product of my item, I accepted it without question....the finish was flawless. IF there is ANY deviation or apparent deviation, it is because either the customer wants it or the interpretation is such based on whatever evidence is available. In my opinion the craftsmanship of this helmet is outstanding....hands down.

Peter Connolly's book Greece and Rome at war, page 229, shows this exact helmet. If you look at his illustration....it is also incorrect because the left cheek piece has all brass decoration when in reality all the rosettes were silver. Not only this, but he has in the illustration a tie loop for the crest in the front suggesting that a crest would have gone front to back. Now where did these two supposed "mistakes" come from :? Well, the original article by Lindenschmitt which I would think Connolly read....no? Robinsons description is also not exactly the same as Lindenschmitt and Robinson did not even hold the helmet....just went off photos......like we do. So his interpretation is just as good as ours. :wink:

In the Lindenschmitt article, he only shows the left side of the helmet even though he had the helmet in his hands and did not show other views. But he did mention that the cheek piece with the brass elements was in fact a replacement part. So if this is the case, then why does every illustration that I have seen or reproduction of this helmet always show the "wrong" thing :???: I would say that this replacement cheek piece should be illustrated as an aside or along side another complete illustration that shows how it really was. I know that people illustrate exactly what is known to be found but if there is a written report to suggest otherwise.......... :whistle:

How about the tie loop for the crest in the Connolly illustration......its exactly what Jeff put in? For one thing, Lindenschmitt makes no mention of holes anywhere on this helmet to suggest the crest direction. In fact, if I recall correctly, neither does Robinson. If you couple this with another idea put forth by Lindenschmitt who says in his article that this helmet was NOT an officers helmet because it looks like it was thrown together AND that no officer would wear a helmet that had a different cheek piece and all these sorts of metals thrown together......are you surprised that Connolly presents his helmet for use by a normal milites AND that he included some sort of tie loop?

I believe....and there is no evidence that I can produce for this.....that the corrosion closed what could have been holes used for tie loops on the Gallic D. Many people would disagree with me but where is their evidence? The article says nothing....Robinson does not specify either........AND the photos we have from Robinson are poor quality and in the shadow so we cannot see anything with respect to holes. However, there is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence from all the other Gallic helmets of the period. Every single one that I can think of....Gallic C, Gallic G, Gallic F Sisak, Besancon, Gallic A, Gallic I, Aquincum.....did I miss any?? ALL have loops or in the case of the G hooks, to hold down the crest. I would be VERY hard pressed to believe that the only helmet without some sort of tie down was the Gallic D. So I think that Connolly may be correct but it is also possible that it could have had tie loops for a transverse crest. Even if you have a three pronged crest holder, that will only help with sliding not popping out.....the purpose of the tie loops or hooks.

So, why do people use it as a centurio helmet? For one thing its very ornate. Short of the silver sheet applied to the Gallic F of Sisak, they are pretty close in ornateness. But time again, ornateness does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it belonged to an officer.

Some other folks point to the double slotted crest holder. But this does not mean anything because the Gallic C has a double slotted crest holder but the crest was front to back. We know this because certain color photos do show that the conservator filled the holes. The Gallic F from Sisak....the only known true centurio helmet, has a slot similar to the Italic D. So we cannot use this as the reason.

The other main reason is the absence of the holes not mentioned anywhere (see post above). Even if someone said NO holes, does not mean there were not any. That long in the ground....who knows with rust, corrosion and the like.

Jeff has already given a plausible explanation for the iron peak. So there is no need to go there.

The enamel is represented as opaque in most original examples and as Christian mentioned, Jeff's idea of the cabochon is rather interesting. Most likely very plausible.

Cheers
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#19
Paolo.
I hope it will not look as if I am nit picking but there are differences in the crest holder of the Italic D and the Gallic F from Sisak.
The Italic D has a T shaped slot that can only be used as a slide forward type where the Gallic F has a single slot that has to be a twist type of holder, therefore the Italic D can also qualify as a possible centurians helmet for there are no rings or indeed hooks.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#20
Who says all Roman helmets were smooth and polished? Especially considering there are very few Iron ones that are perfectly preserved to show that they were.

Brass/bronze example from Sivac. The interior side is clearly hammered, and the outside certainly looks very similar and was obviously never a mirror polished smooth surface.

[attachment=9179]HelmetfromSivac4.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=9181]HelmetfromSivac5.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=9180]HelmetfromSivac3.jpg[/attachment]

Just sayin...


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#21
Indeed Brian....about the Italic D. I can agree based on what you said that it too could have been centurio's helmet.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#22
Hello Markus,

I totally agree that mirror finished that we normally see on helmets is most likely not correct. But I think a uniform and natural sheen of the metal was more likely.

The way I look at it....lets not discount that the helmet such as you posted, may have not been completed or was hastily put together and worn.

Both the Italic and Gallic D have the same feature........both their left cheek piece were replacements. So it appears they were not too concerned with perfection all the time rather with function.

My two cents
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#23
Quote:erfectly preserved to show that they were.

Brass/bronze example from Sivac. The interior side is clearly hammered, and the outside certainly looks very similar and was obviously never a mirror polished smooth surface.

that´s getting a bit anachronistic now. As usually one should not make too normative statements. So, for a first century helmet the surface finish seems to me not to represent the majority of finds. OK now?

Apart from that: I really like the look of the translucent glass. I don´t see it in any finds, though. Purple, perhaps, there is some 1st century semi-translucent glass in purple. And I also think that this helmet is a great piece of craftsmanship. Just to clarify.

Doc: The holes you suggest, do they occur on any other find? If no: I´d let it be.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply
#24
Hello Christian,

PM sent.

Cheers
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#25
Welcome to Rat Jeff! Be aware that you will have to defend nearly every piece you post here. Medieval enthusiasts are far less wrapped up in exactness that many in the ancient world reenacting world are. That said it looks great.

I do agree that the finish is a but rough but that satin and fairly uniform were probably the norm based on what we see from cupric alloy helmets. But customer is king and I have done far too many near mirror polished helmets in the past. I have spent a long time harping on the inaccuracy of mirror finish on forums and to customers and finally many years later it has become accepted.

I have two Lindenschmitt articles that do go into some detail but likewise leave a bit to be desired in terms of details. Although I tend to side with Brian on the brow band simply because I have been doing Roman almost exclusively for years and seem to have developed an understanding for the feel and look that seems to be carried across the many styles and shows up time and time again. There are also two line drawings of the helmet and one is a more 3/4 view and if I remember correctly it shows the brow inlay more clearly but I can't find that currently so It is a moot point until I can dig it up.

Never the less great work although I just can't wrap my head around how you can charge so little for a raised helmet? Assuming is is raised.
Dean Cunningham,

Metalsmith, Father, dilettante
Reply
#26
Quote:Welcome to Rat Jeff! Be aware that you will have to defend nearly every piece you post here.
Except that he didn't post it here. It was a commission with specific conditions and he fulfilled those conditions. As he said, he deliberately didn't post it here because it isn't a copy of an extant artefact - that wasn't what he was requested to make.

Quote:Never the less great work although I just can't wrap my head around how you can charge so little for a raised helmet? Assuming is is raised.
I am in awe of Jeff''s skills. He is currently working on a Bronze Age commission for me and I can see myself using Jeff exclusively for future projects.
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Ce...=1792&st=0
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#27
Hello Dean,

Nice hearing from you. PM sent

Cheers
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#28
Thanks Dean,

Actually, this helmet wasn't raised - though I am glad it isn't obvious.

As Dan pointed out, I didn't actually post my helmet here. I have posted a bit of my work here before, though, confident that it would meet the highest standards of research and craftsmanship:

Roman greaves
Greek greaves

Dean, if you come across that 3/4 view drawing, I would be indebted to you for sharing it!

-Jeffrey
Reply
#29
Dean.

I also have a paper by Lindenschmitt along with the tinted picture I have shown and the views by Robinson but would be interested in seeing the line drawings you mention, and like Jeffrey would be interested also in sharing views and information on these type of subjects.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#30
Beautiful job Jeffrey!...I was admiring it the other day on FB.
There is no doubt there are some talented artisans around. I like your idea of camaraderie between makers. Smile
Phil McKay
Illustrator
www.philmckay.com
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Peroni: Gallic D White Rose Armory Doc 1 920 02-26-2007, 11:25 AM
Last Post: Peroni

Forum Jump: