Imperial Italic G question

[Iosephus]

Avete!

I would like to ask the oppinion of the community.

Last November a Hungarian armourer made me this helmet (the person wearing the helmet is the armourer’s wife):

http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... ak-2/1.jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... ak-2/2.jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... k-2/10.jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... ak-2/7.jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... ak-2/6.jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/sepsik/bemutato/r ... /az-11.jpg

Unfortunately I was too impatient (I wanted a proper helmet soooo much), and so I missed the wonderful RAT resume about Imp I G helmet here:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=7256

My helmet is made of 4 parts welded together (2 bowl parts, neckguard plus the ribbed part - sorry I don’t know the exact English name of it) overall metal thickness is about 2 mm.

During the making of the helmet the armourer tried to be as precise and authentic as he could, but I couldn’t deliver him enough reference material so as you can see on the the pictures the neckguard was made way too big (not intentionaly).
So what I will do is to give him back the helmet for a small rework (eg. remove the neckguard completely and replace it with a smaller one).

And here comes my question:
in the above linked Deepeka Hebron topic Flavius Crispus (David S. Michaels) suggested that an attached carrying handle on the neckguard would be an option. I like the idea very much, however I know this is just an assumption.

So what is your oppinion would a handle on the neckguard “authenticâ€

[FlaviusCrispus]

Ave, Iosephus!

I love this helmet! Your Hungarian armorer did a great job, and in most respects it is superior to the present Deepeeka version (although they way they are rapidly improving their offerings, we'll probably see a much better version very soon).

Yes, the neck guard appears to be too big. Actually, as I was researching the Hebron helmet, my first impression was that it had an enormous neckguard, as the photos in Robinson taken from the rear seem to indicate this. But if you look at a photo of ANY Imperial Gallic or Italic helmet shot from the rear, the neck guard always seems to look considerably bigger than it actually is. I think this is an effect created by the semi wide-angle lenses usually used to take photos of objects up close-- everything in the foreground (i.e. the neck guard) is made to look bigger and wider. So your Hungarian armorer can be forgiven for making it this way.

Robinson himself (and M.C. Bishop confirmed) that the entire central section of the neck guard on the original Hebron helmet was missing, so what's there now is restorative "fill" work. Robinson said he thought the original helmet probably had a carrying handle. This is probably because virtually every known helmet of the third century AD seems to have a handle, as do many from the latter second century. However,I don't believe the Thielenhofen (sp?) helmet, which is probably one of the closest surviving analogues to the Hebron helmet, has a handle, so I wouldn't call it a sure thing. I did add a handle to the neck guard of my Deepeeka Italic G. Robinson's own restoration of the Hebron helmet, seen here:

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... elm01b.htm

...not only has a carrying handle, but a tabula insata under the handleand "gamma" appliques at each corner, similar to those on the Guttmann and Niedermormter helmets. But this is a puzzling reconstruction, since it differs in many important details from the actual Hebron helmet (check the Italic G thread for more info).

Anyway, if you are going to have the neck guard re-worked on your helmet, I would go ahead and add a carrying handle, maybe with a tabula insata underneath.

Hey, would your Hungarian armorer do commission work for someone in the U.S.? Are his prices reasonable and does he work quickly?

[Tarbicus]

Aside from the deep neckguard, and that is a nice recreation you have there, the one thing that always strikes me about this helmet is how the crossbands overlap. The recreations usually make them from 3 rods, one of the crosspieces split in the middle where it meets the other at the top, whereas the original has 2 solid rods, one of them shaped to go over the other.

[url:128p1h4j]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.php?option=com_ponygallery&Itemid=0&func=detail&id=173[/url]

If you happen to be able to get a copy of JRMES 12/13 there's an article about reconstructing crossbands in there.

Or am I looking at the wrong helmet? :roll:

[Iosephus]

Avete!

First of all thank for the comments and suggestions.
Tarbicus/Jim:
no, the crossbands are made of two massive iron bars, made thinner at the crosspoint to help easier overlap. Maybe it's also a weakness of it?

And when I say massive I really mean it. This is the heaviest helmet I have ever seen. That's why I would like to have a carrying handle on the neckguard. It would be veeery practical!

Flavius/David:
As I mentioned above I think I will go for the carrying handle, maybe even for the tabula insata (it seems very handy - when you hold the helmet via the handle, your hand doesn't come into direct contact with the neckguard's iron surface - perfect rust prevention)

Well the armourer's name is István Sepsik.
Here is his home page: www.freeweb.hu/sepsik

Unfortunately he can't speak English, so the webpage is only available in Hungarian but with some patient you can go over all of his works (there are tons of pictures and AVI files - just use the hyperlinks).
He is a real fanatic.

Commission work? I can ask him, but as far as I know currently he is a bit overloaded.