Show here your Roman soldier impression

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I like the appearence and colors of the belt since too many impressions lack vivd colors...something I think the Romans relished. However, I am not aware of any belt from the 1st C that is inlaid with anything other than niello. I know later century items had colorful inlays. Of course, I could be wrong and any evidence to the contrary would be welcome since I too will make a cast belt and would prefer multiple colors instead of just black niello.

I also would like to mention that the craftsmanship of the belt is very good BUT to echo what Brian has mentioned, Roman pieces were made well BUT not perfect. To this end, the one Brian shows is a more realistic copy.

I would take some steel wool and rub down that belt so that its finish is more satin like. I believe that armor would have been shiny however the shine would be the natural luster of the metal which many times is a satiny type of finish when the metal is left in its natural state (unless of course silver is applied or tin which makes things more shiny). I think that if you dull down the shine, it will increase the realistic appearence. You could also use a small needle file and make some of the edges or decoration less perfect......purposely "damage" the work.

I have made things in the past and I too am guilty of being too perfect. So anytime that was the case, I would use steel wool and some small files to alter the perfect appearence.

Yeah, but as far as I know the Romans loved to polish thier armor. I read somewhere they had even polished it down as thin as paper in one find. Have to check my source on that.

Also, I think a master craftsman would be able to make a belt as precise as his, although it would be expensive.

[Doc]

As I said, polished things are not "wrong" but when you go to mirror like or perfect sufrace finishes, then I do not agree.

I have yet to see any example of anything that is too precise or perfect. Even items where there are several of the same thing, there are variances. Look at some of the belt plates. You mentioned expensive items. Look at the Sisak centurio helmet and how many unprecise repairs were made. Even some of the pure silver beltplates have variation. So no, any reproduction too precise or perfect based on what I know about the originals would not be accurate.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Granted, although I'm sure somewhere at some time there was somebody who could make an item that, to the naked eye, looked seemingly perfect.

The greeks made thier columns to create optical illusions that caused them to look perfect.

It's possible, just not plausible.

[Crispvs]

"However, I am not aware of any belt from the 1st C that is inlaid with anything other than niello. I know later century items had colorful inlays."

The buckle and plate look to be a very late first century or early second century AD type. These are well known from the area around Hadrian's Wall and generally exhibit coloured enamel inlay. The plate Brian showed looks a little earlier - probably Flavian.


Crispvs

[jvrjenivs]

However, I am not aware of any belt from the 1st C that is inlaid with anything other than niello. I know later century items had colorful inlays. Of course, I could be wrong and any evidence to the contrary would be welcome since I too will make a cast belt and would prefer multiple colors instead of just black niello.

I do not see where Martin states this belt-plate is of a 1st century date? You're right in your guess, as it is indeed hadrianic.

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.

That could be very true about the Flavian era for I did find the original along the Stanegate frontier line, it is not the only one of its type for there was an identical one found at Caerleon, then yet another found near Staxton in Yorkshire, and I do know of another found more recently.

Here are pictures of the original that do show that they were made in two piece molds where the decorative pattern was in the lower half of the mold with a central sprue with the three integral pins made from the air vents of the mold, this plate is 20mm wide and 58mm long.
[attachment=5845]DSC01802Small.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=5846]DSC01803Small.JPG[/attachment]

[Doc]

Jurjen,

My post did not answer a person directly since I did not mention any names. It was Crispvs who mentioned the date.

Brian, can it be conclusively proven that the inlay was some sort of enamel in that original you are showing. Otherwise, I have to agree with Jurjen that these types are well into the 2nd C AD.

[Virilis]

Gentlemen, very interesting but please keep the discussion on topic ;-) ...

[Crispvs]

The plate Martin used and the plate Brian posted pictures of are two different types of plate (which probably followed each other rather than being contemporaneous). I believe it is true that enamel starts to be found on Flavian era plates but it seems that the overall coverage of the enamel over a plate's surface was much greater on the later type dating to the first quarter of the second century AD. I suspect that niello may still have been very common on Flavian era plates.

Jyrki is right though - such a discussion of plates perhaps should not be taking place in this thread. It would be a good topic for its own thread though.

Crispvs

[Bernwart]

Ok, guys, back to the topic. I proudly present heroes in tunics ... known as Honorius´ Bastards ... the one and only cacatores seniores CONTUBERNIUM PRIMUM! :woot:

[attachment=5851]Gerard1.jpg[/attachment]

[Virilis]

Excellent group & impressions, Bernd! I especially like the variation of the shield shapes, although having the same emblem.

[Caballo]

Congratulations- great picture!

[Vindex]

No, the Belt is ready.
Here my Saddle.


[attachment=5841]P1050208.JPG[/attachment]

Very nice saddle indeed but I'm afraid I would disagree with the comment that pad saddles are invalid.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Great picture indeed! I also like the shield design!
Good group photo!

[Crispvs]

"but I'm afraid I would disagree with the comment that pad saddles are invalid."

Evidence Moi? :wink:


Crispvs