12-31-2007, 11:50 PM
Yes, clearly the fourth photo isn't the Vatican shield, since you can see straight through the centre of the porpax-shaped hole! BTW, which shield is this and where is it?
I am not trying to be overly critical of Connolly, his rendering does give a good impression of the Vatican shield, even if some of the detail is inaccurate. But these small clues do imply he did not get to examine it closely.
Sekunda's drawing is intriguing. It has 2 details that Connolly didn't refer to - the number of planks, and the shape of the extra rim pieces.
It seems to me that you couldn't determine these from the state of the shield.....though perhaps if a single plank width is intact, you could deduce the number of planks, but the rim is entirly covered in front by bronze and behind by leather and bronze and it would be fortuitous if one of the few breaks were over a join.....
By implication, Dr J was not able to deduce the number of planks from his detailed examination.
All these are largely quibbles however - the major and significant difference is in the shield profiles which are opposite!
Connolly gives 5 mm (0.2 inches) at the centre,[surely impossibly thin?] thickening to an unspecified thickness at the rim.
Sekunda seems to follow this ( does he give measurements?)
Dr J. gives a fairly uniform 2.0/2.5 cm at centre to 1.9cm at the rim, which then tapers at the 'shoulder' to 1.1 cm [see attachment previous post]
This last does seem far more sensible/logical a design than Connolly's - though I hasten to add it cannot be entirely ruled out ( still...5mm at the centre! )
...and yes, as I said, the difference between what C. calls 'padding' and Dr J. 'ribs' is merely wording/interpretation.
I am not trying to be overly critical of Connolly, his rendering does give a good impression of the Vatican shield, even if some of the detail is inaccurate. But these small clues do imply he did not get to examine it closely.
Sekunda's drawing is intriguing. It has 2 details that Connolly didn't refer to - the number of planks, and the shape of the extra rim pieces.
It seems to me that you couldn't determine these from the state of the shield.....though perhaps if a single plank width is intact, you could deduce the number of planks, but the rim is entirly covered in front by bronze and behind by leather and bronze and it would be fortuitous if one of the few breaks were over a join.....
By implication, Dr J was not able to deduce the number of planks from his detailed examination.
All these are largely quibbles however - the major and significant difference is in the shield profiles which are opposite!
Connolly gives 5 mm (0.2 inches) at the centre,[surely impossibly thin?] thickening to an unspecified thickness at the rim.
Sekunda seems to follow this ( does he give measurements?)
Dr J. gives a fairly uniform 2.0/2.5 cm at centre to 1.9cm at the rim, which then tapers at the 'shoulder' to 1.1 cm [see attachment previous post]
This last does seem far more sensible/logical a design than Connolly's - though I hasten to add it cannot be entirely ruled out ( still...5mm at the centre! )
...and yes, as I said, the difference between what C. calls 'padding' and Dr J. 'ribs' is merely wording/interpretation.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
