Scutum paint

[richsc]

Saul, I live over south of Alexandria and think that is the Woodcraft store, correct? No, the premixed stuff fooled me, but read closely: it's latex. It just has the patina of milk paint. The actual stuff is in the bag.
Alternatively you can mix it yourself but that takes ordering from places like Sinopia in SF.
I already have supplies: you could use the smaller amounts at our next fabrica.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

Alas, I agree with David :-0 Yeah, the milk paint is neat, but really, unless you can actually tell the difference, it's a waste of time and money. Just like anything made that is only visible in the builder's mind, it is a waste of time and money EXCEPT that HE, the builder, knows his thing is correct. To everyone else, it still looks perfect, yet they won't know he used a modern torch to cut/weld/solder something or or a whitney punch to make holes. If you're going to do it right, doesn't that preclude the use of Dremels, power tools, etc.?

I am sorry, but whilst it's all neat, this is a H_O_B_B_Y and yes, while I want my stuff to be authentic as possible, well I also have a job and a normal life with modern time demands on me.

Sorry to piss in anyone's Wheaties®, but really, isn't this more about what is important to each of us? I know there are people here who couldn't give a fig about all this, but want everyone to speak correct Latin. Or we could go into tunica colour where we have such violent disagreements... When I go to something like Roman Days, I don't sit there and go "Look at that Farb, why he used latex paints ... hiss" I tend to look at people's stuff and think "Neat, he did a hell of a job" or "WOW, beautiful! Wonder how he found the time to do that?" Where's the joy now?

I remember talking to a Silly War reenactor I used to know, who told me with glee how he and his unit loved to make new reenactors cry -- yes, they thought that was cool. I don't have to tell you how disgusted I was (and yeah, he was sorta trying to recruit me into his unit, the Southern Guards -- do ya think he managed to do it?). HELL NO! It and he, left a real foul taste in my mouth and nothing, I mean NOTHING that unit ever did would mean anything to me. But I digress...

I guess I need to just say, to me, this is a H_O_B_B_Y – I say that a lot, but some folks never get it. It's meant to be fun. I love going to events and seeing people's stuff! George Metz's layout at RD was awesome. The balistae from Leg. III were cool as all Hell. Lee Holeva's tent was cool and I thought, way practical. Oh yeah, the college kids from Tennessee (Leg. V??) were great too... not a bunch of old farts sitting around blathering.

I'll stop now... please, just remember to have fun. You can do it right and have fun.

[Tarbicus]

Well said Marsh.

Personally, I'd go with casein on a scutum, but I'll be making ivory hilts from faux ivory (Fymo). I've got no business telling someone how to spend their money, and if latex is cheaper and protects your investment in a scutum I'd say go for it....

....as long as the shape's right, it's not made from plastic.... :wink:

[Marcus Mummius]

Indeed, it all comes down to personal preferences.

There are people out there though that don't get the warm glowing feel of satisfaction without having anything as accurate as possible, even if it isn't noticable on first sight. Like you say, they know, and they are the ones that must have fun / get satisfaction.

So it's all a very personal thing. That's why people try to seperate the different viewpoints into different categories. There's reenactment, living history, pure experimental archaeology...

vale

[M. Demetrius]

There's reenactment, living history, pure experimental archaeology...

Would someone like to explain the agreed-upon (if any) definitions of those things? I wonder sometimes which I'm doing on a given day/event. Usually, at a public event, I just say "reenacting" because it seems to communicate ok to the public. But more likely it's living history.

Should this thread be moved from Saul's original questions? Sorry, Saul, I guess I'm responsible for that change in direction. You can kill me later.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

There's reenactment, living history, pure experimental archaeology...

Would someone like to explain the agreed-upon (if any) definitions of those things?

Reenactment = We go out, maybe have a battle, have fun, learn, do it for OURSELVES.

Living History = Reenactors who are impressed with themselves :-0 (Okay, I am sure, I just pissed in someone's Wheaties® there. hock: Seriously, I read a good (but nicely offensive) article on this recently... made me really laugh. I should find it and give the link. Hmmmmm... go here: Living history rant scan down the page until you find the Living history rant! (Yes Virginia, it's a WWII reenacting site... reenacting is reenacting). Oh yeah, the other stuff on that page is also very apropos!

Pure Expreimental Archeology = made up of people who are edjakated and know more than us. Okay, now I'm being as ass. It's fun sometimes :-Þ

Seriously, I'm just a reenactor dork out to have my hobby and maybe get a feel for he time period I do. I don't try and "educate" anyone because who am I? I am just me. Nope, it's a H_O_B_B_Y!

[M. Demetrius]

Well, I get the angst behind the rant.

Here's how I've heard it more neutrally described:

Reenactors try to (usually with hopelessly small numbers of participants) stage a particular event or battle, or some such. They are active, the event is finite because of the nature of the historical event.
These events may or may not be attended by the non-participating public spectators.

Living History people tend to adopt the persona, costume, tools, etc the same way that the above reenactors do, but they add that the public is invited to participate. "Here, Jimmy, pump this little wood handle, and help us make some butter in the churn." And generally these tend to be public events at some local farm, or other historical place or event.

There's a significant overlap between the two.

Experimental archeology is using the same clothing, tools, shelter, etc., as close as possible, and attempting to recreate or understand how the historical people were able to tend to daily living. Frequently, the public is totally excluded from these events until the book or video is published, if ever. The people who analyzed Utzi's clothing, shoes, and equipment, made replicas of those things and spent a couple of weeks in the Alps testing the gear would be an example of that.

Is that what anybody else thinks? Or is that just my cerebroflatulence?

[Marcus Mummius]

I think Caiustarquitius (Christian) has pretty accurate and detailed definitions of the different categories.

More than 50% of the members of my group are either archaeologist or archaeological conservationist but what we do is mostly living history. Although we mostly refer to what we do as reenactment... :?

I believe that this discussion should not continue inside this thread though. :wink:

[SOCL]

Sorry, Saul, I guess I'm responsible for that change in direction. You can kill me later.

Maybe next time around in the arena. :wink:

This is an interesting discussion, although I didn't quite mean it to become so aggressive. I understand the views on both sides, but my biggest concern here is practicality for those of us with little funds and little time to maintain our gear. It's the very same reason I use car wax instead of oil on my helmet--it maintains it much better for much longer than oil (I think I may have mentioned that...).

For those who have used acrylic latex: was there any sealing required after painting the scutum?

Concerning the milk paint, about how much is likely needed? Pint or quart, or more?

I think that the most obvious conclusion on this one is personal preference. Maybe the next fellow, reenactor or otherwise, won't be able to tell the difference (or care), but it's all about how one feels about it. Personally, I like to have things as accurate as possible for my own "conscious", you might say--I'd likely felt like I cheated myself. That's not to say I condemn anyone who uses anything else--in the end, it's all about looks, but most importantly, fun.

[M. Demetrius]

When I've used exterior acrlic latex, it's done and no sealer is needed. If it's flat paint, though, it picks up dirt marks and scuffs easier. Semigloss or "eggshell" finish is not very shiny, but repels water and stains pretty well, but then, that's just my experience.

I've had considerable adhesion problems with gloss house paint, although I've not used it on shields. It tends to blister and peel pretty quickly. Maybe a certain primer would fix that, I don't know.

[Marcus Mummius]

Personally, I like to have things as accurate as possible for my own "conscious", you might say--I'd likely felt like I cheated myself. That's not to say I condemn anyone who uses anything else--in the end, it's all about looks, but most importantly, fun.

I feel the same Saul. As I have a store that sells pigment and casein powder for a good price I get this paint very cheap. Like I said, for me the casein paint is a lot cheaper than latex or acrylic paint. It's just a little more work because you have to mix it up yourself. But in the end I feel more satisfaction this way.

Before we used casein paint for our scuta we used to paint them with lineseed oil based paint. This didn't require any sealing after painting and after having become very wet on a lot of occasions the paintjob still looks like it did in the beginning.

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

You could also read up on the subject, which is one of the best aspects of what we do. Arbeia Journal 2 has an article on painting the Roman shield, as well as ones on reconstructing Roman slings and experiments with javelins.
http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm
All by noteworthy persons.

Volume 3 has a note by A.T. Croom, 'The painted vellixum and shields'

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

Again, I agree about the use of modern paints. If you can't tell, and it helps w/ the maintenence, why not? We aren't portraying a Roman soldier 24/7... they worked on their gear every day. We don't. WHichever... I posted that link due the fact it was funny... as a reenactor, I can recognize people in it. Anyway, I'll stop now. Milk paint or latex, whichever!?

[Marcus Mummius]

You could also read up on the subject, which is one of the best aspects of what we do. Arbeia Journal 2 has an article on painting the Roman shield, as well as ones on reconstructing Roman slings and experiments with javelins.
http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm
All by noteworthy persons.

Volume 3 has a note by A.T. Croom, 'The painted vellixum and shields'

Thanks for the tip, Jim. I'm going to order Volume 1,2 and 3 I think.

Vale,

[Hibernicus]

For us it gets beyond what works. Take shields: Acrylic paint and luan work for some folk. It's an option and because it is far less expensive it is THE option. (perhaps: $75 vs $250!)

For us it is important to make gear with historic materials AND methods AND tools as often as possible. But that's us.

For others? To quote Marsh: "... whichever!"