Kult of Athena Subarmalis by DSC

[jvrjenivs]

I will say that I was also considering buying their leather sub. Does anyone have feedback on it?

Do you mean this one?


I've one of these, as well as the other one discussed above. I have to say I was disappointed when I got this one. The main body is nicely padded and well made, but the leather has a real modern look. The pteryges are made of way too thin leather and the fringe is worthless. So I would stick with the fabric one. It's a very good piece and certainly worth every penny, in my opinion. Surely when it will be used under a oily hamata

[Cheyenne]

I would also add that the leather subarmour also does not have enough of the ptyruges. There should be at least three times that many on both the shoulders and the hem line. avoid if possible - but thanks for sharing your views on your purchase for this leather item

Claire

[arklore70]

Hi Folks,

I went and dyed mine with RIT liquid dye and salt. I got a nice loam green color to it using the dark dark green. It looks natural.

I would recommend about 3-4 bottles of the RIT liquid dye to get whatever color you want.

Its a rugged looking garment and I will put it to test this week at Lafe 43 AD. The shoulders are a bit wide, but I went one size up to allow for enough space with my period sized tunic.

One pro is its better padded and lighter than my SOTW Leather Subarmalis and will make a nice field pillow and insulation form the cold ground at night.

I am not sure if I like this one better or my SOTW Leather Subarmalis. My SOTW Subarmlis I think looks a lot better on me for fit.

One of the cons I see with this type of subarmalis is that it will really soak up the water if it rains like a sponge. Sure scotch guard or lanolin can help, but with the friction of hammata, I am sure water will still work its way in.

At $65.00 USD, I would buy it again and tell my guys to go and buy it as well. I don't think you can go really wrong with this one for the price, especially when y9ou factor in time, and materials to make yourself. Yes, mine did have what looks like foam padding in the upper body, but with the dye, and a bit a grit you can not tell at all, and unless you want to actually tell as the padding dyed along with the outer linen/cotton shell.

Thanks once again to all on the tips on dying the subarmalis and the intel on knowing that it could be done with this piece of kit with out screwing it all up.

R/

[Neuraleanus]

I bought a DSC vestis subarmalis in linen but I underestimated what size to order. Rather then return it I'm currently in the process of rebuilding it to fit me and while I'm at it, I'm getting rid of the synthetic padding. I'm using the pteruges and the shoulder pads assembled onto a sleeveless shirt of heavy linen (I know felted wool would be more accurate, but I'm thinking comfort here). I'll post pictures once it's complete.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

The main body is nicely padded and well made, but the leather has a real modern look.

Compared to what surviving piece of period leather that reveals to us its original finish?

[Magnus]

Veggie tanned leather treated with a natural oil, like neatsfoot does not look like the DSC leather subarmalis.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Veggie tanned leather treated with a natural oil, like neatsfoot does not look like the DSC leather subarmalis.

Truly, but that doesn't exactly get to the question asked, though. I asked how we can tell it's modern if we can't distinguish the original finish on contemporary leather items? As far as I'm aware, vegetable tanned leather seeped in neatsfoot oil may look just as different from the real stuff as this DSC finish... The leather that reenactors use are typically going to look quite different than the original stuff, methinks. The finish is secondary. Mass-marketed, veggie-tanned hide from Tandy's is highly unlikely to ever look like the real deal. The process of tanning has changed almost 100% (beyond the cleaning of the skins) from antiquity to modernity except in rare, backwards tanneries spread across the old world countries. Finding leather with finishes that are likely to resemble ancient quality... Well, I'd just suggest you follow your nose.

But even without access to genuine Roman leather, there is still hope for this product... DSC does do work with raw vegetable tanned leather (I have a pair of sandals to prove it) and is typically happy to do customized pieces, too, from what I understand. If one were to go straight to the source instead of going through Kult of Athena, I'm sure they could work something out with the DSC guys about a different finish.

[Neuraleanus]

My rebuild of the DSC linen subarmalis:


[attachment=385]subarmalis2.jpg[/attachment]


The ptyruges are attached to a sleeveless shirt made from 9oz linen and I made additional ptyruges to go around the waist. I also used the original shoulder pads. The color in the photo isn't correct, it's actually darker and more red.

[Magnus]

If you apply finishing techniques to leather using modern methods and technology that did not exist 2000 years ago, guess what? You're going to have leather that will not look like something tanned and treated with natural oils like the Romans had access too. Neatsfoot and veggie tanned will be closer than chrome tanned and who-knows-what treated leather that cheaper products feature.

I know many of you are evidence-mongers, but it's ok to use common sense some times. Really...it's ok. You'll be fine.

BTW, nice subarmalis Lee.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Neatsfoot and veggie tanned will be closer than chrome tanned and who-knows-what treated leather that cheaper products feature.

Only if you know the Romans didn't use techniques that could have made their leather products look that way. You're can't use common sense to know what looks more accurate when you don't have evidence to realize what makes something accurate in the first place. There is concrete evidence that chrome was used in China as early as the 3rd century BC... So in fact, it's possible suggest that Rome may have known of its qualities due to their trade connections with the East. Perhaps the Romans threw some chrome into their tanning compounds at some point, or used some other methods that we have entirely no clue about? The quality and quantity of what Roman leather we do have reveals an insignificant amount of evidence regarding the methods that may have been used to treat leather goods. It's unreasonable to assume that what clues we have account for a significant variation of leather finishes in the ancient world - the remains that show signs of distinct tanning and finishing processes is just too small to make conclusions about the whole empire with!

During the empire, I'm confident in suggesting that mass-produced Roman leather probably amounted to at least tens of millions of pounds of product made over a period of a few centuries. Such an estimate is easily substantiated considering the surviving proportions of other mass-produced products, such as pottery, and the apparent population estimates of the empire at various stages. There is an excavated hill at the site of Monte Testaccio that has an estimated 53 million amphorae which would have held approximately 6 billion liters of stored or shipped liquid. That's one site, one mound of pots. That evidence gives us a good idea of how the Romans functioned and can lead to confident conclusions about pottery construction, use and consumption in the empire. A pile of shoes and other loose leather goods scavenged from sites across Europe doesn't tell us very much at all about the variety of Roman leather, unless if are satisfied looking at the world through a microscope.

There's some common sense to chew on.

[Magnus]

If you want to equate Roman technology with modern, based on chrome tanning used in CHINA...fill your boots. But I disagree entirely with you.

Your evidence of mass production does not help the issue of HOW the leather was treated and would have looked. I don't think anyone would argue that the Romans weren't the pioneers of manual mass production. But it's an irrelevant point to this discussion.

A natural finish is the way to go, vs a shiny, modern look to leather.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Sorry, I think my previous quote's sarcasm alert was set rather low... I was making a point rather than trying to argue for crazy mysterious Roman tanning processes. I sincerely doubt Romans used chrome-tanning technology. I was replying to this part of your quote, in general, which I should have set in my text:

I know many of you are evidence-mongers, but it's ok to use common sense some times. Really...it's ok. You'll be fine.

Just wanted to make a point about how much evidence matters versus "common sense." A finish being made from natural oils does not make it more reasonable to expect (unless you look at evidence) than some sort of synthetic finish based on chrome, considering the use of chrome and many other crazy elements to mix up into all sorts of stuff during the ancient world. What sparse evidence we have suggests that leather was probably finished with natural oils, yes. If I wanted to use common sense speculation, even considering the proof, I'd be able to draw upon lots of the logic in my previous post - particuarly when we realize that the evidence we do have does not even account for ~0.001% of all of the leather made in Rome! But, almost all of that speculation, however reasonably it casts our knowledge of ancient techniques into shadow, does not suit the accepted standards of research required for modern reenactment. We show off what we can, even if it is an extremely small portion of reality, so that we can capture a glimpse of the past through our efforts.

Common sense and evidence go hand-in-hand, but in the reenactment world solid evidence trumps all. Perhaps I made more of your statement than I should have, particularly after reading your last post. I apologize for assuming you were trying to sidestep evidence analysis.

Cheers!

[Magnus]

No...not trying to sidestep anything. But as you say, where scant evidence exists we have to draw upon logical assumption.

BTW, what are "accepted standards of research required for modern reenactment." Who has written these, who has accepted them, and who defines modern reenactment? :wink:

[Gregory J. Liebau]

BTW, what are "accepted standards of research required for modern reenactment." Who has written these, who has accepted them, and who defines modern reenactment?

Check out the regulations on authenticity from most any living history reenactment group. There are typically clauses in their rules or mission-statements explaining the expectations of members to do their homework. Lots of different ways to say the same thing in the end: Don't wear things that can't be supported as at least plausible reconstructions of some historic artifact or artistic representation, don't have it made in a way that looks blatantly modern from further than a few feet away, don't have it of material that is blatantly modern, must reasonably match the chosen era and the other items used in a kit, etc. All of this, of course, based on evidence analysis and interpretation.

[jvrjenivs]

BTW, what are "accepted standards of research required for modern reenactment." Who has written these, who has accepted them, and who defines modern reenactment? :wink:

Well, I also think you should make a division here. That is between the different re-enactment 'scenes'. There are real big differences in approach between different areas. In Europe there are several people who show their kit and knowledge to 1000s of people every year, and some even making a living of that. This means apart from the group there are also rules event managers select the groups they invite uppon. So, then, if you would like to be accepted for some events, you have to make sure you're above the 'accepted standards' in re-enactment. Well, there is even a difference within Europe, especially between the UK, NL, Belgium, France and Spain on one side and Italy on the other side.

Well, all do a good job, but all on another way. It's just about what you would like to do. It's all about a personal choose. But if you're not up to the standard you'll simply have less events to attend. (well in Europe that is)