I have to agree it is well made in many respects however it has many mistakes, the armourer has of course got the rope work edging right but then the crest holder should be iron and not brass, and the original only shows two rivets that hold the reinforce peek. The reinforce peek is in fact not the type that was fitted to this helmet it was a solid type not thin metal bent over to a right angle.
The also the fatal mistake has yet again appeared with the reinforce inlay where it has been given a reversal of direction of the chevrons from the centre, this is totally incorrect for the inlay should go all the way around in one direction. It has also been fitted with hooks to take a fore and aft crest and the original had no such hooks.
As for the surface finish, I do not think that Romans had hammer marks visible on the outside of their helmets normally. Surface finish was very smooth. The glas inlays in the rivets are red transparent glas, but should be opaque glass.
Thanks to all for your comments, and to Evan for posting my recent Gallic D.
Before too much more is said, I should present the caveat that my helmet makes no pretension of being an exact replica of the Mainz Gallic D, or even a good general representation of a Roman helmet, and that while some of the debated features of the original have been obscured by the destruction of the original and the limitations of its documentation, other criticized features of my recent work are deliberate license. The surface finish and the transparent enamel mentioned are good examples, and I make no apologies for them. I know how to do them otherwise, and I would be happy to meet or exceed the expectations of anyone here.
The features that Brian mentioned, however, are from differences of interpretation - unless there are photos and text of the original that I have overlooked in my research. If so, citing sources will help all of us who seek to improve the accuracy of our work.
Of course, constructive criticism also helps, and I wouldn't have anyone think that this post reveals an inability to accept it. I look forward to posting more work here soon, and hope that you will all contribute your knowledge and opinions to help improve it over time.
On the note of opaque red glass rivets - I have reason to believe, after my recent research and experimentation, that at least some glass-filled rivets were actually cabochon-set glass paste, rather than enamel fused into a cup. I will post pictures of my trial pieces soon.
Quote:On the note of opaque red glass rivets - I have reason to believe, after my recent research and experimentation, that at least some glass-filled rivets were actually cabochon-set glass paste, rather than enamel fused into a cup. I will post pictures of my trial pieces soon.
I don´t have an issue with the form (cabochon), but with red transparent glass. ;-) What source would you base that on? Same for the surface finish: which source?
I do agree with Jeffrey Hildebrandt where he mentions differences of interpretation and I have made this helmet myself where I used detailed information and pictures, here is in fact a tinted copy of this helmet made by Lindenschmitt.
Where I have mentioned the inlay in the reinforce peek goes only in one direction is correct, and my interpretation of this is that it represents a Palm branch as carried by a winged Victory against her left shoulder that we find in many monuments.
There was a statement by Robinson that the inlay was of Herring bone style but he was incorrect with his opinion of this, for it was in fact yellow bronze and copper segments that alternate from one end of the reinforce to the other.
[attachment=9172]LLTinted.jpg[/attachment]
Here is a picture of how the inlay should look with the two coloured inlays that form chevrons set into grooves cut into a solid peek, the reinforce peek is however concave on both its upper and lower surfaces and tapers back to about a couple of mm where it reaches the bowl of the helmet thus reducing the weight.
[attachment=9173]100_0253Medium.jpg[/attachment]
I take the original is destroyed? I'd like to see the photos that exist, particularly the color closeups of the herringbone and the red glass/garnet things. Romans loved garnets.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
The original was sadly blown to bits by an RAF bomb in WWII and the only pieces remaining are the brow band and the left cheek plate, the cheek plate was in fact a damage repair carried out in the Roman period whereas the one missing today with all else had silver rosettes with inlays. The inlay in the reinforce along with all else is missing and is only shown in the tinted picture shown earlier.
It is sad but the original was blown to bits by an RAF bomb in WWII and all that now remains is a small portion with the brow band and the left cheek plate, this cheek plate was itself a Roman battle repair for the other and all the rest of the helmet had silver rosettes with inlays.
The reinforce inlay is only as we see it in the tinted picture by Lindenschmitt taken in the 19th century, and of course in the copy of it as I made it.
[attachment=9177]GDBB1.jpg[/attachment]
Quote:I don´t have an issue with the form (cabochon), but with red transparent glass. ;-) What source would you base that on? Same for the surface finish: which source?
As I said, "other criticized features of my recent work are deliberate license. The surface finish and the transparent enamel mentioned are good examples." That means, in clearer terms, that I know very well that evidence points in other directions, but that I did it anyway. I never said that Roman helmets had hammer marks nor that they had transparent glass, and I could dig up as much evidence to the contrary as anyone. This was one helmet for one customer, not a statement about my knowledge of Roman helmets or how I think they should be made - which is why I did not post it for scrutiny and why I wrote the disclaimer I did when I found that it was being discussed here.
Thank you for posting the coloured lithograph, Brian. As can be seen, the brow peak is only visible from one side, nor is it visible in any detail from the slightly different angles in Robinson. Whether the pattern continues or is mirrored on the other side of the band is entirely a matter of interpretation, rather than a "fatal mistake." In my opinion, Lindenschmidt's description of the alternating inlay elements as "leaves" can be interpreted with equal credibility as a laurel, as I have done. Having come to different conclusions from the same scant evidence does not make either of us "totally incorrect," nor is it any cause for denouncement of a brother craftsman's work.
I am familiar with several Gallic D replicas, including Brian's, as well as many other makers and their work, and I would never think of offering unsolicited public criticism of it. Perhaps there is a philosophical difference here, but it seems an unpleasant way to educate, and an even worse way to create camaraderie between makers. After all, we can always share observations privately, and we can also post educational threads outside of a critical context.
Jeffrey you don't need to justify a commissioned piece to anyone but the buyer, especially when you didn't post it. Those of us who know you know the amount of time and research you put into your pieces. Well done.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"
In my defense I didn't expect a rather blatantly critical analysis of the helmet (I mean, no offense but show some tact guys.)
IMO, I think it's a great reconstruction. Not everyone orders a helmet to the letter. There was no such thing as a Legion where every helmet was the same.
NOTE: As I am involved in this discussion I do not take any moderation stance on the topic.
![[Image: fectio.png]](http://s226.photobucket.com/user/sattuviitana/media/fectio.png.html)
