Content with the way it looks...

[Hibernicus]

I would NEVER use stainless steel for an historic replica for re-enactment purposes. Let's get that idea ought the window right away!

The stainless steel vs CR steel discussion had more to do with contentment with the way things look... assorted items, kit and gear. For many among us "looks" is the priority.... It looks correct so it's AOK.

There's an old SCA-ism regarding the historical accuracy of something..... "At 10 feet its 90% accurate. At 90 feet it's 100% accurate!"

For me function is equally important as appearance. This has been a progressive change for me, especially as I've learned better ways of making, fabricating and building!

Its why I ask all our soldiers to hammer work their CR steel for segmentatas.. yeah, we'll have unhammered segs around for years... but, eventually they too will fade away.... relegated to a collection and dust or loaner kit and rust...

BTW... it sure is fun working the steel hot! AND... it sure is fun working a thicker guage into a thinner one, say 16g into 18g or 20g. You get a good sense of the durability and weapon reisistence qualities of the metal which when hammered is as close as you'll get to Roman iron without forging plates from iron billets.

Its comforting knowing that the segmentata I'm wearing is functional.

We have a ways to go at LEG IX HSPA. But, we need to go there!

Tearing kit apart to rebuild it better

Chucking kit because it can't be made better (I'm up to 18 segs into the dumpster)

Lot's of work to do! LOTS of room for improvement!!

We have a crowd of projects that are being photo documented
Scithius is rebuilding our webpage to accomodate these extensive additions.
The future is bright!

[Magnus]

That's great if you want to use stainless for the SCA, but as you said yourself in the other thread, "CR steel is, according to the metallugist I've used, the closest in composition to Roman iron"...so why on earth would you use stainless? We're not hear to decieve people, we're out to make the best representation of the legions as we can. If CR is better than stainless by a long shot, why not use it?


"For many among us "looks" is the priority.... It looks correct so it's AOK."

I've also seen SCA'ers wear plaid pajama bottoms and announce their celtic decent. If looks are good enough for you, that's fine...you're entitled to do things as you see fit, but don't expect much support from those with a higher standard of material authenticity. The same type of argument can be had with the outer plates being blackened/blued, which we've gone over before.

There's nothing wrong with using stainless if that's the route you and your group members want to do, just bear in mind that when called on it, you are obligated to tell people it's about the farthest thing from what the Romans would have used, aside from PVC plastic of course. :wink:


"There's an old SCA-ism regarding the historical accuracy of something..... "At 10 feet its 90% accurate. At 90 feet it's 100% accurate!"

There's also an older saying that goes "good from far, but far from good."

I personally wouldn't give a chamber pot for what a lot of SCA'ers say in regards to what is authentic or not. The SCA's role was never to provide highly accurate portrayals of a given era, in fact if someone does accomplish a high standard, they're the exception, not the rule.

If you want to use SCA standards, I'm sure the stainless is great, but take that to any Roman reenactment and people are going to ask you why, when CR is just as easily available, probably cheaper and easier to work with.

I'm not in any way calling into question your skill or innovation Hib, just that the old expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should maybe be applied when chosing materials best suited to make Roman Plate.

[Matt Lukes]

Okay, I'm thoroughly confused. :lol: It did indeed sound like you were trying to convince everyone that stainless steel should be acceptable for reenacting. I'm glad that's not the case but I have to admit, I now don't undertsand what it was all about- you're now saying it wasn't an attempt to see if stainless steel was acceptable to reenactors, so then you weren't trying to see if there was a market for it, yes? What then was the idea? To see if in general appearance of things in general was paramount? I'm not sure I get understand that idea- for the most part accurate appearance goes with accurate materials and construction. Or are you wondering if people would be content sacrificing accurate materials and construction as long as it looks pretty good?

Or is this just a commentary on the development of LEG IX HSPA?

[Matt Lukes]

There's an old SCA-ism regarding the historical accuracy of something..... "At 10 feet its 90% accurate. At 90 feet it's 100% accurate!"

The issue I see with that philosophy is that it seems to me that a lot of us work the other way around- at 1 foot it looks 100% accurate, at 10" it looks 90% accurate, at 6" virtually all flaws are visible- and that's not mentioning the facts about material and construction we take into consideration with respect to accuracy.

[Hibernicus]

I'm not nor have I ever advocated the use of stainless steel for segmentatas for Roman re-enactors....

Nor was I trying to see if there was a re-enactor market for stainless.. good grief.

Nor is this a commentary about the SCA.

To some among us, appearance is more important than FUNCTION. Some could get away with using stainless (some do)... all but a few would be the wiser... with some minor effort stainless can be made to look like CR steel. I'm a fair expert and I have seen others far expertier than I fooled by appearance... If it looks like CR steel.....

What I am advocating is the idea that FUNCTION is just as importance as appearance.

CR steel does not function like Roman iron. It is, simply, more like Roman iron than any other material readily available for us to use.

If we can take commonly used materials and make them function more like Roman materials, items, etc then we should, shouldn't we?

Appearance isn't everything.

[Tarbicus]

Of course both form and function are as equally important. The function is how the Romans made it work, with its form playing a vital role in defining what went on inside the Roman head.

It's been just over a couple of years now since I started with my first helmet, but by the end of this year pretty much everything I had up to the start of this year will have been and gone on Ebay. In fact, I know I will be very proud to wear what I am putting together now. But I also know that in five years that lot may well be fairly redundant. :wink:

I know what you mean about those who find the look more important, but you have to be a bit fairer here, as those people who are serious about it will have learned more and be unsatisfied with just the look. Usually (from what I can tell) they are genuinely interested but have much to learn (as we all do), and once they have learned they tend to upgrade the accuracy. At least they will be actively getting the kit together, and come time will learn why their kit is not so accurate and want to improve it. It just takes time to do so.

I'd personally rather go nekkid than wear stainless steel hock: (sorry for that image folks)

[Marcus Mummius]

Hi Sean,

So is the functionality of Roman wrought iron more like stainless steel than CR steel?

[Hibernicus]

Learning.... phew! That's why I've the better part of 18 segmentatas into the dumpster over the last couple of years... old stuff we've had about... easier to trash 'em than to repair 'em!

We've had GREAT success at starting new members off on a newer path. In fact all have some kit that's better than that of Members who've been with us a while! There's been a great deal of activity by long time members to replace old kit and out do the new guys! '

I have also found that showing new guys how to do it more like it was done, by teaching them that the extra effort in preparing materials makes their kit MORE authentic, has increased their level of enthusiasm for what we do!

[Matt Lukes]

Learning.... phew!

Well there's a WHOLE lot to be said for clarity Sean :lol: What I wrote wasn't meant as a quip or anything- all that stuff you wrote in this and the other thread was contradictory, unclear, and completely confusing so I, and others, had to guess at the point- I didn't know so I asked. All you had to say from the beginning is that you feel that stainless steel is a better replicator of the functional characteristics of Roman armor plate than regular mild steel is and there'd have been no confusion! :lol:

The question then would be how do you justify this idea? My previous posting in the other thread stands then- if the qualities of Roman plate are based on comparisons with modern materials and modern mild steel is the closest metallurgically, how can stainless steel be a better approximation?

[Hibernicus]

-" if the qualities of Roman plate are based on comparisons with modern materials and modern mild steel is the closest metallurgically, how can stainless steel be a better approximation?"

It isn't. It can't be. Never said it was.

My point is that FUNCTION is just as important as appearance. As I've said before, the only modern material that's readily accessible by most that comes closest to functioning like Roman iron is CR steel that's been worked. Stainless can be made to look like CR steel but that's all it can be.

We often overlook function. Sometimes appearance takes precedent.

More and more LEG IX HSPA are finding ways to include function as part of an item's value and not just its outward appearance.

We often ask ourselves.."Yes, it looks right, but is it?"

[Matt Lukes]

Okay, it must be because I've never overlooked function in favor of appearance and hadn't thought that 'function is as important as form' even needed to be said that I missed your whole point- sorry Sean.

Authenticity is EVERYTHING together- form, function, construction, materials- and absolutely you're right it makes a world of difference when you consider them all wink:

[Magnus]

I agree, this thread has been completely baffling, as well as the other ones.
Function is fine and dandy, but why are you trying to re-invent the wheel? You've already said yourself that CR is the closest metal to roman iron/steel plate, so why the offshoots here in the use of stainless? CR functions just as well, if not better than stainless and is easier to work.

CR FUNCTIONS extremely well for making segmentata. Why bother with stainless at all?

"It isn't. It can't be. Never said it was."

Sorry, but didn't you start out the other thread by saying that stainless steel can be used to look like roman plate? Why bother? You've got a material (CR Steel) that's easier to work with, and has about half the final prep time to get it to the right finish.

You seem to say one thing, then backtrack and say..."well, I didn't mean THAT, I meant THIS", yet your english says otherwise. I don't see the point in even starting a thread about anything remotely linking segmentatas with stainless steel, unless it's a clearly written warning not to use the one to make the other.

[M. Demetrius]

I don't see the point in even starting a thread about anything remotely linking segmentatas with stainless steel, unless it's a clearly written warning not to use the one to make the other.

Huh?? You mean you can make stainless steel out of segmentata? WoW! I AM confused!! hock:

[Matt Lukes]

Well not to be seen as a pedant, but technically you could use segmentata to make stainless steel- melt them down and add nickel

[Hibernicus]

I posed a question:

"If you can make stainless steel look like CR steel by burnishing and or brushing, why not use it?"

Never once said anyone should do so..

One point of the thread.. we all use substitutes.. some are close approximations such as CR steel.. such as machine spun and woven cloth.... some substitutes are way way off. If some substitutes are OK because they achieve the right look then why not use another kind of substitute if appearance is the goal?

It's a question not a suggestion.

An important part of the answer for LEG IX, and for others, is function as well as appearance. A very good reason for not using stainless is that it does not function like Roman iron.

If a material can be worked to make it function more like the Roman material shouldn't it be?