Andy Goddard (a.goddard@strath.ac.uk)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:52:45 +0100
Ulrich wrote:
>The most significant changes in mail from 7th to 10th c. are smaller ring
>diameter, and larger wire diameter, there are mentions ofr early vike
>SWIMMING in mail. This you can experiment with for yourself Rob, go check
>the weight of Ferret's mail shirt with its 15mm dia rings against the usual
>re-enacty m8 square section spring washer mail.
>From what I saw at Kirby, regarding "usual UK re-enacty mail" would be:
1/ no square section "washer" mail in evidence
2/ a preponderence of galvinised/mild steel butt-joined mail, around the
12mm dia mark
3/ a little spring steel butt-joined mail, similar sort of size
4/ a handkerchiefs' worth of iron rivetted mail
...And 4/ was utterly gorgeous. 8-P </drool>
My new mail is spring steel butt-joined 11mm external diameter, 1.4 mm
material diameter, and is *considerably* lighter than my stolen old 12.7mm,
1.6mm galvinised number. Could I swim in it? Well, I could probably
flounder for a few more moments than I could in the old stuff.
Last weekend, I saw a near-complete hauberk made from 9?mm, 1.2mm spring
steel, and it's next to weightless.
The drawback with "lighter mail through smaller links", of course, is that
it takes longer to make.
So. Back to my pliers and chausses... :-(
Andy Goddard
Circa:1265
Glasgow, Scotland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:32 GMT