Veeky Forums armor experts, Is this replica fantasy armor or based on something real?

and just for comparsion, some real stuff that are similar

This one is a similar breastplate and upper arm but I will try to find one that is a closer match, just give me a few minutes

another kind of similar one but way to many differences still

and this one is the closest I can find right now. To the breastplate mind you. The helmet on oyur pic looks like a morion tried to rape a burgonet but lost track of whats the point halfway through.

The breastplate on the other hand is kind of okay as I said. Seems like it has only minor flaws nothing earthshaking. Might be a victorian era "fake" or just a modern wallhanger that is above average quality. But I will ask the actual experts

Journeyman armor apprentice here.
From the pics it looks like the the flutes are rolled through a more modern machine. Given the stutter pattern probably a hand crank roller as opposed to wedge hammered. I'd need to see the interior of the helmet welds to really give a more accurate opinion but I don't think the helmet originally went with the chestplate (the bluing of the steel is completely different). Nonetheless it is a decent piece.

Oh, this time of clamshell armor design was heavily used. Dating to an exact piece is kinda futile. It's a legit design though for either light mounted or foot levy. Wish I could make out the engraved design better though.

Hope that helps.

well, it's probably a theater prop.

Also don't even try to think about the helmet, it's bullshit. Just look how the strap is at the outside, the overall shape, the "riveted" front piece, the thickness of the top part. It's bullshit through and through

Thanks for the info, here's more pics. Think it's more likely to be a victorian replica?

>Think it's more likely to be a victorian replica?
not replica, but a fake. There were a fuckton of forgeries (of various qualities) back in the victorian era for various reaons, and later too.
But I feel less sure about it with more pics and get closer to the theater prop (but not a recent one).

Anyway why do you ask? What you want to do with it?

Whatever you might want to do with it just don't get shot while inside.

Doesn't look like there is any polish on it at all. Not very shiny.

The helmet doesnt really seem right in a lot of ways, though everything is certainly well made. Its definitely not a Victorian replica, and I agree that its probably a theater prop. Got any markings along the inside of the breastplate?

Isn't the only difference between a replica and a fake what the seller claims?

Looks like English Civil War cavalry armor. Bastard child of a lobster pot helmet and the Morion style.

In a replica you are paying attention to details and trying to recreate the actual piece as perfectly as possible. The other you are just trying to make it look close enough for someone to buy it. All replicas are fake, but not all fakes are replicas.

>cobwebs and rust
I would eat my hat if this is a replica.

...

As impractical as it might sound, the polish is on the inside.

Depending on the time period, the shot may not do much. Early hand-cannons and match locks weren't any more effective (and frequently less effective) and bows/crossbows, especially for penetrating armor. The velocity of the shot and the softness of the metal it was made out of meant that full plate was still quite protective. Hand cannons were great and scaring the ever-loving begeesus out of people though!

A narrow tipped bodkin arrow or bolt is what you'd want to take down someone armored with OP's plate. Or a lter flint-lock, as metallurgy and chemistry had advanced enough that muskets were then capable of taking down armored foes.

Of course, for all I know you were saying that he should walk outside his house right now and get into a fight with someone armed with an AK. Which would make this whole, long, pedantic post meaningless (if it already wasn't, anyways)

>Early hand-cannons and match locks weren't any more effective (and frequently less effective) and bows/crossbows, especially for penetrating armor.

The issue here is that people who actually lived during the period and who actually organized and led armies and wrote instructive literature about it disagree with you.

Never mind physics that show that guns generate more power than bows or crossbows.

That does sound pretty impractical. If you want to get rid of it, I have found a pretty good method to remove it.

youtu.be/isIgZ-D9oAI

YouTube of a musket versus plate.

You'd have to be within 50-100 yards for bodkin to actually get penetration, and early muskets were only accurate up to about 40 yards, plus were slower to reload and more expensive than bows.

And to be fair, the instructive literature you are referring to: is it about flint lock and percussion cap muskets? Or is it about arquebuses, hand cannons and/or machlocks? As I said, the more advance muskets (like the British Brown Bess) was a capable weapon and the reason why it was used throughout the army, instead of it being part of a unit along melee weapons and bows and arrows, they way early firearms were?

There is this story of a guy in the english civil war. He gets hit point blank in the helmet and in the back by a pistol. Both bullets don't penetrate the plate at all.

Real or good repro torso piece, meh fake helmet

It could be a replica from a movie in the 80 or even the 90s. Cobwebs and rust dont take that long to build up.

I call bullshit if only because being struck in the head by a ball like that would fucking concuss you within an inch of your life even if it didnt penetrate the helmet. That kinetic energy still has to go somewhere.

Doesn't say he wasn't beat up, just said it didn't penetrate.

Im saying he'd probably be dead.

Without knowing the caliber of the pistol or the powder charge behind it or the length of the barrel we can't really make blanket statements like that.

kek