Entry consists of one or more pieces to be worn singularly or as a set (Ex. a helm. a gambeson, a pair of knee cups). A pair (gauntlets, legs, etc.) counts as one piece. Sets may use any combination of styles and materials, but coordinated or matched sets will earn higher scores. Entrant should specify whether armor was made primarily for Combat ( for use in SCA fighting) or Dress (for ceremonial or non-combat wear.) Combat armor will hold a competitive advantage in Workmanship; Dress armor will hold an advantage in Authenticity; highest scores will go to sets that succeed at both levels. Combat armor must pass SCA marshallate standards or require only very minor modification; entrant should note what modification is necessary, if any.

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points)
Sources should be as close as possible to the original. The Armorer and His Craft is good, Armor from the Battle of Wisby is better, working from actual pieces is best. Bonus points should be awarded for giving construction methods, tools and materials.

• 0: No actual documentation
• 1: Brief description.
• 2: Also origin and use
• 3: Also materials and source of information
• 4: Also construction details and bibliography

• 0: Obviously not authentic
• 1: Bears some resemblance.
• 2: Good attempt.
• 3: Close, but obviously modern
• 4: Good reproduction

• 1: Simple
• 2: Easy
• 3: Not hard
• 4: Hard
• 5: Difficult

• 1: Did everything wrong
• 2: Will not survive combat
• 3: Possible, but will not last long
• 4: Good work, fine protection
• 5: Smooth, solid, very good work

• 1: A foiled attempt to copy
• 2: Exact copy
• 3: Modified replica
• 4: Drawn from several sources
• 5: Imaginative use of materials
• 6: Inspired, has personality

• 1: Cumbersome, crude
• 2: Materials and shape do not harmonize
• 3: Crudely finished
• 4: Looks reasonably good
• 5: Well integrated, functional
• 6: Comfortable, beautiful

For the purpose of Intermediate judging, all types of armor, except chainmail, will be judged in the same category.

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points)
Sources should be as close as possible to the original. The Armorer and His Craft is good, Armor from the Battle of Wisby is better, working from actual pieces is best. Bonus points should be awarded for giving construction methods, tools and materials.

• 0: No actual documentation
• 1: Brief description
• 2: Also origin and use
• 3: Also materials and source of information
• 4: Also construction details and bibliography

• 0: Blatantly modern (form, materials)
• 1: Bears some elements of period piece
• 2: Follows general outline of period piece
• 3: Piece is close to period practice, but lacks detail
• 4: Detailed reproduction of period piece

• Variety of shape of pieces
• Fit between multiple pieces
• Use of complex curves and fluting
• Decoration, etching, etc. as is appropriate to era

WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points) The quality of work done on a piece (Ex. for plate, are surfaces smooth? For mail, are pieces even? For non-metal, are seams strong and even?) Medieval armor was often crudely finished inside, and this should not cause point deduction unless it creates a possibility of danger.

• 1: Crude form, poor finish
• 2: General form okay, crude finish
• 3: General good form, lacks detail of original
• 4: Reasonably smooth and articulated, some detail, good form
• 5: Smooth, closely articulated, well detailed

• 1: Uninspired attempt at a common SCA project
• 2: Slightly modified, common SCA project
• 3: Reasonably plausible, executed in a period fashion
• 4: Original thinking, decoration well suited to wearer and executed in a period fashion

• 1: Totally incompatible to purpose of work
• 2: Cumbersome, weak construction, or crude
• 3: Inharmonious; does not function well
• 4: Fits wearer, is functional, but has weak construction
• 5: Fits wearer, is functional, is reasonably strong
• 6: Fits well, edges unfinished, articulation needs work
• 7: Finished edges, strong construction, articulation is good
• 8: Comfortable, well-designed, strong, relatively light

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points)

• 0: No documentation or very inaccurate documentation
• 1: Minimum information (time, place, style)
• 2: Same as #1 with visual reference (Xeroxes, pictures, postcards, etc.) to period examples, but little or no discussion of period practice; OR same as #1 plus discussion of period practice, but not visual references.
• 3: Same as #1 plus visual references and discussion of period practice, with reference to primary sources.
• 4: #3 but very complete examples and discussion, including rationale for design, construction, and materials, and their appropriateness to each other, to the armor style, and to period. Explains original experiment or research. Explains any deviations or variations from period norm, especially noting modifications made specifically to meet safety requirements.

Common authentic materials include metal, leather, cloth, horn. Modern substitutes may be used; judge these for appropriateness (Ex. mild steel for wrought iron is better than aluminum or stainless steel.) Kydex or other plastics may substitute for leather or horn, but will not score highly. Obviously inauthentic materials include undisguised plastics, foam rubber, plastic foam. synthetic fabrics, plastic based paints in obviously modern colors (or other obviously modern decorative treatments), plastic clothesline cord, etc. Obviously inauthentic processes include gas or arc welding, spot welded mail, etc. Safety considerations may require some substitutions in processes or materials (Ex. a modern metalwork technique instead of dangerous period one, or modifications of period design to conform to marshallate standards); these in themselves will not against Authenticity IF entrant explains safety considerations and provides a suitable rationale for the alternate methods/materials chosen. However, substitutions or modifications made without any effort to preserve authentic appearance will count against Authenticity.

• 0: Blatantly modern in materials, design, and construction
• 1: Generally period, with some obviously modern elements present (Ex. aluminum, foam rubber padding, non decorative motifs) OR obvious mixture of elements from different cultures or periods within or among individual pieces in the set entered.
• 2: Overall period style and execution, with minor inconsistencies (Ex. some obviously purchased hardware, modern shortcuts in process that don't quite approximate period results.
• 3: Period design/ execution with no inconsistencies; period materials or close equivalents; pieces in set are of the same period and would be worn together; processes used produce results equivalent to those produced in period.
• 4: Special effort to achieve a completely period product by use of period primary/secondary materials, design, tools, techniques, decoration, etc. NOTE: Dress armor is far more likely to achieve this level than is Combat armor, which is handicapped by marshallate requirements. Other parts of the criteria balance out this advantage.

• Scope of endeavor (number of pieces, size relative to detail, etc.)
• Extent of original work or modifications in design, patterns, etc.
• Difficulty and variety of materials used
• Variety of techniques attempted (consider material preparation, construction, finishing, decoration, etc. as attempted.)
• Difficulty of techniques attempted

WORKMANSHIP (0-6 points)) Rank the success of the entry on a scale of 0 to 6 based on the following. Judges may wish to consult such criteria as Metalwork or Leatherwork for more detail on techniques. NOTE: Period armor was often crudely finished on the inside; do not deduct points for this

• Design. Do plans/patterns make sense? Are parts combined properly? Do parts balance? Are proportions good? How well do pieces work together as a set?
• Material use. Consider choice, preparation, and handling. Are materials proper quality, thickness, strength? (Ex. low scores for brass hinges on stress spots, cloth that won't hold rivets/grommets; weak quilting threads, etc.) Are they pre-treated and protected as needed? Are they appropriate to each other?
• Construction techniques. Are rivets correct tightness? Is dishing even? Are seams and quilting strong? Does articulation work? Are mail rings butted closely or (better) welded or riveted? Are parts properly assembled?
• Finishing and decorative techniques. Are metal edges turned? Are cloth edges bound? Are lacing holes smoothed (or will they cut the laces)? Consider also polish, ornamentation, design and execution of decorative motifs.
• Mastery of period style and technique. Note: an entrant who has made modifications or substitutions for practical reasons can still demonstrate an understanding of period practice by what alternative processes he chooses (Ex. maintaining a period stylistic appearance while adding unobtrusive safety features).
• Function. Will pieces protect the wearer? Will they hold up in battle? Will they allow sufficient comfort and freedom of movement? If pieces make no entry to pass marshallate standards (i.e. most Dress armor) score 0.

CREATIVITY (0-4 points)

• 0: Piece/set isn't logical in context of period OR a commonly made, uninspired piece
• 1: Logical combination of a few copied elements or an exact copy of an existing that is commonly reproduced
• 2: Evidence of original work logical to period context, in design or execution (Ex. derivation of increase/decrease patterns and gussets for fitting mail shirt); OR particularly ingenious methods of incorporating modern safety and comfort features while preserving period impression OR an exact copy of an existing piece which is rarely reproduced in the SCA.
• 3: Creative interpolation in combination of elements, with much innovation logical to period context (Ex. development of an original pattern to replicate a period style, original adaptation of period needlework techniques to specific armoring needs;) Or finding completely period ways to meet modern safety requirements.
• 4: Original innovative combination period materials, techniques, and design, as might have been done by a creative period artisan. Special consideration such as personalized decoration.