CHAINMAIL

CHAINMAIL
(Revised 1/98)

CHAINMAIL - NOVICE

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points) Must have at least a 3X5 card. More is acceptable. Give one point for each of the following that is present:

Identification/Description of the entry.
Approximate date and place/nationality in history that the entry is modeled upon.
List use(s) of the entry.
Cites at least one reference, either illustrative (pictures) or descriptive relating to either A) period use of such item OR B) period method of constructing such item OR C) both A & B.

AUTHENTICITY (0-4 points)Style should be judged as best as possible, taking documentation into account. (Are materials the best modern substitutes?) Bonus points should be awarded for period process, period materials and period results. (Riveted mail should produce bonus points. Remember that depending upon the period the piece is representing and/or the country of origin, chainmail may or may not have been riveted.) Consider the following concepts when scoring:

A) Is the entry appropriate to time/place stated in documentation?
B) Are the materials used period OR give period effect?
C) Are the methods/procedures used period OR give period effect?
D) Is the style, pattern, design and finished product consistent with one another and give period effect?

Give score based on the following:

0: Not authentic in appearance.
1: Bears some semblance to authentic.
2: Good attempt, improvement in technique needed.
3: Good work, just short of excellent work.
4: Excellent work, very good reproduction.

COMPLEXITY (1-5 points) Rank the ambition of the entry, NOT the workmanship. Give score based on the following:

1: Simple (i.e. - chainmail tasse )
2: Easy (i.e. - camail or aventail)
3: Not Hard (i.e. - a coif)
4: Hard (i.e. - a hauberk)
5: Difficult (i.e. - hauberk, coif, etc with a design worked in it with a second pattern or metal, OR piece of riveted armour)

WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points)Rank the success of the entry. Consider the following:

A) Attention to details, neatness and finishing touches (good closures on rings).
B) Ability of entry to serve intended function (combat or dress/display).
C) Choice of materials (correct ring size/wire gauge for type of entry).
D) Durability of the item (wire gauge correct to survive wear/usage).
E) Mastery of period style and practice.

Give score based on the following:

1: Poor technique/style/work.
2: Reasonable work, but materials and skills are greatly inconsistent with intended use.
3: Good work, materials and skills are somewhat inconsistent with intended use.
4: Good work, materials and skills are minorly inconsistent with intended use.
5: Excellent work, material and skills are very well suited for intended use.

CREATIVITY (1-6 points)Give score based on the following:

1: Project is NOT logical to context of period chainmail.
2: Project fits the context of period chainmail, but an adequate understanding of the item being created is missing.
3: Project fits the context of period chainmail but is a standard type of armour with no ornamentation.
4: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has minor ornamentation variations (such as dags).
5: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has major ornamentation variations (such as trimmed in a second metal)
6: Project draws on several sources of armor styles OR is mostly original application of period or SCA Known World designs.

QUALITY (1-6 points) Rate the aesthetic effect and appeal as well as the technical proficiency. Consider how you react to the entry (intuitive response). Keep in mind that this entry is at NOVICE LEVEL, regardless of the skill of the entrant. EXTRA POINTS SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR HAVING ALL GOOD RINGS. Give score based on the following:

1: Unsightly, poor fitting plus has many poorly closed rings and/or many misshapened rings
2: Has several ring closures that aren't tight and/or several misshapened rings.
3: Has mostly good tight ring closures with few or no misshapened rings.
4: #3 plus looks and fits reasonably well.
5: #3 plus better than average look and fit.
6: #3 plus extremely comfortable fit and appearance.

CHAINMAIL - INTERMEDIATE

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points) Must have at least a 1 page, 2-3 pages preferable. More is acceptable. Give one point for each of the following that is present:

Identification/Description of the entry and the approximate date and place/nationality in history that the entry is modeled upon.
Statement or listing of materials used in entry's construction and use(s) of the entry.
Describes method(s) used to create entry (may include reasons for why a certain process or material was used).
Cites at least two references, either illustrative (pictures) or descriptive relating to either A) period use of such item OR B) period method of constructing such item OR C) both A & B.

AUTHENTICITY (0-4 points) Style should be judged as best as possible, taking documentation into account. (Are materials the best modern substitutes?) Bonus points should be awarded for period process, period materials and period results. (Riveted mail should produce bonus points. Remember that depending upon the period the piece is representing and/or the country of origin, chainmail may or may not have been riveted.) Consider the following concepts when scoring:

A) Is the entry appropriate to time/place stated in documentation?
B) Are the materials used period OR give period effect?
C) Are the methods/procedures used period OR give period effect?
D) Is the style, pattern, design and finished product consistent with one another and give period effect?

Give score based on the following:

0: Not authentic in appearance.
1: Bears some semblance to authentic.
2: Good attempt, improvement in technique needed.
3: Good work, just short of excellent work.
4: Excellent work, very good reproduction.

COMPLEXITY (1-5 points)Rank the ambition of the entry, NOT the workmanship. Give score based on the following:

1: Simple (i.e. - chainmail tasse )
2: Easy (i.e. - camail or aventail)
3: Not Hard (i.e. - a coif)
4: Hard (i.e. - a hauberk)
5: Difficult (i.e. - hauberk, coif, etc with a design worked in it with a second pattern or metal, OR piece of riveted armour)

WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points) Rank the success of the entry. Consider the following:

A) Attention to details, neatness and finishing touches (good closures on rings).
B) Ability of entry to serve intended function (combat or dress/display).
C) Choice of materials (correct ring size/wire gauge for type of entry).
D) Durability of the item (wire gauge correct to survive wear/usage).
E) Mastery of period style and practice.

Give score based on the following:

1: Poor technique/style/work.
2: Reasonable work, but materials and skills are greatly inconsistent with intended use.
3: Good work, materials and skills are somewhat inconsistent with intended use.
4: Good work, materials and skills are minorly inconsistent with intended use.
5: Excellent work, material and skills are very well suited for intended use.

CREATIVITY (1-4 points) Give score based on the following:

1: Project is NOT logical to context of period chainmail.
2: Project fits the context of period chainmail but is a standard type of armour with no ornamentation.
3: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has minor ornamentation variations (such as dags).
4: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has major ornamentation variations (such as trimmed in a second metal) OR draws on several sources of armor styles OR is mostly original application of period or SCA Known World designs.

QUALITY (1-8 points) )Rate the aesthetic effect and appeal as well as the technical proficiency. Consider how you react to the entry (intuitive response). Keep in mind that this entry is at INTERMEDIATE LEVEL, regardless of the skill of the entrant. EXTRA POINTS SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR HAVING ALL GOOD RINGS. Give score based on the following:

1: Unsightly, poor fitting plus has many poorly closed rings and/or many misshapened rings
2: Has many poorly closed rings and/or many misshapened rings.
3: Has several ring closures that aren't tight AND several misshapened rings.
4: Has several ring closures that aren't tight OR several misshapened rings.
5: Has mostly good tight ring closures with few or no misshapened rings.
6: #5 plus looks and fits reasonably well.
7: #5 plus better than average look and fit.
8: #5 plus extremely comfortable fit and appearance.

CHAINMAIL - ADVANCED

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points)Must have at least 3 pages of discussion (NOT including visuals and bibliography). More is acceptable. Give score based on the following::

0: No documentation or very inaccurate documentation.
1: Minimum information only (Identification/Description and use of the entry, approximate date in history of entry, place/nationality/origin of the entry).
2: Has all info listed for 1 point plus cites at least two references, either illustrative (pictures) or descriptive relating to either A) period use of such item OR B) period method of constructing such item OR C) both A & B.
3: Has all the info listed for 2 points plus a listing of materials and tools used in entry's construction.
4: Has all the info listed for 3 points plus discussion of method(s) used to create entry with additional discussion of period practice and has a full bibliography.

AUTHENTICITY (0-4 points)Give one point for each element present:

A) Is the entry appropriate to time/place stated in documentation?
B) Are the materials used period OR give period effect?
C) Are the methods/procedures used period OR give period effect?
D) Is the style, pattern, design and finished product consistent with one another and give period effect?

Give score based on the following:

0: Not authentic in appearance.
1: Bears some semblance to authentic.
2: Good attempt, improvement in technique needed.
3: Good work, just short of excellent work.
4: Excellent work, very good reproduction.

COMPLEXITY (0-6 points)Rank the ambition of the entry, NOT the workmanship. Give score based on the following:

0: Extremely Simple (i.e. - chainmail belt)
1: Simple (i.e. - chainmail tasse )
2: Easy (i.e. - camail or aventail)
3: Not Hard (i.e. - a coif)
4: Hard (i.e. - a hauberk)
5: Difficult (i.e. - hauberk, coif, etc with a design worked in it with a second pattern or metal)
6: Extremely Difficult (i.e. - piece of riveted armour)

WORKMANSHIP (0-6 points)Rank the success of the entry. Consider the following:

A) Attention to details, neatness and finishing touches (good closures on rings).
B) Ability of entry to serve intended function (combat or dress/display).
C) Choice of materials (correct ring size/wire gauge for type of entry).
D) Durability of the item (wire gauge correct to survive wear/usage).
E) Mastery of period style and practice.

Give score based on the following:

0: Poor technique/style/work, plus entry is not suited at all for its intended use.
1: Poor technique/style/work.
2: Reasonable work, but materials and skills are extremely inconsistent with intended use.
3: Reasonable work, but materials and skills are greatly inconsistent with intended use.
4: Good work, materials and skills are somewhat inconsistent with intended use.
5: Good work, materials and skills are minorly inconsistent with intended use.
6: Excellent work, material and skills are very well suited for intended use.

CREATIVITY (0-4 points)Give score based on the following:

0: Project is NOT logical to context of period chainmail.
1: Project fits the context of period chainmail but is a standard type of armour with no ornamentation.
2: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has minor ornamentation variations (such as dags).
3: Project fits the context of period chainmail and has major ornamentation variations (such as trimmed in a second metal).
4: Project draws on several sources of armor styles OR is mostly original application of period or SCA Known World designs.

QUALITY (1-6 points) Rate the aesthetic effect and appeal as well as the technical proficiency. Consider how you react to the entry (intuitive response). Keep in mind that this entry is at Advanced Level, regardless of the skill of the entrant. EXTRA POINTS SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR HAVING ALL GOOD RINGS. Give score based on the following:

0: Unsightly, poor fitting plus has many poorly closed rings and/or many misshapened rings
1: Has many poorly closed rings and/or many misshapened rings.
2: Has several ring closures that aren't tight and/or several misshapened rings.
3: Has mostly good tight ring closures with few or no misshapened rings.
4: #3 plus looks and fits reasonably well.
5: #3 plus better than average look and fit.
6: #3 plus extremely comfortable fit and appearance.