armets. Let us ask, "Why is it there? It was never found on the bascinet, the immediate forerunner of the armet." But what we do find on the bascinet is a complete visor with ocularia and its upper part extending over the forehead as a reinforcement. We suggest, therefore, that in the natural order of things the first visor on the armet was a complete one, such as was used on the bascinet in a modified form, and that the next step was the dividing of the visor into two at the ocularia, converting the upper part into a fixed reinforcing plate on the forehead, and creating a simple ocularium above the visor as described. This suggestion seems reasonable; for such an arrangement would certainly have produced a visor more easily raised or closed; visors being of heavy construction in those days.
 | An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 2).djvu/122}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. |  |
Fig. 433. Armet
Italian, first half of XVth century, shown with the visor closed and original heavy wrapper in position
Collection: Baron de Cosson
| An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 2).djvu/122}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. | |
Fig. 434. The Same Armet
With the visor raised and buffe removed
There are two armets possessing the large visor which we think support our view.
The first armet of this type possessing such a visor is now in the collection of Sir Farnham Burke (Fig. 432) a helmet which the Baron de Cosson assigns to the second quarter of the XVth century, thus giving considerable support to our theory, if his opinion be correct. The skull-piece of the armet appears somewhat crudely fashioned in spite of its being of Italian workmanship. Of its nationality we are sure, since it bears an armourer's mark akin to that used by the Missaglia family of Milan; though it hung for centuries in a church-in England from which it was obtained by its late owner. This
