Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Chainmailbasket_com

  • Rank
    structural chainmail sculptor

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Land of Mail and Honey
  • Interests
  • Location
    Canada, Ontario, St. Catharines
  • Interests
    chainmail, among other things
  • Occupation
    Chainmail scientist, consultant, artisan
  • The year you started making chainmail

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Chainmailbasket_com


    When will .048” copper 5 pound spools be back in stock?
  2. Chainmailbasket_com

    dragonscale weave for shirts?

    I know I'm a little late to the party, but actually , according to my website's weave chart, that combination of ars in the same wide diameter would NOT work well in applications requiring flexibility. 3.6 is the minimum ar for the smaller ring which makes a stiff sheet. The "general ar " column is more suited to most maillers ' needs.
  3. Chainmailbasket_com

    Need advice for a chainmail shirt

    The measured inner diameter of a ring will almost never be the size of the mandrel, or the "listed" ring size, due to springback. The only time it would ever come close is if a material with a low amount of springback is used, and a saw is used to cut the rings, and the blade thickness happens to remove just the right amount of material to bring the ring size (when the rings are closed) back down to that of the mandrel. I know you're completely aware of that, Red, and your intention was to demonstrate how AR works, but I wanted to point this out as it often gets overlooked. It's almost a moot consideration in cases where fairly flexible weaves are woven.
  4. Chainmailbasket_com

    Need advice for a chainmail shirt

    I would advise against this. The rings would be rather weak in that ring size to make enough material for a shirt. 5/64" would be a better compromise. With 3/32" as a mandrel size, I'd bump the wire size up to "22 gauge". All this is assuming AWG, where 24 gauge .020", and 22 gauge is .025".
  5. Chainmailbasket_com

    Need advice for a chainmail shirt

  6. Chainmailbasket_com

    Turkish Orbital question

    The above idea is more of a "bolted" design. The true staggered sheet version could only logically be made from Captive Turkish Orbital, using the connector rows to connect to the captive rings, of course. Apart from the idea above, possibly even placing the connector rings in other places where they might fit, there may well be other, more fluid ways of making a Turkish Orbital sheet, but I can't think of any.
  7. Chainmailbasket_com

    Turkish Orbital question

    Being that it's a triplicate chain weave, this, in fact gives it a few potential sheet versions. Captive Inverted Round was made into Captive Inverted Round Sheet by using single sets of connector rings on two opposite columns (of the six total) to interconnect CIR chains. Later the idea of using doubled sets of connector rings to make a stronger, denser version yielded Staggered Captive Inverted Round Sheet. This version uses two sets of two connector rings, filling up four of the six slots. Recently, I applied the same principle to Bore Worm, and came up with Staggered Bore Worm Sheet. "Bore Worm Sheet" with the single set of connector rings connecting subsequent Bore Worm chains is also possible, I just didn't bother because of the more desirable properties of the thicker, staggered version. I didn't produce a staggered sheet version of Reinforced Inverted Round, because of it's cross sectional composition. Instead of all six columns being spread out evenly, as they are in CIR and Bore Worm, they divide into three sets of two. It's still possible to make a staggered sheet version of this, perhaps a few different versions are possible, it just would add another level of staggeredness. Bore Worm's cross section is completely symmetrical (as is CIR's): http://mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=445'>Turkish Orbital is a completely symmetrical (I'm fairly certain), triplicate weave, which would thus allow both sheet and staggered sheet versions. The red lines show where you could use connector rings to connect subsequent TO chains to make a staggered sheet version. It looks like a smaller wire diameter might be better for the connector rings. Strength could become an issue if strong enough rings aren't used, but this is common with weaves containing Orbital rings.
  8. Chainmailbasket_com

    European 4-in-1 Weave

    It only pulls the weave together if you do something like using the same ring size for the HP3 portion. If you up the ring diameter by about 1/16" (IIRC), while keeping the wire size the same) for the HP3 part of an otherwise 16 SWG 5/16" E4-1 shirt, it won't pull it in.
  9. Chainmailbasket_com

    uploading to the gallery

    I've found that the title of an image can't contain a colon ( : ). Perhaps you tried to use this, or another character that isn't title-compatible. It didn't even give me an error message or anything. It just plain didn't show up.
  10. Chainmailbasket_com

    Inlays: After the Work is Done

    http://www.theringlord.org/forum/index.php?/gallery/category/22-completed-inlays/ There are several examples of inlays being suspended from a rod and/or suspension chain. I see three in the top row... Some of us have even made a frame and mounted an inlay in the frame..
  11. Chainmailbasket_com

    Inlay help please

    I count your sample image at 38 x 38 rings. In the 20 gauge 3/32" it would be roughly 3.8" x 3.3". If the inlay were 40 x 40 rings, it'd end up measuring around 4" x 3.4". The inlay would be narrower, as it appears your sample inlay image was taken from the 4.4 AR: 16 ga. 1/4" setting. In IGP, under the Patterns menu, -> Maille -> European, you can switch to 3.3 AR to give you a more accurate representation of what it would look like in the tighter weave. If you want a larger inlay, just find a larger source image.
  12. Chainmailbasket_com

    Inlay help please

    It's all about aspect ratio (AR). In European 4 in 1, a tight, not overly porous inlay will be had from around 3.0 - 3.5 is reasonable too. I usually find a source image, and edit the image to the proper size, using rings per inch information that I've compiled. A fleur-de-lis is a very simple pattern, so an inlay could be made of it in even a what would be considered larger ring size for an inlay and still look good based on the size you're after. Specific ring sizes I've personally used in the classic low-ar E4-1 (3.2 - 3.5) inlays include: wire | mandrel | ring per inch length x width .062" ('16 gauge'/1.57mm) | 3/16" (4.76mm) | 5.5 x 6 .048" ('18 gauge'/1.22mm) | 5/32" (3.97mm) | 6.5 x 7.7 .032" ('20 gauge'/0.81mm) | 3/32" (2.38mm) | 10 x 11.6 .025" ('22 gauge'/0.63mm) | 5/64" (1.98mm) | 11.8 x 13.7 .020" ('24 gauge'/0.51mm) | 1/16" (1.59mm) | 15 x 18 A bit of further reading: http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=17025 http://www.theringlord.org/forum/index.php?/topic/11295-inlays-for-dummies I hope this isn't information overload. I've been known to do that from time to time. So I now ask: What are your available ring sources? Have you considered making your own?
  13. Chainmailbasket_com

    Help!!!! Chainmail hat

    "If there is a better way" This is where the trick lies. Since what you are making is structural, it takes a lot of experimentation. Even using Japanese Dragonscale, which we know can be made stiff enough for hat brim material will not be met up without the challenge of making it "brimmy", and making it stay in the desired configuration... There are many ways that a hat brim could be made, some ways could potentially be better, but with this being such a very specific application, there aren't a lot of resources out there showing alternate ways to do this. Camo: bronze, brass, green, brown, & black AA. Probably the old AA would be better, as the new process (speaking of TRL's rings, specifically) yield rings of much greater shininess. This limits the possibilities somewhat, as does a more severely limited ring size selection, unless you make your own rings.. I'm just throwing out ideas.. I imagine the use of rubber rings can be very beneficial to this project. Due to their flexibility, they can be manipulated into a piece of weave whose AR is below its minimum. Using rubber rings in structural maille hasn't been tapped a lot yet (at least that I know of), but any time I see someone make a wide bracelet with half rubber, half whatever in a tight enough AR, it pretty much stays in its bangle-like form when not being worn, and doesn't flop into a pile like one made of all metal rings making it: structural. These projects are definitely possible. You're on the right path, but this project is going to take experimentation. You must be a trailblazer.
  14. Chainmailbasket_com

    Help!!!! Chainmail hat

    As for what ring sizes to use, I would suggest using what I listed in the last post as a guideline and to experiment. 3.3 and 6.6 is nearing the minimum AR for this weave. There is a little bit of flex, but not much. I can't answer your second question because I don't know what your overall design is.
  15. Chainmailbasket_com

    Help!!!! Chainmail hat

    I deal in ARs. The sample on my website uses 3.3 and 6.6 and offers little flexibility. Same wire size used in both ring sizes. Specifically, I used .048" (1.2mm / 18SWG) stainless steel wrapped on 9/64" (3.57mm), and 9/32" (7.14mm) mandrels. I'm fairly sure that upping the size of the larger ring would still keep the pattern fairly stiff. But upping the smaller one would start to add flexibility right away. If you up the smaller ring, you'd probably need to up the larger as well. I made only one other instance of this weave as the roof for my dune buggy, in which rings of .062" (1.6mm / 16SWG) brass and bronze wire were wrapped on mandrels 3/16" (4.76mm), and 3/8" (9.525mm), respectively. ARs of these rings are 3.4 and 6.7, so just slightly above what was used in my other sample. ARs listed are based off measured inner diameters.