This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>MalnadachBot at 23:32, 24 March 2022(Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 23:32, 24 March 2022 by imported>MalnadachBot(Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
Weak Support Great picture. Weak support because EV not as strong as an actual photo of a Gorget or Gothic plate armour would be. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What period illustrations show better than anything else is how the armor was worn, and with what accessories (or lack thereof). Surcoats and tabards were standard in some eras, unused in others. DurovaCharge! 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
But that's nothing that a modern photograph that gave dated its portrayal couldn't show. I honestly don't think that older illustrations have greater EV for their subjects. Greater appeal, perhaps, for matching and the historical value, but not necessarily better value for showing the equipment itself and how it was used. Thegreenj 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
oppose per makemlighter. The extra detail of the full rez over the thumb does not tell us about armor, or even accessories. If you found an article for it along the lines of medieval watercoloring then I think it would have high EV. deBivort 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - We want a variety of sources so we can look at this from many perspectives. We can have a watercolour, and still have a picture. Both will add value. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, per nom. If you can believe it, the Knight article only has two illustrations (including this one). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
