Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 5).djvu/140

 revealing the surface of the sheet iron beneath, gay in a coating of thin red rust such as might be acquired by any iron implement that has been exposed to the weather for a day or two (Fig. 1530). Yet, wonderful to relate, as we have already said, for nearly forty years these miserable shams were accepted as genuine by what were then considered the best judges in the country, and were described and illustrated in the foremost publications of the day; they were allowed to disfigure the best collections, not excepting those of a national character. In our list of armour forgeries we will discuss the subject before us as we have discussed the genuine armour and weapons, that is, in chronological order, or rather in the chronological sequence to which they purport to belong. But in all instances, save those in which the specimen happens to be national property, we will omit to give the name of the present owner; at this time of day, however, nearly all these examples are hopelessly discredited.

We will start with the complete suits; as these from their very bulk appear to claim first attention. The fabrication of the chain mail, of which the first suits mentioned are composed, was hardly ever attempted, as far as we are aware, except by our dashing English mid-XIXth century forger and inventor. Consequently spurious specimens of chain mail other than his clumsy attempts are rarely to be found; for time and patience being needed in the manufacture of riveted chain, little reward would accrue to the forger, who could obtain large quantities of Eastern chain mail that would afford an excellent substitute for the true European original. Strange as it may seem, it is yet a fact that until comparatively recent years suits of oriental mail could be seen exhibited in the European section of the Tower of London Armoury labelled "European Chain Mail of the XIIIth Century." For how many years these suits of comparatively modern oriental chain mail helped to mislead the public by purporting to rank as the oldest war-harness in the series of equestrian figures we are unable to state; suffice it to say that on his appointment to the post of curator the Viscount Dillon made it one of his earliest duties to have this pseudo-European chain mail removed to a more appropriate quarter. A suit of combined mail and plate purporting to be of European make of the latter years of the XIIIth century—the now almost famous Saracenic armour for horse and man, said to have come from Tong Castle—long did service as "The Armour of a Norman Crusader"; it was eventually removed to the Asiatic Armoury and subsequently to the British Museum. Some excuse can be made for the mid-Victorian armour enthusiast who readily accepted the suit under the