Need help with sizing (chain mail-shirt)

[svenya]

Hi,
I just finished my chainmail, but I have two problems. I followed an online tutorial (4in1) that said to measure the chest circumference, add 20 cm, and then divide by 2 to get the width of one torso section. This made my chainmail very tight and incredibly figure-hugging. Of course, the weave adapts to the body shape, but if I, as a woman, want to portray a male figure, that's obviously problematic. Furthermore, my chainmail reaches mid-thigh. The instructions here also suggested simply making two slits on the sides to allow for sufficient movement, but this created a huge "unprotected" area on the side of my thigh.
Does anyone have any tips on how to fix this?

 

[Chanmailleman]

Some of this seems to simply be a matter of how chainmaille naturally lies in the body. If a male figure is desired, you'll need to find some way to achieve that before the chainmaille goes on, whether by padding/binding, etc. Figure manipulation is in no way an area of my expertise, so I can't help much there. Also, the longer the piece is, the heavier it will be, and the tighter it will cinch at the top. As far as the unprotected zones, I usually split my hauberks skirts in the front and back, rather than the sides. Obviously there is still vulnerability there, but it typically exposes empty space rather than having a leg sticking out. You might also be able to play around with making separate panels that will cover the gaps, either underneath or on top, though it may be challenging to get them to lie cleanly and look the way you want.

Those are my thoughts, though with this post being 6 months old maybe they are too late to be helpful.

 

[Luziviech]

how about making those slits and then simply adding additional rings to make expansios? I don't know about your tutorial, but adding and removing rings in the E4:1-pattern is a common way to 3D-shape the sheet to make it more adaptive to the body. There were good tutorials about all this on mighty mailleartisans.org, but that site is a crippled mess for a decade now. But as a left-over i still have a tutorial about making scale-mail-armor (which is the same as E4:1, if you replace the scales by rings) by Danny Ace. It's fucken awesome detailed. a real treasure. Cheers.

(Disclaimer: This tutorial once was officially distributed in the mailleartisan's link collection, so this is not an illegal copy)

 

[Karpeth]

how about making those slits and then simply adding additional rings to make expansios? I don't know about your tutorial, but adding and removing rings in the E4:1-pattern is a common way to 3D-shape the sheet to make it more adaptive to the body. There were good tutorials about all this on mighty mailleartisans.org, but that site is a crippled mess for a decade now. But as a left-over i still have a tutorial about making scale-mail-armor (which is the same as E4:1, if you replace the scales by rings) by Danny Ace. It's fucken awesome detailed. a real treasure. Cheers.

(Disclaimer: This tutorial once was officially distributed in the mailleartisan's link collection, so this is not an illegal copy)

That's not how copyright works. Danny Ace might have licensed MAIL for free downloads. That does not give you the right to distribute it. If it was removed, Then the license might have been revoked.

 

[Luziviech]

"This guide is offered as is, free of charge, take it or leave it [...] I do freely give permission for other to post and/or host this document as they wish so long as it remains unaltered and is not passed off as one's own work."

 

[Karpeth]

Sorry, Didn't read that; then why the talk of "illegal copy"?

 

[Luziviech]

i wasnt talkin about "illegal copy", but "not an illegal copy"; imo the spirit of chainmaillers community is/should be supporting each other instead of concurrency and profit. But i know that some see things different, so in any case i wanted to make sure that the uploaded file is legit/definitely open source and free for all.
You made proof that my precaution failed.

 

[Karpeth]

Yeah, you used an argument that holds no water and said "look, this is most definitely legal". That rings warning bells for me, since so many don't understand copyright law...