The replica armour fulfilled all expectations. It is not only exactly like the Vienna original in all respects, but since it was decided not to artificially age it, looks much better with its even deep-blue steel surfaces, contrasting with gilt rivets, clasps, hooks and buckles. In fact it looks pristine enough to convey the onlooker what an actual armour of a person of eminent status must have looked like at the time. The armour was already shown to various interested parties and specialists and their judgment was most favorable. It has to be seen in reality to fully appreciate its technical execution and beauty. Even a layman would not only sense the quality of its workmanship, but also its cultural and historical impact.

Mr Lagidse's craftsmanship is practically unique in Europe. To my knowledge there are only two other persons, both active in other countries, whose abilities and quality of their products compare with Mr Lagidse's. As a smith, an armourer was a craftsman with a special quality not shared by other smiths. His craft was a combination of three basic factors. First and foremost he should be an accomplished smith, able to hammer cold and hot steel and mould in into the required forms, and also be able to apply a coating (blueing, blackening, gilding) to the steel surface by the authentic method in using fire. Secondly, he should be most knowledgeable on the human anatomy, because a harness was supposed to enable the wearer to freely move about in it and not encumber him (as the movie world seems to suggest). While admittedly Mr Lagidse's armours are not in principle meant to be worn, all fittings and forms should be executed such as it intended to be used when moving, lest the shapes and relative sizes of the armour's parts would be unconvincing. And thirdly, an armourer should be  well versed in, and have a sound knowledge of, historic styles and decorative elements, lest his products would look anachronistic and not withstand the critical judgment of the professional world. I am satisfied to confirm that Mr Lagidse's craftsmanship, knowledge and artistic insight matches all these three requirements. In fact, more is required of him, since he must have knowledge of all styles and ornamentation of the historic period during which armours were worn in Western Europe, roughly 1350-1650, rather than a contemporary armourer who had to be versed in the style of his own age only.

Behind my statements stands a lifetime of devotion to ancient arms and armour. This formalized in 1989 when I joined the Legermuseum in the capacity of curator of old arms and armour. The arms and armour collection of the Legermuseum is the largest in its field in the Netherlands. It offers, for a professional curator and scholar like myself, a source of continuous growth of expertise. This is proven by many books and articles which I have published on these subjects over the years. Official recognition of my status as an expert came in 1997, when I was given the Frederiksprijs, a most prestigious award in the academic field of historical applied arts in the Netherlands. My appointment last year as secretary general of the International Association of Museums of arms and Military History may be considered as proof of my international status.

An armourer, apart from having to be a highly qualified craftsman, has to have many other qualities. He has to be well versed on old styles of armoury and have a vast knowledge on the art of decoration, that are completely different in the Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque periods in which such armoury was made. I am absolutely convinces that Gotscha has proved not only that he does have these skills and this knowledge, but that he is also able to understand these styles as it were from the inside, and that he has the necessary feeling for form. I am prepared to admit that these essential elements, apart from the level of craftsmanship, also count for the so-called artist-blacksmiths, as they exist in the Netherlands for restoration, blacksmiths work for churches and such, but even that is not sufficient to call someone a good armourer For he has to possess an elaborate anatomical knowledge of the human body to be able to assemble a suit of armour in the right proportions, something which for example a sculptor also needs to possess. But, the armourer has to know even more than the sculptor, for he also has to know the human dynamism. Because the suit of armour has to be made in such a way, that it can be worn as well. In other words, the separate parts should be able to move. Concerning the making of a product which, apart from the craft itself and the knowledge of various areas, so often calls for the interpretative capacities of the professional, the qualification ‘artist’ as well as ‘art work’ is warranted.

J.P. Puype

Chief curator of the Royal Netherlands Army and Arms Museum

Secretary-General of Association of Museums of Arms and Military History, IAMAM