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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply