These are really excellent - but I have quibbles about the last one. The three female warriors with no armour at all are more sensible than this arrangement with its choice of unprotected targets. Why would someone who apparently owns full armour leave off several vital pieces?
And have her armoured shoes (”sabatons”) got HEELS?
The real reason, of course, is Rule of Sexy, perhaps coupled with a private commission’s requirement or an art director’s instruction to tastefully show some skin.
Now that’s out of the way, IMO this off-the-shoulder-and-cleavage rig would be better both looks-wise and realistically without the leg-armour, gauntlets and elbow-guards (”couters”) and only one forearm-guard (”vambrace”) on her left forearm.
A 17th-century “elbow-gauntlet” with its built-in finger plating would do the business nicely.
She wouldn’t even need her shield unless leaning on it is a necessary part of the picture composition, because a bridle gauntlet was intended for wear alone, like so.
The problem for me in that illustration is knowing how plate armour goes together. Every piece attaches to every other piece, and then to a foundation garment (”arming doublet”) - which is why people in well-fitted and correctly worn plate are so nimble; plenty of examples of that on YouTube.
In this picture, the shoulder-armour (”pauldron”) which caps the arm-protection, and the arming doublet to which it all connects, are both missing. It means that, as Lady Off-The-Shoulder stands now, most of the metal on her arms is trying to work down against her wrists.
With nothing to keep it in place, it will shift back towards her body whenever she raises her arms above the horizontal. This could prove inconvenient if her concentration needs to be focussed elsewhere, for instance defending herself against someone with a weapon intending mischief.
Oddly enough the pic just above her (copied below) has everything right, suggesting an artistic decision rather than lack of knowledge - and that of course may bring things back to the requirements of a commission.
This pic even shows the laces (”points”) at hip-height to help support the weight of leg-armour, though some styles of real-life armour preferred a kind of garter / suspender belt worn under the doublet. Either way, it’s something else Lady Off-The-Shoulder lacks.
Incidentally, arming-doublets often / usually had patches of mail sewn onto the areas that wouldn’t be covered by plate, like so.
Along with the excellence of the art, most of them having correct details are why the pic of Lady Off-The-Shoulder is a little bit jarring.
Well, jarring to me; YMMV and probably does…
Here are replica arm-harnesses by Ukrainian company Armstreet, showing how things join to each other and the arming-doublet by laces (one of the laces for the leg-armour is just visible) as well as to the wearer ‘s limbs by straps.
I prefer using in-period historical art when possible, but (1) I couldn’t find any; (2) these photos show clearly what I’m on about; (3) the art is realism-flavoured fantasy and so are the photos.
This first one is a classic demonstration of why upper-arm plates (”rerebraces”) don’t work with an off-the-shoulder blouse (or indeed an off-the-shoulder anything).
The rest show similar armour, completed with pauldrons on top.
I don’t think the lack of an open-and-off-the-shoulder blouse makes this model look any less feminine but, once again, if Lady Off-The-Shoulder was commissioned that way, then that’s the way she was going to be painted. :->
(More Armstreet pics at this link. )
Finally, here’s a video of the armour in the first photo being put on.
kaledo-art
jbbartram-illu
annaxmalina
discoholicmusic
theartofmadeline
gummygunk
stormborns
