Date Uploaded: October 23, 2009, 8:01 pm
Last Edited: July 25, 2014, 10:45 pm
Print this Article
Dragonback vs. Persian Dragonscale: A Pictorial Comparison
Article © MAIL User: ElementalDragon
The rings used in these pieces are TRL's 14g 3/8" machine cut galvanized steel rings. Each full piece contains 60 rings and measures approximately 3 inches in length, although only sections of the pieces are shown in this document. The flexibility comments at the end of this document are based on the full length of these pieces, however.
|To start with, the most apparent difference is the relationship between the E4 connections on each side. With Dragonback, the E4 stitching has a roughly "V" shaped relationship whereas in Persian Dragonscale the E4 stitching lays more or less parallel. You can see how this changes the appearance of the HP3 sides. On Dragonback, it's starting to look a bit like the side view of Half Persian 4 in 1 compared to the more typical top view appearance of HP3 that Persian Dragonscale displays. The side view appearance is by far the easiest way to identify which weave you have, specifically the E4 stitch relationship.|
|Dragonback has a distinct top and bottom appearance compared to Persian Dragonscale. With the top view of Dragonback, the stitched HP3 rings are pulled in tighter towards the center of the weave, giving a narrower aspect.|
|While with the bottom appearance the rings run the same direction on both weaves, due to the nature of the stitching on the top side of Dragonback, the stitching rings on the bottom of Dragonback form a fairly distinct hump down the middle of the weave. Persian Dragonscale has a much smoother transition from stitching rings to HP3 rings.|
From a flexibility aspect on these two samples, the Dragonback had a distinct difference in the degree of flexibility to the top compared to the bottom. Bending towards the top aspect, the Dragonback stopped at about a 90 degree curve. Bending to the bottom aspect, it was easily able to touch end to end. The Persian Dragonscale also easily touched end to end, but in either direction. There may be a marginally less degree of flexibility in the Persian Dragonscale compare to the bottom flexibility of Dragonback, but it may also just be ring variances.
For purposes of this document, I defined the top side of Dragonback as the side with the narrower, humpless aspect and the side to which there was least flexibility. The bottom was, conversely the other side :), or the side with the wider, humped aspect and the most flexibility. Top and bottom of Persian Dragonscale was arbitrarily defined to match alignment with the stitch rings on the bottom of Dragonback.
As always, feedback is welcome. Errors, compliments, or queries, let me know.
Original URL: http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.php?key=493