The last detail shows that the back-pieces were much lighter than the proof breastplates, and this is borne out by other similar entries during the century. Evidently the efficacy of the musket had increased in the first years of the seventeenth century and with it the weight of the proved armour. In later entries we find that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this we may gather that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the soldier and that he preferred the risk of a bullet. Still there are cases to be found of complete proof, for in 1605 even the brayette was of proof (_Arch. Gov. Brescia Privil., R. 7, V_, p. 10),[86] and if this small, in fact the smallest, portion of the armour was proved, we may be sure that the whole suit was tested equally. In 1628-9 we learn from the State Papers Domestic, lxxxix, 23, that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good as proof, but there are no details of his methods. It is quite probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An interesting extract from the _Memorials of the Verney Family_, IV, 30, gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:-- 1667, Feb. Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in London: he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the bullet in the palme of his hand. This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out in Gaya’s _Traité des Armes_, p. 30 (Reprint 1911, Clarendon Press). The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the armour tested again, but the armourer refused, for by this time it was finished, and he said that “it is not the custom of workmen to try their armour after it is faced and filed.” [Illustration: _PLATE XVII_ CAST OF IVORY CHESSMAN, XIV CENT. IVORY MIRROR CASE, XIV CENT.]