@Kocken: Wow, still going on this project, huh? Nice work thus far 
I'm not a historical expert on Greek hoplite armor, and I think for a piece of this complexity where you're aiming for accuracy, you should consult the museum curators and attempt to get more photographs of the relevant pieces from various angles, but a lot of the details of your piece don't seem quite right.
1. The greaves are, I think, too enclosing. The real things had to be able to be taken off without too much hassle, and had wider openings on the rear. Note that most of the greaves in the historical collections have small holes in the sheet metal, which strongly suggests that they were tied to a backing, probably linen stuffed with a bit of cotton, hair, or even grass, much like Medieval helmets were, in order to ensure a tight fit and comfort while marching and fighting.
2. The chest armor seems a bit exaggerated. It's far too constrictive, and the short tunic was probably not the way it was normally worn, as the armor would pinch the skin when going through a lot of evolutions during practice or during war. A more realistic interpretation can be gotten from the few attempts to fully re-create this kind of armor or by looking at the (few) extant examples of remaining artifacts, not that crappy Osprey illustration everybody seems to base this kind of thing on, which to me doesn't look like a functional armor. Remember, people still had to have a full range of motion in this gear; anything in armor that would severely restrict motion is pretty suspect. The biggest issue I see with the chest armor is that it's too form-fitting at the top, where generally it is pushed far more forwards in real armors (move your upper arms in sword-fighting motions or spear-stabs, you'll see why you need room up there).
1. The greaves are, I think, too enclosing. The real things had to be able to be taken off without too much hassle, and had wider openings on the rear. Note that most of the greaves in the historical collections have small holes in the sheet metal, which strongly suggests that they were tied to a backing, probably linen stuffed with a bit of cotton, hair, or even grass, much like Medieval helmets were, in order to ensure a tight fit and comfort while marching and fighting.
2. The chest armor seems a bit exaggerated. It's far too constrictive, and the short tunic was probably not the way it was normally worn, as the armor would pinch the skin when going through a lot of evolutions during practice or during war. A more realistic interpretation can be gotten from the few attempts to fully re-create this kind of armor or by looking at the (few) extant examples of remaining artifacts, not that crappy Osprey illustration everybody seems to base this kind of thing on, which to me doesn't look like a functional armor. Remember, people still had to have a full range of motion in this gear; anything in armor that would severely restrict motion is pretty suspect. The biggest issue I see with the chest armor is that it's too form-fitting at the top, where generally it is pushed far more forwards in real armors (move your upper arms in sword-fighting motions or spear-stabs, you'll see why you need room up there).
