Hi Fernando,
It seems the story hasn't ended ;)

I've been thinking about the regular markings......

IMHO The marks on the axehead, suggest a single 'punch' with a very small rectangular end was used. Although they are almost arranged in a side by side configuration, in two parallel rows, it looks as if, each mark was done individually.

Notice how some are 'deeper', suggesting a harder strike on the punch. Sometimes the 'twin' of some of the marks are missing. Some of the marks appear to be struck from slightly different angles. Although fairly evenly spaced they are not 'exact'. Also noticeable is the fact that these marks occured after the hammer finish ...some 'cut' into the 'peaks' of the hammer marks.
Hopefully, the enlargement of Fernando's picture will explain better.

The other with the yellow oval, highlights an area which seems to be 'later' damage....its surface is 'different' to the rest of the 'hammered' surface and some of the 'notch' marks seem to have been deformed by the 'impact damage'


Regards David

Thank you David,
So we can take fore sure that these marks were not the result of casting ... be it either ancient or contemporaneous.
The pictures attached are as afar as i can go with my digital camera; close ups not closer than four inches ... it is an "old" pioneer.
Take a better look to the wavy pairs.
I have found meanwhile another set of marks ... on the same side of the axe edge; also with a bizarre look.
Fernando

Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution.
In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks. :shrug:

These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity.

Emanuel

I don't think bronze is so soft as letting simple toothed tongs impress it so deeply, just by holding it.
Also dificult to be hammer marks, as they have more than one defined pattern.

You're dead right, Emanuel :confused:

Fernando

I do agree that on close inspection the parallel marks seem to be made with a single punch, which makes it difficult to imagine that they are an unintended by-product of the manufacturing process (like the grind marks). Asuming the punch marks were not made by a modern vise, clamps, or whatever, why would they have been made originally? They appear too random and inconspicuous to be decoration. Yet, it would have taken a great deal of attention and precision to punch in the marks in such a regular pattern. Some sort of tally, maybe? I just can't think of why they would have been put there. :confused:

I've tried to enhance/enlarge the latest pictures Fernando has uploaded.... very strange. The 'pattern' within the 'marked oval' seems very unusual ... perhaps someone may have some ideas ......

Regards David

being an avid CSI fan, i suspect that someone here either is or knows someone who is a CSI or forensic lab tech. they generally have tool mark libraries for finding out what tools may have been involved in crimes, they may recognise or be able to look up the tool marks.

my initial thought was they were vice jaw marks which may have been added by some bright spark recently (last century or so ;) )

We are also being pulverized with CSI over here ...sometimes different episodes showing simultaneously in different TV chanels :rolleyes: .
But in the due context, i was more fascinated by Sherlock Holmes. Pitty he isn't around to reveal ( Dr. Watson ) the underwear colours of the individual that punched those marks on the axes :eek:.

The closely spaced triangles definitely look like vice jaw grip marks, the smearing of the marks on the right side makes it look like the piece shifted a bit, not unusual when trying to grip non-square items and work on them with any pressure.
The only marks I’ve seen in my long history of looking at metal that are similar to the little wave marks are from electric grinders, if the tool has a threaded shaft for attaching the abrasive discs, and the threads protrude from the nut affixing the disc (which they usually do), then if the worker touches the work piece with the shaft of the tool (which they occasionally do) it will skip along the surface and leave impressions of the first couple threads in a regular pattern like that.
:shrug:
;)

Sorry double post :o

Seems a good possible explaination Jeff, especially the 'thread' markings :)

However, what doesn't make sense is why they are there. If this is a 'high end' fake, why would the evidence be left for all to see. All the marks seem to have occured after the 'hammer shaping' ....which I would assume would have been the last manufacturing process. So can it be assumed these marks happened later...and if so, was there a purpose....testing of the bronze :shrug:
If these heads were artifically 'patinated' , the sort of chemicals used such as ammonia, urea etc to 'induce' this, would not require tongs or mole grips to place the item in solution. A number of Chinese fakers bury them in urine soaked, highly mineralised soil.


Regards David

I am not sure i understand Jeff's thesis, due to language difficulties.
Thread marks from the slip rotation of a grinding disc screw shaft ... wouldn't they be paralel, instead of wavy (curved ) ? And why interrupted and not continuous ?
Also if a disc grinder was used, why can't we see the respective grinding evidence?
Jaw marks from a vise grip, or even from a regular screw vise ... in this case, we should find similar marks, even if more faded, in the opposite side of the oject, which is not the case; actually the other side of the blade has no "mechanical" looking marks at all, as neither the rest of the axe. Also in the case of a vise clamping action, the position seems very unhandy(assymetrical and angled ); why then the reason ?
I hope i make myself understood and am not talking nonsense :o
Fernando

Could they have been 'cleaned up' before sale ? :confused:

That came to my mind, David; some sort of testing punches ... not clampings. :confused:
Fernando

I don't know, Rick :shrug:
If such "cleaning" took place, it would have to be a thorough job, which would hardly neglect to erase the existing marks we can see now.
Also the object is covered of intense beating, which then had to be done after the said cleaning ... againg failling to smash these bizarre marks, which appear not to have been deformed by both treatments; their edges look intact. :confused:

I hope this makes sense...

if you look at 'underlined section' 2 the 'symbol' (I'm not saying it is, but is a better description) seems to be repeated above 'section 3'. The 'symbol' in section 1 seems to have a similar shape (albeit, slightly 'deformed') as 'section 2&3' . The 'symbol' above section 4 also has the 'elements' of symbol 2 but a little more spaced.
I may be seeing things that aren't there, ( saw Elvis walking his dog yesterday :p ) but there seems to be a recurring pattern on that section that does not look 'mechanical'.
I also have to point out I have no idea as to scale i.e. I have no idea of the dimensions of these marks.

I may be drawing BIG conclusions from very little clues ;)


Regards David

I didn’t mean to put forth a thesis, just point out that two of the mark types on the axe are consistent with modern metal working tools. How that relates to the creation and history of the object I don’t know, and there may be other ways to create those marks that are just as plausible :shrug:
On the grinder marks, since the machine is not firmly held in alignment with the work piece, when the spinning shaft hits the metal object the torque immediately kicks it away so you have a hammering effect as hand pressure pushes the tool down and its own oscillation kicks it up every revolution.
Vice jaws are usually padded in one way or another when working soft metals, sometimes ineffectively; and workers will also make wooden shims to assist in holding irregular objects, so not seeing the other jaw of the vice imprinted on the other side of the object does not mean those are not vice marks…but I don’t know that they are, either – they just look like such marks.
:confused:
;)

I have just met someone who is largely experienced with these things.
I should have no further doubt that these axes are (quote) copies made with the moulds of genuine originals, and a very nice work. I was shown some three different reasons to support such conclusion. However they were certainly not made to pretend to be genuine, but a demonstration of the general casters capabilities, which explains a certain riddle. There is a strong possibility that one was made in the sixties by a certain guy, and the other in the eighties by his nephew.
Whether this last part of the story is accurate, i wouldn't know ...i am "selling it for the price i bought it".
I will now offer these examples in the swap forum as, at this stage, i don't feel attached to these items.
I feel deeply obliged for all the cooperation i had in this subject.
Thank you all Gentlemen
Fernando