It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.
It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf. Could this have been a Hounslow embellished blade intended to be taken as an old Solingen blade ? or a slightly later sword of 'Hounslow school' which were still mounted with these distinctive hilts and a venerable 'old' Solingen blade?
I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices.
As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year.
So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given?
Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history typically avoided. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or theories subjective in nature among most students of arms.
|