![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PR, USA
Posts: 679
|
![]()
Any ideas on period and origins? I have my own, but I welcome input from others.
Manuel Luis Iravedra ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
I ignore its age or origins, but i know one thing: when i grow up, i want one of these
![]() Pritty old, though ... XVII century ? ... Spanish? Fernando |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 48
|
![]()
Hi Manuel,
A nice piece you have there! It is a C17th style `main gauche` dagger, designed for use in the non-sword hand to accompany a rapier. This type of dagger is gripped with the thumb on the flat of the blade, on the side opposite the side ring, which provides knuckle protection. When defending your left side (assuming your right handed and using the dagger with your left), in either high or low line, upon receiving your opponents sword blade in defence, the knuckles would be vulnerable to coming into contact with the blade without a side ring. To be honest, I would need a closer look to determine authenticity of this piece, as the pommel style appears to be a much later urn style, which is not generally used on edged weapons until the late C18th. Also, main gauches from the C17th were most often made to match a specific rapier, with detail mirrored in the blade, hilt/pommel and grip. The grip pattern shown here is a carving style seen on rapiers and daggers, but here it is very shallow carving and wood only, where it would usually be carved much deeper and steel wire covered. Main gauche terminals were invariably always wire turks heads also. These are my initial observations which I hope are helpful. Could I ask for a specific close-up of the ring-side face of the blade, centering on the 3rd set of drilled holes in the middle fullers? All the best, Macdonald |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PR, USA
Posts: 679
|
![]()
Hi Paul,
Guess what? I made that particular question regarding the ring back at SFI. Nobody knew what it was for, and there was even someone who actually told me it was to place the thumb inside to help control the dagger... I have another dagger from the same source, and it does have a grip covered in metal wire. I'll post it sometime soon. Myself, I believe its a 16th C. main gauche. Whether spanish, french, german or italian I have no clue. Thanks for all your very interesting information. Best M ![]() ![]() Quote:
Last edited by celtan; 12th September 2008 at 12:52 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 237
|
![]()
It's a nice piece but I'd venture that it is later than 16th c. The grips are a bit problematic. That terminal on the pommel says 17th. c. to me.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,893
|
![]()
I think this is an extremely attractive piece, which seems to correspond to 17th century Italian left hand daggers in the blade, crossguard ring and the pierced holes in the grooves of the blade with pronounced central ridge.
What puzzles me, as Paul has noted, is the neoclassical urn style pommel, which I cannot seem to find similar examples of in Wallace Collection, A.V.B.Norman, nor Peterson, at least not exact. Despite that, it still feels 17th century even though that pommel shape seems more in line with the neoclassical spadroons of later 18th c. Ok Manuel, could you puuullleeeze reveal your thoughts on this dagger? ![]() All best regards, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|