![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 129
|
![]() Quote:
Well observed ! The blade, cross and pommel are surely genuine, but do they belong together? In this case no scientific test can ever help you, only your eye can help you. When I saw the photo for the first time, the first that struck me, were the unbalanced proportions. The pommel is too large for a single hand sword. The blade and the remains of the cross show a close resemblance to the Castillon swords, including the patination and the corroded spots. For a single hand sword of this type I would also expect a pommel of wheel type and a tang button. Pierre de Cros was appointed as Archbishop of Arles in 1374. If we assume that the pommel was not made much later, we have a date of c.1375. If we further assume, that the sword was not the first of its type, but in fashion ab. ten or twenty years before, we have a date for this sword type c. 1355-1365. The Castillon swords are generally dated c.1410-1450. Is it likely that half of the swords from Castillon were of a nearly one hundred years old type? I don`t think so. I believe that the pommel was assembled to a cheap Castillon sword, to increase its value. I therefore would never acquire this sword. But an assumption is no proof. Under usual circumstances, it would not be possible to proof that the pommel was added later. But contacts to other collectors are allways helpfull. A collecting colleague of me saw this pommel many years ago as a single item in an antigue shop in Italy. He did not acquired it, because it was too expensive. I fully trust this collector. Then this is the proof for me. Best Last edited by Swordfish; 9th April 2012 at 04:00 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|