![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 263
|
![]()
I would take Enrique Coel as a sort of Runkel, 80-100 years in advance, and along 80 years. However it is possible to group the graphics and caligraphies. For example, the blades in the 1728 model come in two flavours, although that only shows that they shared the model the engraver used.
Last edited by midelburgo; 9th June 2020 at 06:50 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 462
|
![]()
Jim, regarding your note above in post 35:
The technique of making imitation shagreen (from Persian shagri or wild donkey hide) as you detail it, originated in Iran long before the 18th century. The skill was probably learned by Europeans who were posted there at about that time, as were other artistic techniques (and vice versa.) Regarding the cuphilt shown, the skin is absolutely from a ray, it is not galuchat. Incidentally, shagri reputedly only came from the back of a wild donkey, thus it was quite rare. In addition to its attractive texture, it was originally prized for its toughness. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,190
|
![]()
Hi Oliver,
Thank you so much for the clarification, I could not tell the difference of course but suggested the galuchat possibility more in consideration of the possible colonial context. When I first learned of the faux ray skin some time ago, it was it seems described in Caribbean settings, in turn of course from European. It is not only interesting but expected that this technique would have come from the east , and popularized in Europe. Good to hear from you!!! and thank you again for the response ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|