rapier

[Jim McDougall]

As I was noting, the upper two lines of heraldic shields attributed to Nuremberg, while none correspond directly to the punzone on this rapier, the 'convention' is similar. Note how the bars or lines project outward from a central axis but in varied design. This seems very much the way alphabet characters were likely created in early languages, runes as well.

Though listed as 'city arms' to Nuremberg, it does not seem that ALL of these can be the 'city' arms, but perhaps what is meant is that these were known armourers marks in the CITY of Nuremberg, who of course had many.

This same sigil/rune type device arrangement is seen in some other markings, but the shield surround and styling seem to compare well to Nuremberg's.

It is often the case that an exact match to a certain mark cannot be found, but makers typically used similar marks, and others in the same shop may have used variations. Also, others of the family following in trade often used altered versions of a mark. Some makers were known to have used several markings over time. Whether this was due to worn punches no longer serviceable or simply change of preference, who knows?
These kinds of conundrums are often seen in the references on markings, but seem fairly consistant so compelling even though puzzling.

[urbanspaceman]

Thanks Guys, appreciate it. I wonder... should I attempt to replace those bars?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thanks Guys, appreciate it. I wonder... should I attempt to replace those bars?

I think its a matter of personal taste. As a historian more than collector, I prefer to leave weapons in as much original state as possible. The idea is to preserve as much as possible to retain status quo. In my view even patina is physical representation of time thus historical veneration, and should be preserved as such. Naturally stabilizing any active corrosion is of course necessary.

Structurally, as long as damage or absence of components only effects the cosmetic values of the weapon, it seems prudent to leave as is, that is in my opinion. Again, personal taste.

[urbanspaceman]

Hi Jim. Yes, I've heard you say this before. Trouble is, I'm not really a historian, even though I am telling the historical story of Shotley Bridge. Neither am I a collector really, although I now have quite a collection. I am more interested in the engineering aspect of these swords, and the design. I am building this collection because it illustrates the development of this particular period of sword manufacture. Unfortunately, it has broadened as I delved deeper, hence the acquisition of the Rapier. The Hounslow Hangar and the Schiavona are next I suspect. It gets more expensive as I go along. The SB sword has been my most expensive so far but I would have paid twice that amount.

[urbanspaceman]

Incidentally, the blade of this SB sword is truly a work of genius. It is 4cm (0.17 inch for you Imperialists out there) at its thickest part for the majority of its length (i.e. mid.fuller to last c.18cm) with no variation! It is incredibly hard, yet rigid with significant flex. It is still razor sharp after 330 years, and smooth as can be. The balance is quite perfect. It is no-the-wonder they were prized so highly.
I never tire of appreciating the craftsmanship involved... that is what I am really: a lover of quality workmanship. This is why I am inclined to restore things to their 'as new' condition; that is what the craftsman worked to achieve and what appealed to the customer.