![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 75
|
![]()
it came together with this more common and known ceremonial dagger, what let me think thar there must be some age.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]()
good observation, note the thuluth.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: GA USA
Posts: 76
|
![]()
I think this is a late 17th century early 18th century dagger.
You are right about the shape and being modified just adding the skin. Looking at the blade it does not seem to have been modified from a small sword. Second half of the 17th century had all kind of pillow swords and parring daggers with smaller cross guards. But is just me I could be wrong. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 75
|
![]()
I'm not longer sure zalmoxis, I think Jim with his Martini Henry socket bayonet is right. I checked it and indeed such bayonets have the same shape :-(
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|