![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,190
|
![]() Quote:
Its always good to be able to compare notes with the poster of the item, ad thereby learn more from details. Truthfully, I have virtually no experience on these dirks so I appreciate the feedback. Any thoughts on that curious pommel nut? Thinking further, which 1796 stitching would you be referring to? Remember that the 18th century only lasted 4 years, and these patterns were just barely in production by 1800. Naturally the Napoleonic campaigns helped accelerate that. The only swords with stitching were of course some officers and naval, but then by the turn of the century the much maligned 1796 dress sword. Regardless, that these were produced in progressive volume into the century would place this example in pretty much the same period that Battara suggested c. 1800-25. The one thing that really says 18th century to me is that pommel nut, so I would like to find more on that characteristic. The blade on this seems remarkably clean, it seems most of the 18th century blades are either cut down sword blades or differently fullered. As this seems military by the nature of the fittings on the hilt, and the Scottish regiments were it seems less 'attended to' as they developed in the 18th c. (after arms proscriptions after the '45) it is unclear what dirks might have been like. I think it was the stark cutting of the scabbard mounts which made me think later and to the period in Great Britain I noted with wide fascination with Scottish things . It would seem earlier mounts would be more flourished. Just more thoughts and look forward to more of yours. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 4th May 2016 at 11:15 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|