The half moon symbol in early Spanish swords

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... As the 'espadero del rey' classification in Spanish smiths is not necessarily, nor perhaps directly linked to these half moon markings as implied by the suggestions of Sir James Mann (1962) and in a number of other perpetuated references. ...So it seems we need to wonder, just what was the significance of the half moon in placement on sword blades in Spain? While shown in Palomares as a punzon in one instance in his study ...

Well, as already supported and until further evidence the half moon is Juan Martinez personal mark. Also it seems plausible what Beraiz pretends that the half moon in #39 of Palomares nomina, together with its aledged smith name, is a false case, such symbol pertaining to Juan Martinez .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... we know that his 1772 work is wrought with 'misperceptions' and of course there is nothing accompanying the details which tell us more on the conditions or meanings of these punzones or other devices...

To aggravate such problematic, the majority of the punzones has flown from their depository, the few remaining probably belonging to less early smiths.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... an interesting inclusion regarding an unedited manuscript by Rodriguez del Canto, a Madrid fencing master (1734) . It is titled "El Discipulo Instruido" and a list of all the most celebrated smiths of Toledo with marks...Here there are notable contrasts to the work of Palomares, in particular one referring to Pedro de Garatea, who appears to be the Pedro de Lageratea in Palomares.

The discrepancies in marks, names, local of birth and working places is so vast that it would need a thesis to analize them all. Actually, if the discrepancy cited by del Canto is precisely as you here quote, that would represent another flaw in itself; the name actually written in the nomina is Pedro Lagaretea when it should be Pedro de Garaeta; which may be seen in blades at the Dresden Museum. But then you have Domingo de Lama for Domingo de Lezama, Alman for Almau; Alcazes for Alcozer; Lafra for Zafra; Lazonetta for Lagaretea; Vergas for Vargas ... and others.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Returning to the dilemma of the half moons, we look to find what meaning or significance these distinct markings may have had to the Spanish smiths... We well understand that there are many ecclestiastical symbols, inscriptions and devices incorporated into blade motif and imbuement.

In the study made by Lech Marek we may see that Juan Martinez, certainly as many others, applies religious inscriptions in his blades, apparently not for his introversion but more on the talismanic perspective, as so often this kind of habits is dicussed. In the blade example shown above he quotes psalm No. 71: IN TE DOMINE SPERAVI NON and, as mentioned, when having space available depending on the type of blade he forges, he inscribes the other part CONFUNDAR IN AETERNUM ... if i am correct.

For those no bothering to consult Lech Marek's work, nevertheless a very succinct paper, not so exhaustive as that of del Canto, where you fall asleep before you find what you are looking for, i here upload one of Master Juan Martinez magnificent blades, mounted in a beautiful chiselled iron Dutch renaissance hilt ... and also pictures of where the surviving punzones de espadero are kept, in Military Museum at the Alcazar de Toledo


.

[cornelistromp]

The hilt of post #7 can be Italian I/o Dutch.
see, for comparison, a rapier at the V & A museum from the armoury of the Electors of Saxony.
The Hilt is probably from Italy and the blade is an export blade from Toledo.
it's hard to say where these type of hilts are made.

from the V&A description:
The blade is a high quality Toledo blade by the prestigious maker Alonso Perez. Perez worked at the shop of the famous swordmaker, Gil de Almau who produced several swords for the Emperor Charles V and his son Philip II of Spain.

Sword blades were articles of international trade, made in a few important centres and shipped all over Europe where they were fitted with hilts in the local fashion. During the 16th and 17th centuries the sword blades of Toledo, Valencia and Milan were the most sought after but the largest centre of production was the German town of Solingen. The finest hilts were usually equipped with a Spanish blade but if not available a German blade (sometimes with a spurious Spanish inscription) was fitted instead.

fe this is probably the case with the German blade? of the Rapier of Jean-Luc
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22366

The most prosperous swordmakers in Toledo were concentrated in an area bordered by a road called Calle de Armas (Weapon Street) where there were also ironsmiths, crossbow makers, knife and axe makers. Guild regulations in Toledo were strict. Those seeking to practise as swordmakers had to pass strict tests of quality stipulated by the King. The King also protected the Spanish trade by issuing a decree in 1567: "... do not allow or permit to import any kind of sword in our kingdom from the exterior, and the ones made in Toledo wear the mark and signal of the master who made it and manufactured it, and the place where they are made, and whoever violates this they will be condemned as false ..."


best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Hi Jasper,
It is good to have the top brass entering in this thread, which means this has some interest in arms study.
You have noticed that, the asumption that the hilt shown is Dutch, is one from Lech Marek in his mentioned work; i wouldn't be able to judge it by myself. Mind you, he mentions Dutch style; maybe this makes the difference:
Fig. 5. Chiselled iron hilt of the rapier from Fig. 4. Dutch renaissance
style. Photo by L. Marek.


Yes, the 'Calle de las Armas' and the tests the smiths were submitted, as already approached in the same thread you linked to the Jean-Luc rapier discussion.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...2&postcount=28.
Every 5th March two examiners and two observers would perform such exercise, visiting candidates in their shops ad workshops.

But it is interesting that you show that beautiful sword with an Alonso Perez blade, as we here again face the dilemma of the marks discepancies. If my eyes don't betray me there is a clear difference between the mark engraved in your sword and that recorded by Palomares in his nomina. I wouldn't at all dare pretending that the blade you post was not forged by the illustreous master, but then, we may stand before another of these recurrent riddles.
However if i am wrong, which i am ready to admit, please bother correcting me .


.

[cornelistromp]

Hi Fernando,

I wish that rapier was mine

it is one of the nicest swords in the Victoria and Albert museum.

and.....believe me, there is very small chance that there is something wrong with the allocation of the blade.

(this description is made by Claude Blair, not the first best.)


please see

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O9...-alonso-perez/

best,
jasper


PS : Lech Marek is from Poland and I'm Dutch

[fernando]

Hi Jasper,
Thank you for your enlightening.
I am not Polish or Dutch ... neither i have the capacity to attribute a sword to this or that smith, just by looking at its characteristics. But that the mark on the blade in the Victoria Museum and the one recorded in available sources are different, nobody can deny; notwithstanding that some early smiths introduced new marks at a different stage.
Ah ... also i would like to own such sword ... or the one i spotted also at the same place, with a blade of the same Master.

Met vriendelijke groeten ,

.

[Jim McDougall]

It is good to have Jasper join here, as this is a thread focused on an aspect of arms study which does often seem a bit too esoteric for the general arms study community. This has seemed apparent to me for the many years I have been admittedly obsessed with the origins, meanings and applications of blade markings and inscriptions. There have been a number of references over the years, mostly compilations with perpetuated errors among the fairly reliable remainder represented in these.

That is why this thread is so important in addressing at least one long misunderstood instance of the topic of blades, markings and those of Toledo with their spurious counterparts in Germany and Italy. That is the curious half moon device and the identity of the Espadero del Rey.

The article by Lech Marek is outstanding, and thank you Fernando for pointing it out. It does seem compelling in noting the character of the markings used by Juan Martinez, a noted and renowned Espadero del Rey.
It shows of course the half moon as his personal mark; the TO (which is an 'O' over 'T') as the Toledo export mark and the fluer de lis as the 'mark of the Espadero del Rey'.

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

Palomares is a good starting point, but it must be remembered that the Toledo blacksmiths use multiple marks while Palomares has only indicated one.

Palomares has made the list in 1762, by then the heydays of blade making in Toledo were over.
Actually there were hardly blades made in Toledo in the 18thC anymore, it was almost all taken over by Solingen. The newly established fabrica de armas in Toledo did not change this.


Furthermore there has no proper investigation done by Palomares. There is no indication when the blacksmiths have worked in Toledo, mentioned By Palomares under the chart list of names .
He has only listed 5 names with a year.
there are 99 marks and only 94 names, multpiple times; el viejo, the elderly, el mojo, the younger, son and brother are used.


A blacksmith who worked outside Toledo is also mentioned, labro tambien en Gordova and the same mark is given to two persons 65 and 66 ??

Pedro Hernandez, Juan Hernandez and Piedro del Monte are missing from the list, as are some German blacksmiths who worked in Toledo. Heinrich Col fe.

nr 13 nr 15 and nr 23 have only the Toledo town mark as their mark, this is probably a mistake ?

TBC

best,
Jasper

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Jasper,
Thank you for your enlightening.
I am not Polish or Dutch ... neither i have the capacity to attribute a sword to this or that smith, just by looking at its characteristics. But that the mark on the blade in the Victoria Museum and the one recorded in available sources are different, nobody can deny; notwithstanding that some early smiths introduced new marks at a different stage.
Ah ... also i would like to own such sword ... or the one i spotted also at the same place, with a blade of the same Master.

Met vriendelijke groeten ,

.

Hi Fernando,
thanks!
Now it is clear to me why the first rapier is attributed to Alonso Perez while there is only ALONSO EN TOLEDO as inscription on the blade (no PEREZ)

the one you posted has the same OS mark but as inscription the full name OF Alonso Perez;
A.L.O.N.S.O. P.E. on one side
R.E.Z. E.N. T.O.L.E.D.O at the other side.


The style of horsemen on V&A rapier came 60 year later on equestrian small swords of around 1650.
they have a similar chiseled style with horsemen cut in high relief and were used extensively in the Netherlands.
however, it is not known where this type was made, perhaps by the medal cutters in Paris because of the very high and detailed quality work or maybe in liege. attached an equestrian hilted small sword from my collection

best,
Jasper

[Jim McDougall]

So why OS?
And why is the TO seemingly reversed (if it is to mean Toledo)? on the so called Toledo export mark as shown in Marek.

[fernando]

Jim, i am glad that you stood with me in the Alonso Perez mark enigma, as to comfort me for not having visions, something potential with my pharaonic age.
As for the Toledo punzon, Jose Maria Pelaez Valle questions himself on this issue and takes a guess that the different positions ot the two initials and their shield could indicate the different period (year) in which the blades were produced, like in silver hallmarks of certain countries; as also that the non applying of such TO mark in blades could mean that some masters were so reknown out there that they would see no need for such quality contrast.
It is a fact that, the abundance of the letter S on smith's marks which names appear not to contain such letter, needs some enlightenment; other than the fact that period Latin phonems could cause erroneous situations, besides cultural perceptions. Remember the great master Tomas de Ayala was illiterate. On the other hand and subject to double check, marks being usually correspondent to the initial of the first or family name, were not necessarily so; allegory to the smiths place of origin (toponimic) could also be taken into account. It seems as the S for the Sahagun family was so attributed because they actually were from Sahagun.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... Now it is clear to me why the first rapier is attributed to Alonso Perez while there is only ALONSO EN TOLEDO as inscription on the blade (no PEREZ)...the one you posted has the same OS mark but as inscription the full name OF Alonso Perez;
A.L.O.N.S.O. P.E. on one side
R.E.Z. E.N. T.O.L.E.D.O at the other side...

Yes Jasper, the second example having the full name makes it clear that both blades were forged by the same smith. Now we only ignore the reason why he apparently changed his mark... and why in both cases he uses the letter S. If it weren't for the discussed S 'mania' and trying to unveil the criteria used by (Toledan) smiths in their names, the little o over the S in the the Vitoria examples might be that of ALONSO and the vertical line crossing the S in Palomares nomina could be the l of ALONSO. But this only giving wings to imagination.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... attached an equestrian hilted small sword from my collection...

Superb .
I tell you what; next time you come over to the peninsula for kite surfing you bring this one with you for, say, your self defence ... and tell me which hotel you will stay at .