rapier

[fernando]

Jim, good point on the wire grip missing bars .
To be (more) clear, i wasn't presuming that the name on the blade was that of one of the "SAHAGUN's" but actually pretending to discard such probability; my approach was more to recall that these are the type of names that one wishes that they figure on our swords, despite the odds. In fact we know that the Sahagun(not Sahagum) family, father and three sons, Toledan masters originary from (de) Sahagun, all used the same mark, a shielded crown over S.
By the way Jim, could you please tell in what page of WallaceColl, you find (Nuremberg) marks similar to that of the sword in discussion ?

[fernando]

On the other hand, and not pretending to gratuitously switch the complicometer, is it my eyes or the sword posted is in the "wrong" position, that is, with the knuckle guard on the top, instead of in the bottom. This inversion gives us a different view of the lettering, potentially due for a different interpretation.
I wonder if urbanspaceman could post a clear picture of both sides of the blade, both with the knuckle guard below the grip.

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by fernando

On the other hand, and not pretending to gratuitously switch the complicometer, is it my eyes or the sword posted is in the "wrong" position, that is, with the knuckle guard on the top, instead of in the bottom. This inversion gives us a different view of the lettering, potentially due for a different interpretation.
I wonder if urbanspaceman could post a clear picture of both sides of the blade, both with the knuckle guard below the grip.

Hello Fernando. Thank-you for clearing up the correct spelling of SAHAGUN, I was confused, as it seems to apply to the place, yet I've seen it spelt both ways in recent searches; now I know for sure.

With regard to the lettering: I only have the vendor's pics so far but there is lettering on both sides. On one side they look like As with the cross-bar clearly visible; on the other side there is no cross-bar and they look like Vs (inverted) so I flipped the image around to correspond to the other side. Very perspicacious of you Fernando.
I will know more when it arrives.

I am mystified by this grip-wire bars business, can you explain for me please.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

... I am mystified by this grip-wire bars business, can you explain for me please...

.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you yet again Fernando. Further questions: were they meant to remain in place? Have they been lost?
You show a 'Sail' guard left-hand dagger: would that have been a typical accompaniment to this sword; I intend to pair one up when I can.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

... Further questions: were they meant to remain in place? Have they been lost?...

Who knows ... fallen, as having become too loose with time ? I see no reason for having deliberately taken them off.

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

... You show a 'Sail' guard left-hand dagger: would that have been a typical accompaniment to this sword ...

It was the first example i saw with those bars, when looking to the wall where my pieces stand. You may find these bars in many swords; a style option, good to hold the grip wiring in place, i would say.



.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, good point on the wire grip missing bars .
To be (more) clear, i wasn't presuming that the name on the blade was that of one of the "SAHAGUN's" but actually pretending to discard such probability; my approach was more to recall that these are the type of names that one wishes that they figure on our swords, despite the odds. In fact we know that the Sahagun(not Sahagum) family, father and three sons, Toledan masters originary from (de) Sahagun, all used the same mark, a shielded crown over S.
By the way Jim, could you please tell in what page of WallaceColl, you find (Nuremberg) marks similar to that of the sword in discussion ?

Thank you Fernando. Actually when I mentioned Sahagun it was from my own reference and I had overlooked you had mentioned it as well, or had not picked up on your inference. I always have such a hard time discerning things from pictures posted, seeing the S took me to Sahagun almost inherently.
I then thought of these Italian, later other European groupings of letters and symbols which became a widely known convention. As most of Europe typically followed Italian lead, and the posted wire grips seemed to me mostly a Spanish characteristic (thinking of 'bilbo's), with Spanish rule in Netherlands it had plausibility to that context.

The fact that Germany of course supplied many blades to sword makers there supported the notion of the city mark, but then the sword may have been to any number of city guard units in Germany using the similar geometric device in shield cartouche.

The markings are from Wallace Coll., Sir James Mann, 1962, p.684).
Obviously there is no exact match, but the convention can be seen in the geometric designs. Even slight deviations could constitute of course an entirely different entity.

The posts may have been removed or come undone when wire wrap unraveled as is common in weapons of this type and age. Often pulling away the wire would do that and turks heads would still be intact.

[urbanspaceman]

So are all of those variations all attributable strictly to Nuremberg?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

So are all of those variations all attributable strictly to Nuremberg?

Yes, they are; i have been through this page as well. But i fail to see any of them looking similar to the shield mark in yours. However Jim has more experience to judge on that ... variations and all.

[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.

[fernando]

How things (letterings) will be different once the blade position is inverted; this in one of the sides.


.