![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 445
|
![]()
I knew there was a note in the book regarding prices, but couldn't locate it yesterday. See the attached picture.
In 1967, the conversion was 1:1 (1920 marks to 1967 dollars) Per this website ( https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1967 ) $100 dollars in 1967 is worth $888 in 2022. So, 100 marks in the book is worth 888 modern dollars. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 905
|
![]()
Hello all,
Interesting sites about Zweihander swords - Spadone swords and how they were used even on boat attack, Lepanto battle... all in italian... https://zweilawyer.com/2010/02/06/zweihander/ https://zweilawyer.com/2019/08/29/sp...el-xvi-secolo/ https://medievaleggiando.it/lo-spado...-rinascimento/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 126
|
![]()
Congratulations and thanks to Francantolin for finding and providing links to these magazine articles, especially as the first and third refer to my own published work on two-handed swords (I don't like the term Zweihander in an English language account because it is German and we have a perfectly good English term and also it is a modern, not a historical, term). The first article refers to a piece I wrote in November 1983, which is now a bit out of date, and uses some of my material. The third directs the reader to my book, originally published in England in 2018, though the reference is to an edition published in India (!!). The second article is most interesting for me as it deals in detail with the two-hander being used on board ship. I do mention this unusual aspect in my book but not in such detail. In case anyone is interested enough to look for my book its title is The Two-Handed Sword, History Design and Use published by Pen and Sword. Over 200 pages, over 100 illustrations most in colour.
Neil Melville |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]()
I want to warn against taking sandpaper to remove rust. To me, the result looks aggressively over-cleaned. I would try gentler methods first.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|