Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 22nd June 2024, 09:20 PM   #13
Radboud
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman McCormick View Post
Hi,
It looks like someone has cleaned an area to reveal the numbers and in doing so has rubbed part of the peen. The peen does have an area of patina left so I still don't think the assembly is too recent.
Regards,
Norman.
It’s something that bothered me about the peen earlier. The area around the end of the knuckle guard should exhibit less pitting than the rest of the guard. Since it would originally have been covered by the pommel cap and less exposed to the elements. Now that I look closer, it does look like the metal is marginally cleaner than the rest. However the bad lighting on the picture makes it difficult to be conclusive.

At least the pitting inside the No. 13 appears to be consistent with the surrounding metal so it is likely original to the blade, re-enforcing that it’s a manufacturers’ mark.

I agree with Werecow, the peen is significantly brighter than the surrounding area (as is the brass insert) and I don’t see any signs of polishing around it to suggest the area has received any additional cleaning.
Radboud is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.