![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ... When Kronckew mentioned the hammer situation in post #6, was only to go along your reasoning in post #5. By the way, i agree that the illustrated chisel in fig 179 is not a chisel, as you sugested in post #14. Those rings are self speaking, i would say. I can add that the museum Lady showed me a lot of axes ... even one she was keeping in one drawer, with the sprue already dettached; you could see its material was less integral than in the rest of the axe ... more flour like, if you catch my meaning. Back to my examples, i beleive the Lady restoring Doctor was pritty sure of what she was saying, on what concerns the pieces not being "normal". She sure has seen lots of axes, from the various periods, and she hasn't ever seen so "well preserved" examples, which excludes them from a logical consense. Like if they were ever real, they would be an unspeakeable finding. What she couldn't explain, and this seems to be the major question, is precisely the reason why these two items exist and in a so well made form; could they be replicas, fakes, reproductions ... made for a good faith purpose or as deceivers ? I still tend to think they would make an interesting swap ![]() This could be the influence of having once collected coins; allways in panic that a certain example could be a fake ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
Never mind Fernando, we all have to take risks now and again ....when trying to obtain unusual or rare examples of weapons, when they 'pay off' ....
![]() ![]() I would have been very pleased for you , had these been genuine. Still, I have learned alot, also thanks Kronckew, I had assumed that the sprue (normally removed) was left on some axeheads (ie a 'longer sprue' which would have been ground down to remove the 'imperfect' bronze from the upper section) for use as a hammer/chisel head and therefore the quality of the bronze would be consistent. Sometimes lateral thinking can open up new possibillities....in this case, it lead me astray ![]() ![]() Regards David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|