Plz help ID medieval Main Aigu LH dagger

Paul Macdonald · 12th September 2008, 10:55 AM

Hi Manuel,

Eek! Putting your thumb through the ring leaves the knuckles open to contact with your opponents sword blade and you`re also more likely to break your own thumb!

Looking closer at the blade, I also have a couple more observations.

Look closely at the correspondence between the drilled holes and the fullers. All original C17th pierced blades that I have seen have the drilled shapes crafted in the middle of each fuller, as this process is done after the blade has been forged to shape and fullered, and before hardening and tempering.
It also ensures that the blademaker places his specific drilled and filed detail exactly where he wants it.

In the case of this dagger, several of the holes on the ring side flat of the blade are not so central to the fullers and in some cases almost half on-half off the fuller and rising ribs.
My first thought was that this may have been drilled and ground to shape by stock removal rather than being hand forged, which would indicate a much more modern manufacturing method, but the other side of the blade (thumb flat side) suggests that the drill holes have all been executed from that side, with all holes centrally marked and drilled according to these fullers.
The fullers on the ring side of the blade are not exactly aligned to those on the thumb flat side, which has resulted in the ring side drill holes being off-centre in several cases.

This is no indication of modern manufacturing method, simply mis-aligned fullering, which is common to historical European blades of munition - medium grade.

Something else that caught my attention was what appeared to be a couple of tiny highlights just to either side of the 3rd set of drilled holes in the middle fullers (ring side in your first pic) that looks like modern welding spatter

There also appears to be something that could be the same in the second to left fuller (ring side flat), just below the quillions. For the sake of your blade being authentic, I can only hope that this is not the case and that it is simply the way that detail is showing via the medium of e-mailed photographs!

The close up reveals good detail on the quillions, which would suggest that they are either forge welded and filed into form or cast, but being original and good quality in either case.

I hope that the above might be helpful.

All the best,

Macdonald

celtan · 15th September 2008, 03:26 PM

Hi Guys,

This has been a very interesting repartee, I have learned a lot from same. Not only that, It has opened to me a new venue of study. I was fixated into blades and hilts, seldom considering pommels or grips.

As you said, I haven't been able to find another pommel or grip just like the one discussed. Of those relatively similar, most are 17th C., and yet as an example:

The Great Dublin Civic Sword, once owned by Henry IV ( c.1403), has a similarly shaped pommel. Also, in the book "Swords and Hilt Weapons" there's an Italian rapier on p. 61 (c.1610) also with a similarly shaped pommel. Neither of the two, though are _identical _to the dagger's.

Let's continue this as new info is made available.

Best

M

Atlantia · 15th September 2008, 05:48 PM

Hi Manuel,

I like the dagger. I have some reservations, mostly about the ebony grip, but overall it seems like its construction is fairly consistant throughout, medium quality, slightly more elaborate than would be expected.
The pommel does appear to be a 18thC style urn pommel, but the more I look at it the more I just wonder if its a bit of a hybrid of 17thC styles?
The closest I can find is on a Hungarian executioners sword from about 1620.

But there are other swords and daggers from the 17th that do have some similarities to the urn form, this could just be a slightly skewed interpretation of one of those forms made by a medium skilled artisan. (Just an idea)

Pappenheimers seem to sometimes have pommels that are more asymetric and 'urn like'.

Jim McDougall · 15th September 2008, 07:54 PM

Well placed ideas Atlantia! I like your way of thinking, and the examples you show give plausible cause for consideration. The ebony grip is the key point that I noticed as well, but the piece does have definite character, which is often why I tend to like munition grade items. I agree this is a bit above that guage though.

katana · 15th September 2008, 08:53 PM

Could the pommel / ebony handle just be later replacement (in the 18th C), perhaps due to damage or refurbishment

. It does seem that the pommel has been there for some time.

Surprised that someone suggested you place your thumb in the 'ring' ....ouch

I also noticed that the 'ring' appears to be heart shaped....is that the case?

Regards David

Paul Macdonald · 15th September 2008, 11:00 PM

Hi Folks,

I agree David that the grip and pommel could well be later replacements, I would suggest late C18th/early C19th.

The pommel detail also has a repeated roped pattern, which does not appear on the quillions anywhere. It would be very common for pommels and quillions on both swords and daggers of the C17th to have matching patterns of some sort.

The rapier pommels do look a bit similar, but the main difference is that pappenheimer pommels of this type typically tend to have concave faces to their form, whereas the late C18th/early C19th urn pommels have convex faces on the main body.

The pommel is very similar to many late C18th or early C19th spadroon or court sword pommels.

All the best,

Macdonald

12th September 2008, 10:55 AM	#1
Paul Macdonald Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 48	Hi Manuel, Eek! Putting your thumb through the ring leaves the knuckles open to contact with your opponents sword blade and you`re also more likely to break your own thumb! Looking closer at the blade, I also have a couple more observations. Look closely at the correspondence between the drilled holes and the fullers. All original C17th pierced blades that I have seen have the drilled shapes crafted in the middle of each fuller, as this process is done after the blade has been forged to shape and fullered, and before hardening and tempering. It also ensures that the blademaker places his specific drilled and filed detail exactly where he wants it. In the case of this dagger, several of the holes on the ring side flat of the blade are not so central to the fullers and in some cases almost half on-half off the fuller and rising ribs. My first thought was that this may have been drilled and ground to shape by stock removal rather than being hand forged, which would indicate a much more modern manufacturing method, but the other side of the blade (thumb flat side) suggests that the drill holes have all been executed from that side, with all holes centrally marked and drilled according to these fullers. The fullers on the ring side of the blade are not exactly aligned to those on the thumb flat side, which has resulted in the ring side drill holes being off-centre in several cases. This is no indication of modern manufacturing method, simply mis-aligned fullering, which is common to historical European blades of munition - medium grade. Something else that caught my attention was what appeared to be a couple of tiny highlights just to either side of the 3rd set of drilled holes in the middle fullers (ring side in your first pic) that looks like modern welding spatter There also appears to be something that could be the same in the second to left fuller (ring side flat), just below the quillions. For the sake of your blade being authentic, I can only hope that this is not the case and that it is simply the way that detail is showing via the medium of e-mailed photographs! The close up reveals good detail on the quillions, which would suggest that they are either forge welded and filed into form or cast, but being original and good quality in either case. I hope that the above might be helpful. All the best, Macdonald

15th September 2008, 03:26 PM	#2
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hi Guys, This has been a very interesting repartee, I have learned a lot from same. Not only that, It has opened to me a new venue of study. I was fixated into blades and hilts, seldom considering pommels or grips. As you said, I haven't been able to find another pommel or grip just like the one discussed. Of those relatively similar, most are 17th C., and yet as an example: The Great Dublin Civic Sword, once owned by Henry IV ( c.1403), has a similarly shaped pommel. Also, in the book "Swords and Hilt Weapons" there's an Italian rapier on p. 61 (c.1610) also with a similarly shaped pommel. Neither of the two, though are _identical _to the dagger's. Let's continue this as new info is made available. Best M

15th September 2008, 05:48 PM	#3
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Hi Manuel, I like the dagger. I have some reservations, mostly about the ebony grip, but overall it seems like its construction is fairly consistant throughout, medium quality, slightly more elaborate than would be expected. The pommel does appear to be a 18thC style urn pommel, but the more I look at it the more I just wonder if its a bit of a hybrid of 17thC styles? The closest I can find is on a Hungarian executioners sword from about 1620. But there are other swords and daggers from the 17th that do have some similarities to the urn form, this could just be a slightly skewed interpretation of one of those forms made by a medium skilled artisan. (Just an idea) Pappenheimers seem to sometimes have pommels that are more asymetric and 'urn like'.

15th September 2008, 07:54 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	Well placed ideas Atlantia! I like your way of thinking, and the examples you show give plausible cause for consideration. The ebony grip is the key point that I noticed as well, but the piece does have definite character, which is often why I tend to like munition grade items. I agree this is a bit above that guage though.

15th September 2008, 08:53 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Could the pommel / ebony handle just be later replacement (in the 18th C), perhaps due to damage or refurbishment . It does seem that the pommel has been there for some time. Surprised that someone suggested you place your thumb in the 'ring' ....ouch I also noticed that the 'ring' appears to be heart shaped....is that the case? Regards David

15th September 2008, 11:00 PM	#6
Paul Macdonald Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 48	Hi Folks, I agree David that the grip and pommel could well be later replacements, I would suggest late C18th/early C19th. The pommel detail also has a repeated roped pattern, which does not appear on the quillions anywhere. It would be very common for pommels and quillions on both swords and daggers of the C17th to have matching patterns of some sort. The rapier pommels do look a bit similar, but the main difference is that pappenheimer pommels of this type typically tend to have concave faces to their form, whereas the late C18th/early C19th urn pommels have convex faces on the main body. The pommel is very similar to many late C18th or early C19th spadroon or court sword pommels. All the best, Macdonald