Looking for information on Andres Martinez of Toledo

[10thRoyal]

Good afternoon all, I am looking for information on a Spanish sword smith that signed "Andres Martinez". Does anyone know of other examples of his work, any details about his career, or what years he was active? I was able to match the name and marking on a particular sword of interest to one of the Toledo armory catalogues (Andres Martinez) but have not been able to find much additional information besides the fact he is the "son of Zabala (de Garata)" which is not super helpful as there seems to be a younger and an elder by the Zabala name. Would love to hear any thoughts y'all might have.

Best,
Michael

[fernando]

Welcome to the forum, Michael . A bit confusing indeed. in Ramiro Larrañaga's work he extends this smiths name to ANDRÉS MARTINEZ DE GARRATE. He and his brother Gabriel (36) are sons of ZABALA. It could be that their father was JUAN MARTINEZ DE GARATA, ZABALA (46). We could consider that he is called el viejo (elder) by Palomares, to help distinguish him from JUAN MARTINEZ el mozo (younger) (42) in the table by their age, but not because they were familly.
Note that this is not 100% exact. It is known that the Palomares nomina contains a few inconsistencies. One thing we know as certain is that of JUAN MARTINEZ, that was active at an early stage, as listed in Lhermite's work (end XVI century), whose marks he describes are precisely the ones shown nowadays out there. Yet in Palomares nomina we can find not right name neither his full marks, which i suspect is listed in the table as JUAN MARTIN (39).
Confusing indeed .
Other members will know more about this riddle.


.

[10thRoyal]

I greatly appreciate the information Fernando, I never even considered that the two Juan Martinez's might not be related. Would also love to know what the meaning behind the words "Garata" and "Zabala" are.

And for completeness sake I've attached the rest of the photos I have. Just based on my amateur knowledge it looks like this is probably a composite sword. Or maybe not, I've been looking at so many of these that they are starting to blend together. The total length is 48 inches. I believe the reverse side of the blade reads "En Toledo Me Fecit". I had not even noticed the tiny anchor in the last photo until uploading these images.

[fernando]

Are you sure it says EN TOLED ME FECIT ? Not a good sign. These "me fecit" inscritions are more seen in Solingen blades; you know, "Solingen me fecit" or "me fecit Solingen" .
Can you take a closer picture ?

[10thRoyal]

Now you have me worried. It's definitely Toledo. I don't have it on hand to give a better photo.

[fernando]

No reason to worry, Michael. I reckon i was premature. This Latin inscription also appears in Toledan swords; maybe not so often, but it does. The smith marks in this blade are reprehensible. No doubt this is a genuine blade.
Whether the hilt is not from the period, hopefuly more knowledgeable members will pop in and give their impression.

[10thRoyal]

I'm very relieved to hear that FINALLY I have found something that is not entirely a Victorian reproduction. I was on the verge of giving up honestly. As for the inscription, I'm hoping it looks a little less janky after some time with a tooth brush but clearly a calligrapher Andres was not.

Something interesting I noticed from the armory catalogue I posted earlier, the mark on my sword seems to have been made with the same stamp as the example that was found in the armory. As in the exact same physical punch was used to make both markings. Not sure if that is actually interesting or not.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 10thRoyal

I'm very relieved to hear that FINALLY I have found something that is not entirely a Victorian reproduction. I was on the verge of giving up honestly. As for the inscription, I'm hoping it looks a little less janky after some time with a tooth brush but clearly a calligrapher Andres was not.

Something interesting I noticed from the armory catalogue I posted earlier, the mark on my sword seems to have been made with the same stamp as the example that was found in the armory. As in the exact same physical punch was used to make both markings. Not sure if that is actually interesting or not.

As Fernando has noted, it was not unusual to have this 'Latin' esque type of inscription on actual Toledo blades. There were a number of Solingen makers who actually worked in Toledo at times, such Henry Koll (Enrique Coel).
He has shown important detail on this maker from the remarkable resources that he has access to, so that seems well established.

I would point out that this punzone with the T is correctly placed as per authentic Spanish swords of 17th c. and Victorian replicas never had makers detail on them as they were not produced with deception in mind.
That mark with the hump over the T is interesting as it is unique, and it seems to this family. The T with other embellishment seems more often copied on other blades known produced in Solingen, often with incongruent Spanish makers names and marks.
Therefore, as agreed, yours has all appearance of the real deal, at least as far as the blade.

It is possible that the hilt was a later addition, and while replicas did occasionally use 'real' vintage blades, this was a common occurrence on authentically used rapiers as well. These were often repaired or rehilted in accord with changes in fashion or preference of owner through working lives, and to find an example not 'composite' is quite remarkable.

[fernando]

Meanwhile i have sent e-mail to two surces in Spain, to see whether they can untangle this Martinez knot ... but i am not sure if they ever answer .

[10thRoyal]

Originally Posted by fernando

Meanwhile i have sent e-mail to two surces in Spain, to see whether they can untangle this Martinez knot ... but i am not sure if they ever answer .

Fernando I cannot thank you enough! I have struggled to find any other mentions Andres Martinez or examples of his work so your help is immensely appreciated.

[10thRoyal]

I finally the sword in hand and am amazed at the balance of it and just how massive the guard is compared to the blade. I've attached better photos of the inscription for anyone who comes across an Andres Martinez blade in the future along with the anchor mark on the blade that was not previously shown.

[10thRoyal]

Originally Posted by fernando

Meanwhile i have sent e-mail to two surces in Spain, to see whether they can untangle this Martinez knot ... but i am not sure if they ever answer .

Good afternoon Fernando, did you ever hear back from those sources in Spain?

[fernando]

Nothing useful, i am afraid. One of them said that my reasoning on the fathers/sons sounded plausible but he was sorry not to be able to provide any further information.The other one, whom i had more expectations from, has never answered my email.
Sorry .

[urbanspaceman]

A fine blade is a valuable commodity, it is a product of those esoteric practices not common throughout a lot of history.
Fashioning a hilt was rarely fraught with difficulty, and consequently could be discarded and replaced at the whim of fashion and circumstance - as Jim said. This speaks volumes about trends in history.
I have two extremely fine rapier blades that have been converted to court-swords with very fancy hilts; for me, they are nearly as precious as my 1590s swept hilt, although nowhere-near as valuable on the commercial market.
It is all too easy to be caught up in the pedantic attitudes of some collectors.
The Arms and Armour Society presented a lecture this month on 'collectors and collecting' that was both poignant, amusing and precautionary, in that: "de gustibus non est disbutandum".
You should see the faces of coin collectors when they discover I clean my antique coins!
Fine Samurai swords are revered, and their condition is sacrosanct; why should the West be any different?
For me, a luxurious sword should reflect as much as possible of the quality and craftsmanship displayed when new. Munition's-grade battlefield swords are a different issue altogether though and are usually more inspiring when showing the patina of age and activity.
OK, I'm off my soap-box now.
ps
All this aside, your monster hilt looks amazing, regardless of its provenance.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Keith!

Always interested in Spanish swords, I could not resist tearing into very old files, and while not directly answering the questions in the OP (orig post) I found this material possibly salient in context.

from : "Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, June 21,1900"
Vol XVIII, pp.206-215, by Baron Charles A. DeCosson.

DeCosson was one of the luminaries of early 20th century arms & armor study.

Discussing a sword with mock Arabic inscription and arms and badges of the Catholic Kings, with the inscription in the grooves,
PEDRO GARETA ME FECIT
"...when Count Valencia de Don Juan , our honorary fellow and director of the Madrid Armoury, examined this sword with me, he expressed the opinion that this blade was not of Toledan make and thought it might be German. It certainly has not the peculiar character of true Toledo blades, which to those well acquainted with them is unmistakeable. Besides which the name on it is not correctly spelt.
Rodriguez del Canto, fencing master of Madrid, in an unedited manuscript written in 1734, and entitled 'El Discipulo Instruido' gives a list of all the most celebrated blade smiths of Toledo with their marks. His list differs somewhat from that of Palomares so well known through having been printed in the catalog of the Armeria Real in 1849.
In R.del Cantos list we find a pedro de Garatea, who is no doubt the same master who is called Pedro de Lagaratea by Palomares. No blade signed in either of these ways is at present known. But his blades must have been famous to be imitated with the incorrect for Gareta.

From a careful examination of this blade and the similar one in my own sword, I think it is probable that they are both Italian, as are many professing to be of Toledan manufacture, notably all those inscribed Monte en Toledo which are imitations of those made by the Toledan master Belmonte or Velmonte. "


In an article by Abraham Lopez, "Alonso Perez, Sword Maker of Toledo'
it notes that Perez was one of the most prestigious artisans of late 16th c and worked as an officer in Toledo at shop of famed master Gil de Almau.

An important rapier was found on the well known shipwreck of the Nuestra Senora de Atocha (1622) off Florida. It was of course heavily encrusted but it was determined to be of Italian style, but with Toledo blade as commonly seen in Spain.

Attached is page showing the 'anchor' mark apparently associated with Perez and as seen on the blade of the sword here in OP.

[10thRoyal]

Looks like who he was may remain a mystery, but his lineage is honestly less important to me than knowing he was a swordsmith who exist in that period. Whether he was actually even from Toledo sounds like a completely different can of worms! I'll be hanging on to this piece for a good long while as it's my first "real" sword I've purchased so there will be plenty of time for new info to appear. Once again thank all of you for your willingness to share information.

[fernando]

This issue over (right or wrong) marriage of hilts to blades is in itself a vast subject, covering different angles. We know that a determined sword smith is generally known to be the one that forges the blade, and that's when the riddle starts. If in the one hand a (Toledan) smith had to pass an exam under the Guild inspection, where he had to show to be able to perform a few works relative to swords repairs, polishing, scabbards, grips, etc, for he had to pay twelve reales to contribute for the feast of Santiago and one hundred mararavedis in case he achieved his professional credentials. (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz). This does not prevent that countless blades were forged and forwarded to specialists for the execution of other periphals for embelishment or in raw for exports; or obviously for replacements, both because the origialns were worn or the customer wanted something personalized.
Going back to our misterious Andres Martinez, once more we may witness the frustration of his 'anonymity', when not finding his name in the work of Don Enrique de Leguina (1897) among a zillion Martinez and their derivates.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you very much Fernando, as always very well explained and of course we are as always in accord.
As I noted in the excerpt from DeCosson (1900) the Madrid fencing master Rodriguez del Canto attempted a record of notable Toledo masters in 1734, which apparently had certain differences which were often incongruent with those compiled by Palomares in 1849.

Clearly these variations and omissions occur in the work of Don Enrique Leguina in 1897 in degree.

It seems well known that along with misspellings, the writing of names using various dialectic or liguistic conventions, especially in the well known spurious application which plagued the control of makers, punzones etc. is the very bane of scholars trying to identify blades.

This of course accounts for the apparent immortality of such makers as Tomas Aiala of Toledo and others whose name appears on blades many generations after their demise. The Andrea Ferara mystery is of course one of the most notorious of these dilemmas.

It seems most likely the name on this blade is one of these 'commemorative' applications inferring the renowned quality of Toledo blades, and possibly using an 'adjusted' name of a famed family to avoid being lumped into the commonly known names so typically used. This of course would add the imbuing of authenticity.

I have an early 17th c. blade marked to Wirsberg (Solingen) and inscribed in majescule letters SEBASTIAN, which would allude probably to Toledo maker Sebastian Hernandez, or perhaps not. If to a German maker, why not the entire name? Whatever the case, the implication is there, and perhaps in the same manner as this inscription with name that defies known registers.

10th, it is important to remember, that as Fernando has noted, these swords were not only mounted with blades imported from various sources, but also repaired using other batches of imported blades. In the Spanish colonies in America, boxes of rapier and dragoon blades have been found en masse in New Orleans and others. On one shipwreck off Panama, there were many boxes of blades only, most rapier using spurious inscriptions and Toledo marks. as the wreck(s) can be dated to 1690, we can see the period of the blades.

So what you have is an intriguing rapier with unusually large hilt, as was often the case having hilts tailored to the prospective owner, and in the fashion preferred locally or by period. It is mounted with what is most probably a blade using a spurious signature and could be from Germany in any number of shops, or possibly Italy. These were the most likely centers and remember that by the 1690s Toledo was literally defunct so only its reputation remained intact, still being used with the names of its former masters, which were often misspelled or improperly used.

The occurrence of the 'anchor' as used by Alonso Perez (found on the 1622 shipwreck) of course supports the theory of the spurious use applied to this blade. Often blades from Solingen had spurious names added along with Toledo markings which were not aligned with the names used.

[10thRoyal]

Originally Posted by fernando

This issue over (right or wrong) marriage of hilts to blades is in itself a vast subject, covering different angles. We know that a determined sword smith is generally known to be the one that forges the blade, and that's when the riddle starts. If in the one hand a (Toledan) smith had to pass an exam under the Guild inspection, where he had to show to be able to perform a few works relative to swords repairs, polishing, scabbards, grips, etc, for he had to pay twelve reales to contribute for the feast of Santiago and one hundred mararavedis in case he achieved his professional credentials. (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz). This does not prevent that countless blades were forged and forwarded to specialists for the execution of other periphals for embelishment or in raw for exports; or obviously for replacements, both because the origialns were worn or the customer wanted something personalized.
Going back to our misterious Andres Martinez, once more we may witness the frustration of his 'anonymity', when not finding his name in the work of Don Enrique de Leguina (1897) among a zillion Martinez and their derivates.


.

Good evening Fernando, I may have misunderstood your message (and if I did I apologize) but it looks like there is an Andres Martinez listen in the text you cited. To your point there are literally so many Martinezes that the name is hard to locate . Though I've accepted that this is likely the 17th century version of a high quality counterfeit Rolex except its a German sword trying to pass for Spanish.

[fernando]

My bad. It took me so long to extract the pages with the Martinez listings from his PDF book that i missed the Andrés one ... precisely written in the same manner as in Palomares nomina.
As for your sword being a 'fake Rolex', i will leave such assessment to others. I wouldn't mind to have it myself .