A Hand and a Half
 

Bought this at auction some time ago. I am not sure if I posted it but if so, apologies.

This might be my favorite "thing". It is real, it is not a gold inlaid cutsie thing, this was a working sword of a well off soldier.

Note the Andrea Ferra mark on both side. Also there is a mark on the ricosso which, I am embarrassed to say, I just noticed. An eagle maybe?? Thoughts appreciated.

I can surely see why this would be a favorite! 16th century? Would this be classified as a writhen hilt?

The counterguard is exquisite work!

I'm generally not allowed nice things but seeing them and learning is the next best thing.

Cheers
GC

Thats a good question Lee, I have trouble with all these fancy terms. I would think writhen is a tighter 'weave', kinda like my shoelaces :( but its hard to say. This looks more like some sort of blossom?

This is one of the nicest swords posted in a long time !
Its south German or Northern Italy around 1550 - 1560 , the blade type is the typical type found in this guard , its the first Andrea Ferara 1530 - 1586.
Could you post a picture of the back of the guard and a clear picture of the ricasso ? is the ricasso flat in the middle or has it two shallow fullers ?

I have seen an almost identical blade in a similar hand hand a half sword in a verry old collection.

Hi Ed , im still hoping you can post pictures of the other side of that exeptional sword, thanks in advance !

Sorry for the delay, we are moving/starting a company and generally at sea.

Usually I am more responsive :).

I bought this at Christie's at their 12/12/97 auction. Sadly the catalog is in a box somewhere. Eventually I will post the listing.

This was the same auction from which I obtained the Oakeshott sword which has been posted here.

I think that this hilt would properly be called "writhen":

writh·en

2.
(of antique glass or silver) having spirally twisted ornamentation.

I had always thought that this sword was "untouched" and that it was as it was during it's working life, even down to the leather. I wonder if one did a careful examination if one would find traces of blood? I think that is likely.

This is a favorite because I think that it is an object that was actually used by some ordinary guy, not a lord, just a bloke so to speak. My ancestors, of course, would have been running around with their bill hooks and ground scratching implements.

I have a breast and backplate that hold a similar attraction. Munition armor they call it.

Anyway, apologies for not responding sooner but to quote Waugh "to know all is to forgive all" (or words to that effect).

And what is that bloody mark?

It is reminiscent of the eagle proof on german firearms.

Thank you for your reply. The blade mark isn't clear enough to distinguish with certainty, but there are similar marks in the book Armi Bianci Italiane circa 1560, though not the same one.
These types of swords were not worn by ordinary soldiers, but by lords and knights. There are several swords of this genre in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, all belonging to noblemen.
However, it is definitely a sword for combat, not for ceremonial use. I agree that it is in unmolested condition as found; a truly beautiful piece!

blade maker
 

Forgive my possibly ignorant question: is it possible this is an actual Andrea Ferarra blade?
A thing of wonder, non-the-less.

I doubt it. I think the mention is totemic.

Yes, it's a blade from the maker himself. The sword's hilt dates from the mid-16th century, as does the shape and type of the blade. The other symbols in the blade's fullers all date from around 1540-1550.

Andrea Ferarra
 

As I said before - but now even more so: a thing of wonder!
Thanks Dirk.

This is a beautiful sword in wonderful condition. What a piece to own. Thank you for the close-up photos of the developed guard and pommel. Could you perhaps provide some dimensions for the sword: overall length, blade length, width at Ricasso?
-A.

Sorry ... I have been wool gathering ...

3lb 8oz
Length o/a = 47"
Blade=38.25"
Cross guard= 10"
Grip = 6"

I noted that the Christie's description description describes it as "composite". I see not evidence of that.

Thoughts?

I well remember my anticipation of the glossy sales catalogues from the major London auctions back when I was active...

The cataloging was pretty stringent back then...

Thats it. I wonder what the issue was?

I wonder if some features seemed possibly asynchronous to the cataloger at the time, then logic was to better call it composite to be on the safe side if someone later had doubts. When and if it turns out to all be contemporaneous on further study, then the buyer will not likely be unhappy.

Thats what I figured.