Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 1st May 2006, 06:23 PM

hi fernando,
very interesting. our andy (davis) bought a similar piece recently -

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=pata

if you look at the overall form, the long guantlet and the bulbous end, and most especially the way the blade is held, the similarities are definately there.
i didnt contribute to andys post (sorry) but i had meant to (i do rememer giving an opinion, so must have done by email). the shape of his guard is early without a doubt. although some dismissed it, i found it extremely appealling and would rather have it than most i have seen for sale.
as for the date, i agree they are both early but i would be cautious at dating them into the early parts of the 16thC.
the form is relatively unknown, and the crudeness of both unfortunately makes it even harder to date (no decorative patterns to compare to).
the one you show does seem earlier than andy's, but i cant overlook the overall similarity and so would be inclined to say the come from the same family (and possibly the same date).
so, you got me! i cant agree with the date at all, but i have no substantial reason to disagree with it. if i held it my opinions may be more accurate. maybe i will take andy up on his offer to visit as i find them both intriguing. i have two late 16thC patas, both very decorative and so dating them is more comfortable. these, however, are indeed a mystery.

1st May 2006, 06:23 PM	#18
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi fernando, very interesting. our andy (davis) bought a similar piece recently - http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=pata if you look at the overall form, the long guantlet and the bulbous end, and most especially the way the blade is held, the similarities are definately there. i didnt contribute to andys post (sorry) but i had meant to (i do rememer giving an opinion, so must have done by email). the shape of his guard is early without a doubt. although some dismissed it, i found it extremely appealling and would rather have it than most i have seen for sale. as for the date, i agree they are both early but i would be cautious at dating them into the early parts of the 16thC. the form is relatively unknown, and the crudeness of both unfortunately makes it even harder to date (no decorative patterns to compare to). the one you show does seem earlier than andy's, but i cant overlook the overall similarity and so would be inclined to say the come from the same family (and possibly the same date). so, you got me! i cant agree with the date at all, but i have no substantial reason to disagree with it. if i held it my opinions may be more accurate. maybe i will take andy up on his offer to visit as i find them both intriguing. i have two late 16thC patas, both very decorative and so dating them is more comfortable. these, however, are indeed a mystery.