![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 514
|
![]()
So, some first impressions with the sword in hand. No way I would suspect it to be a Victorian or later attempt. The hilt is comprised (as I suspected) as several individual pieces, joined and peened. The castings of the writhen elements actually quite delicate, with the grip sounding as not too hollow a shell. Speaking only to the hilt, the annelets are large enough to treat as a rapier grip. The grip by itself between the ferrules is 3". Photos in hand to follow.
Now some nitty gritty. The weight is considerable at 2.5 pounds (spring fish De-liar scale) eek, right? Well, hold on here, mixed dimensions Blade length is at 33" as shown. Width at the guard 27 mm Thickness at the guard 7 mm A very linear forte distal Thickness at the pob still 6mm a fighting distance from the guard pob at roughly 4" The blade (in my mind) shortened from a blade that was likely about 40" long at its original use Thickness at the point 2.5 mm The blade has the feel of varnish and the clank of a sword with good spring. Perfectly ovoid lenticular. Sorry, no spreadsheet. I judge swords as fencible or not. At a pound more than a light magic spadroon, it is still at the range of what a longer rapier might tip 3 lbs or more. Instantly appraised before I opened the USPS priority box, I was under no allusion it would be a box of air, as felt with an epee. I feel it was a marriage sometime before 1700 but folk are welcome to disagree. For me, as with so many, the questions of its history will always be there. My take is someone wanted a weapon, not a decoration. Pictures and more thoughts to come Cheers GC |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|