Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th January 2016, 06:08 PM   #1
Cerjak
Member
 
Cerjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 1,065
Default one more

one more
Attached Images
  
Cerjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th January 2016, 08:36 PM   #2
ulfberth
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 400
Default

Jean Luc,

thank you for showing me the detail from up close, after being able to see the structure of the metal and the way it is forged I'm sure the guard is early 17th C or even late 16th C.

Kind regards

Ulfberth
ulfberth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 11:52 AM   #3
cornelistromp
Member
 
cornelistromp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfberth
Jean Luc,

thank you for showing me the detail from up close, after being able to see the structure of the metal and the way it is forged I'm sure the guard is early 17th C or even late 16th C.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

this is 100% the opposite of your statement from post #20 and onwards.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfberth
Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice.
If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner.
Ulfberth
So from definitely a later applied hilt it's back to maybe the original hilt?
cornelistromp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 04:30 PM   #4
ulfberth
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 400
Default

Hi Jasper,

Why do you get so defensive if anyone questions you're “knowledge” ?

I can ask you the same kind of questions, like you said the sword was homogeneous and later on you say : the composition of the steel is never matching between blade and hilt.this is the case with virtually all the 16th century swords.so they are never "homogeneous"
Ask yourself this , is this really the goal of this forum ?

I gave my opinion based on the info at hand and I adjusted my opinion after new and more detailed information.
You give me the impression you are not satisfied.
Do I have a say in this?
Are you asking me or telling me?
So, what do I get out of this?”
Are you really expecting me to....do Do what exactly ?

Kind regards



kind regards

Ulfberth
ulfberth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 04:53 PM   #5
fernando
(deceased)
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
Default

Maybe tossing some light discrepancies over the shoulders and get back to a path of harmony ...
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 05:16 PM   #6
ulfberth
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 400
Default

Amen !
ulfberth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2016, 05:27 PM   #7
cornelistromp
Member
 
cornelistromp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,058
Default

@Ulfberth

homogeneous in arms means that all components, pommel grip guard and blade, from the very beginning have been together, it has nothing to do with the metal composition.

but let's shake hands because we both, very much, like antique swords.

in Holland we say; zand erover.


kind regards from Amsterdam,
Jasper
cornelistromp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.