The half moon symbol in early Spanish swords

[Jim McDougall]

It is good to have Jasper join here, as this is a thread focused on an aspect of arms study which does often seem a bit too esoteric for the general arms study community. This has seemed apparent to me for the many years I have been admittedly obsessed with the origins, meanings and applications of blade markings and inscriptions. There have been a number of references over the years, mostly compilations with perpetuated errors among the fairly reliable remainder represented in these.

That is why this thread is so important in addressing at least one long misunderstood instance of the topic of blades, markings and those of Toledo with their spurious counterparts in Germany and Italy. That is the curious half moon device and the identity of the Espadero del Rey.

The article by Lech Marek is outstanding, and thank you Fernando for pointing it out. It does seem compelling in noting the character of the markings used by Juan Martinez, a noted and renowned Espadero del Rey.
It shows of course the half moon as his personal mark; the TO (which is an 'O' over 'T') as the Toledo export mark and the fluer de lis as the 'mark of the Espadero del Rey'.

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

Palomares is a good starting point, but it must be remembered that the Toledo blacksmiths use multiple marks while Palomares has only indicated one.

Palomares has made the list in 1762, by then the heydays of blade making in Toledo were over.
Actually there were hardly blades made in Toledo in the 18thC anymore, it was almost all taken over by Solingen. The newly established fabrica de armas in Toledo did not change this.


Furthermore there has no proper investigation done by Palomares. There is no indication when the blacksmiths have worked in Toledo, mentioned By Palomares under the chart list of names .
He has only listed 5 names with a year.
there are 99 marks and only 94 names, multpiple times; el viejo, the elderly, el mojo, the younger, son and brother are used.


A blacksmith who worked outside Toledo is also mentioned, labro tambien en Gordova and the same mark is given to two persons 65 and 66 ??

Pedro Hernandez, Juan Hernandez and Piedro del Monte are missing from the list, as are some German blacksmiths who worked in Toledo. Heinrich Col fe.

nr 13 nr 15 and nr 23 have only the Toledo town mark as their mark, this is probably a mistake ?

TBC

best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Palomares is a good starting point, but it must be remembered that the Toledo blacksmiths use multiple marks while Palomares has only indicated one.

True in a way, Japer ... but i realize the majority of the smiths only used one mark, that of their personal seal; otherwise period chroniclars like Jehan Lhermite would have related such profusion. Instead, he only mentions as using various marks one or two smiths, the more profuse being Juan Martinez. But we also know that, those with more than one mark, often used secondary ones as either prestige symbols (Espadero del Rey), or decoration signs, that not their personal seals. Juan del Rey is also said to have used a 'few' marks but then again, the perrillo was more of a 'quality' contrast and apparently there is no record of what the others may have been. Curiously Lhermite doesn't mention this famous master, probably because he was still working in Zaragossa by the time the Flemish passed by Toledo, a vital detail not well distinguished by Palomares

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Furthermore there has no proper investigation done by Palomares. There is no indication when the blacksmiths have worked in Toledo,

As already approched and according to specialists in this subject, Palomares, a Toledan native, had a tendency to list smiths as having 'also' worked elsewhere, when in fact they 'first' worked elsewhere (their home towns) and only after went to Toledo.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... He has only listed 5 names with a year...

Another of his imprecisions.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... there are 99 marks and only 94 names,..

Yes, he saw the 5 punzones in the Toledo archives but never found out whom they belonged to. Eventually mark #95 contains a fleur-de-liz and could (could) well be, not a personal mark but, an additional contrast mark belonging to an Espadero del Rey.
Mark #99 could (could) be that from whom Lhermite calls Machin, who recorded that he used an aguililla (small eagle) as his mark.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... multiple times; el viejo, the elderly, el mojo, the younger, son and brother are used...

This was in fact a current use in tat period, to distinguish each one of the family, as so often the son was given the name of his father ... and this from his grandfather.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

A blacksmith who worked outside Toledo is also mentioned, labro tambien en Gordova and the same mark is given to two persons 65 and 66 ?? ...

They are quoted to have the 'same' mark as the previous one as, according to regulations, they could use the mark and privileges of their fathers.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... nr 13 nr 15 and nr 23 have only the Toledo town mark as their mark, this is probably a mistake ?...

Historians mention that some smiths opted by only using the Toledo mark ... just as others used their personal mark and not the Toledo contrast.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Well Fernando, for not being a fan of esotericism.......on the solution for the crowned '3' (as I was seeing it) actually being a calligraphically embellished 'Z' ( as Sir James Mann had specified, 1962)........as they would say here in Texas....'ya done good!!!

The 'Z' as a toponymic for Zaragossa, as noted a key location for these masters outside of Toledo seems very well placed.


With the fluer de lis, it seems that was mentioned in discussion on Juan Martinez as being one of the multiple devices on his blades, along with half moon and crowned T (from Valle and Marek). I believe it was Marek who regarded the fluer de lis as associated with Espadero del Rey as it was of course the roya symbol of the Bourbon family.


Jasper,
Thank you for the scans of the detail on Clemens Stam and the marks used by them in Toledo.
The one (I think it is for Stam) which is a kind of grated image......would that be a portcullis?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...calligraphically embellished 'Z' ( as Sir James Mann had specified, 1962)...

Is that so, Jim ... in what page ?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Is that so, Jim ... in what page ?

Well Fernando, I guess that comment was not entirely correct, as I was so preoccupied with congratulating your well placed and reasonably deduced 'approach' on the embellished 'Z' that I inadvertently linked Sir James Mann's mention of the 'figure' (not 'number') 3 and the letter 'Z'.
As always, I am so grateful for your gentle and courteous edification and catching my misteakes and reinforcing the integrity of the entries by doing so.

Actually, I had not added the page number as I was not quoting and thought I had added that page in earlier comments. In reviewing the pages from Sir James Mann ("Wallace Collection: European Arms & Armour" Vol. II, pp.281, referring to a rapier (A549) and the mark in discussion , "....the mark bears no resemblance to that ( the LETTER Z CROWNED of that of A611) generally attributed to Sebastian Hernandez the elder, who was still living in 1637".

Moving to A611 (Mann, op cit. p.309), Mann describes a rapier of c. 1580-1600, he notes, "....the ricasso stamped on one side with the FIGURE THREE crowned and surmounted by a cross".

Clearly even Sir James Mann, an arms researcher of most distinguished repute, had made misteakes.

Thank you for pointing out my error, and the opportunity to look further into the references from Sir James Mann which were importantly contradictory.

[fernando]

Jim, the only misteake you may have made was that of not passing me the:


.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

True in a way, Japer ... but i realize the majority of the smiths only used one mark, that of their personal seal; otherwise period chroniclars like Jehan Lhermite would have related such profusion. Instead, he only mentions as using various marks one or two smiths, the more profuse being Juan Martinez. But we also know that, those with more than one mark, often used secondary ones as either prestige symbols (Espadero del Rey), or decoration signs, that not their personal seals. Juan del Rey is also said to have used a 'few' marks but then again, the perrillo was more of a 'quality' contrast and apparently there is no record of what the others may have been. Curiously Lhermite doesn't mention this famous master, probably because he was still working in Zaragossa by the time the Flemish passed by Toledo, a vital detail not well distinguished by Palomares



As already approched and according to specialists in this subject, Palomares, a Toledan native, had a tendency to list smiths as having 'also' worked elsewhere, when in fact they 'first' worked elsewhere (their home towns) and only after went to Toledo.


Another of his imprecisions.


Yes, he saw the 5 punzones in the Toledo archives but never found out whom they belonged to. Eventually mark #95 contains a fleur-de-liz and could (could) well be, not a personal mark but, an additional contrast mark belonging to an Espadero del Rey.
Mark #99 could (could) be that from whom Lhermite calls Machin, who recorded that he used an aguililla (small eagle) as his mark.


This was in fact a current use in tat period, to distinguish each one of the family, as so often the son was given the name of his father ... and this from his grandfather.



They are quoted to have the 'same' mark as the previous one as, according to regulations, they could use the mark and privileges of their fathers.


Historians mention that some smiths opted by only using the Toledo mark ... just as others used their personal mark and not the Toledo contrast.


.

Hi Fernando,

thanks but of course there are many possible explanations, but I think the fact that Palomares created the document in 1762 is decisive.

So 150-200 years after the blacksmiths worked, there probably was not enough information available.

it seems that there has been a previous blacksmith register before palomares made by Rodriquez del Canto, el discipulo instruido.
have you maybe heard of that document.


best,
jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

.. it seems that there has been a previous blacksmith register before palomares made by Rodriquez del Canto, el discipulo instruido.
have you maybe heard of that document....

Yes i have Jasper ... and that has been already mentioned somewhere around here. Actually i thought i spotted his whole work in the Web but i now realize i was wrong. The thing is, del Canto manuscript, which apparently was never printed and edited, belonged to Count Valencia de Don Juan, by the time this noble published his work Catalogo Historico-Descritivo de la Real Armeria, in 1898. Apparently del Canto manuscript is a very exhaustive work, with numerous illustrations, mainly foccusing in the art of sword fencing and, for what matters, is 'only' 40 years earlier than that of Palomares. From the quotatins i have read so far, nothing indicates that his (possible) description of smiths marks tells us something new. I will keep digging into this. So far i enjoyed learning about Lhermite, who lived in the exact period and has resourced important material on more than 20 smiths, their marks and the type of blades they used to forge. This yes, must have a been a genuine work as, according to experts, the terminology he uses to describe their respective products should only be learnt through personal contact.
Attached a page of del Canto manuscript, where e compares the sizes of the different "instruments".


.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes i have Jasper ... and that has been already mentioned somewhere around here. Actually i thought i spotted his whole work in the Web but i now realize i was wrong. The thing is, del Canto manuscript, which apparently was never printed and edited, belonged to Count Valencia de Don Juan, by the time this noble published his work Catalogo Historico-Descritivo de la Real Armeria, in 1898. Apparently del Canto manuscript is a very exhaustive work, with numerous illustrations, mainly foccusing in the art of sword fencing and, for what matters, is 'only' 40 years earlier than that of Palomares. From the quotatins i have read so far, nothing indicates that his (possible) description of smiths marks tells us something new. I will keep digging into this. So far i enjoyed learning about Lhermite, who lived in the exact period and has resourced important material on more than 20 smiths, their marks and the type of blades they used to forge. This yes, must have a been a genuine work as, according to experts, the terminology he uses to describe their respective products should only be learnt through personal contact.
Attached a page of del Canto manuscript, where e compares the sizes of the different "instruments".


.

Hi Fernando,

very interesting! do you know where can I find the literature of Lhermite?

thanks+regards,

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Hi Fernando,

very interesting! do you know where can I find the literature of Lhermite?

thanks+regards,

The whole of his (french written) work was published in two volumes and both (PDF) are too heavy to upload here.
However the part related with the Toledo sword smiths is written in spanish, in volume 2, pages 293-298, which i have extracted and posted in the other thread ... and upload here again.

MVG


.