![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 508
|
![]()
Point taken guys but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well. I was simply curious as to whom he refers. It is a pretty small world. I'm not here for the politics.
That opinion aside, here are some resized images. All fittings are ferrous and imo, steel or iron. The plates do appear cast but I believe I may have mentioned cast steel was coming into vogue by the mid 17th century. I do not think the plates were cast together with the body of the roped guard but joined hot. I have done my best to show sections that were assembled. I have scrubbed a section of the blade and will be taking off the grunge/varnish, whatever that top coat is. You can somewhat see it had been sharp and then somewhat bated at some point. If I return with after photos, that will reinforce my take on a shortened or re-purposed blade. I could guess it might have been from an older broken estoc or rapier but that is just speculation. As this venue is not an exclusive inquiry and presentation of this piece, I can hope that if I happen to cross post a name or few that some can understand it is, collectively, a pretty small world and we all should be able to discuss a given object. I'm done for now. Cheers GC Three more in the next post |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 508
|
![]()
That's it for now. Have a great day.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]()
I agree, it seems that common sense and courtesy would dictate certain matters and wording. While personally I have felt this sword is more likely an authentically intended weapon for actual wear and as much as with most weapons, possible use, my initial reaction was that it was a 'decorative' Victorian item.
An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse. More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details. As I said, my initial reaction was it was probably decorative Victorian, but seeing more detail, examination, discussion as better photos, I am inclined more toward Glen's views. It is amazing what sound discussion, supported observations and helpful evidence can give us in these kinds of exercises! PS,I really like this sword !! especially seeing your excellent detailed photos! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
... As if you were an actual moderator ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]() Quote:
Thanks Fernando, just expressing opinion, not direction. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 256
|
![]() Quote:
Bad form folks. My god, lighten up. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 508
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]()
Ed, very sorry, I think my perspective was in retrospect out of line. My objective was to have more information on what details brought the 'decorator' designation so as to better understand what to look for. Actually, the identity of the guy is irrelevant so I should have ignored that.
My regrets to you and Glen, it was not my intent to cause this. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|