Transitional, Victorian, Other?

fernando · 18th October 2019, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotspur

... but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well...

Indeed.

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2019, 08:08 PM

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!

fernando · 18th October 2019, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... 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 ...

Impactive paragraphs, Jim ...
... As if you were an actual moderator

.

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2019, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Impactive paragraphs, Jim ...
... As if you were an actual moderator

.

Thanks Fernando, just expressing opinion, not direction.

Ed · 19th October 2019, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Jesus Christ Jim. Please give me a little credit. With the photos the person has as much information as anyone here. If he had an opinion he would have provided a rationale which I would have shared. You don't care, great but it comes across like .. I don't know, jumping on me before anything actually happened.

Bad form folks.

My god, lighten up.

Hotspur · 19th October 2019, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Jesus Christ Jim. Please give me a little credit. With the photos the person has as much information as anyone here. If he had an opinion he would have provided a rationale which I would have shared. You don't care, great but it comes across like .. I don't know, jumping on me before anything actually happened.

Bad form folks.

My god, lighten up.

Pm sent

Jim McDougall · 19th October 2019, 04:07 AM

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.

midelburgo · 21st October 2019, 11:20 AM

I remember I read some 12 years ago:

GOGAN, Art. Fighting Iron. A metals Handbook for Arms Collectors. Lincoln 1999, Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0 917218 86 8.

SMITH, Cyril Stanley. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cambridge/ London 1988, The MIT Press. ISBN 0 262 69120 5.

And there was no cast steel used in weaponry before middle XVIIIth century. Cast iron was used in guns and cannonballs, but it was unreliable in this task until 1620s, and not used in swords. Too brittle.

Are you sure the piece is cast and not just carved and welded?
Now, my memory is worse by the day, so I could be remembering corrupted data.

I got myself entangled in a Victorian cast iron rapier hilt not long ago...

Hotspur · 23rd October 2019, 07:09 AM

In receiving the piece and my following replies, I did see that some parts were certainly not cast. However if you look at the first set of photos regarding the plates, the face of it and openings sure do look cast to me and not cast iron (as we think of cast iron.

Bear with me as I have read differently and in regard to sword fittings. The following 17th century "chiseled" fittings, certainly beginning with castings. I will endeavor to dig up what I had read to confirm that. Cast steel for blade work, yes well noted and developed for cutlery in England. Then you have crucible steel (cast steel/wootz/bulat) going back many centuries.

fwiw, those images in my files and reworked regarding exactly the same topic in 2008 re cast steel objects The supporting text escapes me at the moment

Cheers
GC

23rd October 2019, 07:09 AM	#9
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	In receiving the piece and my following replies, I did see that some parts were certainly not cast. However if you look at the first set of photos regarding the plates, the face of it and openings sure do look cast to me and not cast iron (as we think of cast iron. Bear with me as I have read differently and in regard to sword fittings. The following 17th century "chiseled" fittings, certainly beginning with castings. I will endeavor to dig up what I had read to confirm that. Cast steel for blade work, yes well noted and developed for cutlery in England. Then you have crucible steel (cast steel/wootz/bulat) going back many centuries. fwiw, those images in my files and reworked regarding exactly the same topic in 2008 re cast steel objects The supporting text escapes me at the moment Cheers GC Attached Images Last edited by Hotspur; 23rd October 2019 at 05:26 PM.

18th October 2019, 08:08 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	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!

19th October 2019, 04:07 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	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.

21st October 2019, 11:20 AM	#8
midelburgo Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 263	I remember I read some 12 years ago: GOGAN, Art. Fighting Iron. A metals Handbook for Arms Collectors. Lincoln 1999, Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0 917218 86 8. SMITH, Cyril Stanley. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cambridge/ London 1988, The MIT Press. ISBN 0 262 69120 5. And there was no cast steel used in weaponry before middle XVIIIth century. Cast iron was used in guns and cannonballs, but it was unreliable in this task until 1620s, and not used in swords. Too brittle. Are you sure the piece is cast and not just carved and welded? Now, my memory is worse by the day, so I could be remembering corrupted data. I got myself entangled in a Victorian cast iron rapier hilt not long ago...