Looking for information on Andres Martinez of Toledo

Jim McDougall · 20th April 2023, 10:38 PM

Thank you Keith!

Always interested in Spanish swords, I could not resist tearing into very old files, and while not directly answering the questions in the OP (orig post) I found this material possibly salient in context.

from : "Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, June 21,1900"
Vol XVIII, pp.206-215, by Baron Charles A. DeCosson.

DeCosson was one of the luminaries of early 20th century arms & armor study.

Discussing a sword with mock Arabic inscription and arms and badges of the Catholic Kings, with the inscription in the grooves,
PEDRO GARETA ME FECIT
"...when Count Valencia de Don Juan , our honorary fellow and director of the Madrid Armoury, examined this sword with me, he expressed the opinion that this blade was not of Toledan make and thought it might be German. It certainly has not the peculiar character of true Toledo blades, which to those well acquainted with them is unmistakeable. Besides which the name on it is not correctly spelt.
Rodriguez del Canto, fencing master of Madrid, in an unedited manuscript written in 1734, and entitled 'El Discipulo Instruido' gives a list of all the most celebrated blade smiths of Toledo with their marks. His list differs somewhat from that of Palomares so well known through having been printed in the catalog of the Armeria Real in 1849.
In R.del Cantos list we find a pedro de Garatea, who is no doubt the same master who is called Pedro de Lagaratea by Palomares. No blade signed in either of these ways is at present known. But his blades must have been famous to be imitated with the incorrect for Gareta.

From a careful examination of this blade and the similar one in my own sword, I think it is probable that they are both Italian, as are many professing to be of Toledan manufacture, notably all those inscribed Monte en Toledo which are imitations of those made by the Toledan master Belmonte or Velmonte. "

In an article by Abraham Lopez, "Alonso Perez, Sword Maker of Toledo'
it notes that Perez was one of the most prestigious artisans of late 16th c and worked as an officer in Toledo at shop of famed master Gil de Almau.

An important rapier was found on the well known shipwreck of the Nuestra Senora de Atocha (1622) off Florida. It was of course heavily encrusted but it was determined to be of Italian style, but with Toledo blade as commonly seen in Spain.

Attached is page showing the 'anchor' mark apparently associated with Perez and as seen on the blade of the sword here in OP.

10thRoyal · 22nd April 2023, 12:23 AM

Looks like who he was may remain a mystery, but his lineage is honestly less important to me than knowing he was a swordsmith who exist in that period. Whether he was actually even from Toledo sounds like a completely different can of worms! I'll be hanging on to this piece for a good long while as it's my first "real" sword I've purchased so there will be plenty of time for new info to appear. Once again thank all of you for your willingness to share information.

fernando · 22nd April 2023, 05:41 PM

This issue over (right or wrong) marriage of hilts to blades is in itself a vast subject, covering different angles. We know that a determined sword smith is generally known to be the one that forges the blade, and that's when the riddle starts. If in the one hand a (Toledan) smith had to pass an exam under the Guild inspection, where he had to show to be able to perform a few works relative to swords repairs, polishing, scabbards, grips, etc, for he had to pay twelve reales to contribute for the feast of Santiago and one hundred mararavedis in case he achieved his professional credentials. (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz). This does not prevent that countless blades were forged and forwarded to specialists for the execution of other periphals for embelishment or in raw for exports; or obviously for replacements, both because the origialns were worn or the customer wanted something personalized.
Going back to our misterious Andres Martinez, once more we may witness the frustration of his 'anonymity', when not finding his name in the work of Don Enrique de Leguina (1897) among a zillion Martinez and their derivates.

.

Jim McDougall · 22nd April 2023, 07:05 PM

Thank you very much Fernando, as always very well explained and of course we are as always in accord.
As I noted in the excerpt from DeCosson (1900) the Madrid fencing master Rodriguez del Canto attempted a record of notable Toledo masters in 1734, which apparently had certain differences which were often incongruent with those compiled by Palomares in 1849.

Clearly these variations and omissions occur in the work of Don Enrique Leguina in 1897 in degree.

It seems well known that along with misspellings, the writing of names using various dialectic or liguistic conventions, especially in the well known spurious application which plagued the control of makers, punzones etc. is the very bane of scholars trying to identify blades.

This of course accounts for the apparent immortality of such makers as Tomas Aiala of Toledo and others whose name appears on blades many generations after their demise. The Andrea Ferara mystery is of course one of the most notorious of these dilemmas.

It seems most likely the name on this blade is one of these 'commemorative' applications inferring the renowned quality of Toledo blades, and possibly using an 'adjusted' name of a famed family to avoid being lumped into the commonly known names so typically used. This of course would add the imbuing of authenticity.

I have an early 17th c. blade marked to Wirsberg (Solingen) and inscribed in majescule letters SEBASTIAN, which would allude probably to Toledo maker Sebastian Hernandez, or perhaps not. If to a German maker, why not the entire name? Whatever the case, the implication is there, and perhaps in the same manner as this inscription with name that defies known registers.

10th, it is important to remember, that as Fernando has noted, these swords were not only mounted with blades imported from various sources, but also repaired using other batches of imported blades. In the Spanish colonies in America, boxes of rapier and dragoon blades have been found en masse in New Orleans and others. On one shipwreck off Panama, there were many boxes of blades only, most rapier using spurious inscriptions and Toledo marks. as the wreck(s) can be dated to 1690, we can see the period of the blades.

So what you have is an intriguing rapier with unusually large hilt, as was often the case having hilts tailored to the prospective owner, and in the fashion preferred locally or by period. It is mounted with what is most probably a blade using a spurious signature and could be from Germany in any number of shops, or possibly Italy. These were the most likely centers and remember that by the 1690s Toledo was literally defunct so only its reputation remained intact, still being used with the names of its former masters, which were often misspelled or improperly used.

The occurrence of the 'anchor' as used by Alonso Perez (found on the 1622 shipwreck) of course supports the theory of the spurious use applied to this blade. Often blades from Solingen had spurious names added along with Toledo markings which were not aligned with the names used.

10thRoyal · 23rd April 2023, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

This issue over (right or wrong) marriage of hilts to blades is in itself a vast subject, covering different angles. We know that a determined sword smith is generally known to be the one that forges the blade, and that's when the riddle starts. If in the one hand a (Toledan) smith had to pass an exam under the Guild inspection, where he had to show to be able to perform a few works relative to swords repairs, polishing, scabbards, grips, etc, for he had to pay twelve reales to contribute for the feast of Santiago and one hundred mararavedis in case he achieved his professional credentials. (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz). This does not prevent that countless blades were forged and forwarded to specialists for the execution of other periphals for embelishment or in raw for exports; or obviously for replacements, both because the origialns were worn or the customer wanted something personalized.
Going back to our misterious Andres Martinez, once more we may witness the frustration of his 'anonymity', when not finding his name in the work of Don Enrique de Leguina (1897) among a zillion Martinez and their derivates.

.

Good evening Fernando, I may have misunderstood your message (and if I did I apologize) but it looks like there is an Andres Martinez listen in the text you cited. To your point there are literally so many Martinezes that the name is hard to locate

. Though I've accepted that this is likely the 17th century version of a high quality counterfeit Rolex except its a German sword trying to pass for Spanish.

fernando · 23rd April 2023, 09:47 AM

My bad. It took me so long to extract the pages with the Martinez listings from his PDF book that i missed the Andrés one ... precisely written in the same manner as in Palomares nomina.
As for your sword being a 'fake Rolex', i will leave such assessment to others. I wouldn't mind to have it myself

.

20th April 2023, 10:38 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Thank you Keith! Always interested in Spanish swords, I could not resist tearing into very old files, and while not directly answering the questions in the OP (orig post) I found this material possibly salient in context. from : "Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, June 21,1900" Vol XVIII, pp.206-215, by Baron Charles A. DeCosson. DeCosson was one of the luminaries of early 20th century arms & armor study. Discussing a sword with mock Arabic inscription and arms and badges of the Catholic Kings, with the inscription in the grooves, PEDRO GARETA ME FECIT "...when Count Valencia de Don Juan , our honorary fellow and director of the Madrid Armoury, examined this sword with me, he expressed the opinion that this blade was not of Toledan make and thought it might be German. It certainly has not the peculiar character of true Toledo blades, which to those well acquainted with them is unmistakeable. Besides which the name on it is not correctly spelt. Rodriguez del Canto, fencing master of Madrid, in an unedited manuscript written in 1734, and entitled 'El Discipulo Instruido' gives a list of all the most celebrated blade smiths of Toledo with their marks. His list differs somewhat from that of Palomares so well known through having been printed in the catalog of the Armeria Real in 1849. In R.del Cantos list we find a pedro de Garatea, who is no doubt the same master who is called Pedro de Lagaratea by Palomares. No blade signed in either of these ways is at present known. But his blades must have been famous to be imitated with the incorrect for Gareta. From a careful examination of this blade and the similar one in my own sword, I think it is probable that they are both Italian, as are many professing to be of Toledan manufacture, notably all those inscribed Monte en Toledo which are imitations of those made by the Toledan master Belmonte or Velmonte. " In an article by Abraham Lopez, "Alonso Perez, Sword Maker of Toledo' it notes that Perez was one of the most prestigious artisans of late 16th c and worked as an officer in Toledo at shop of famed master Gil de Almau. An important rapier was found on the well known shipwreck of the Nuestra Senora de Atocha (1622) off Florida. It was of course heavily encrusted but it was determined to be of Italian style, but with Toledo blade as commonly seen in Spain. Attached is page showing the 'anchor' mark apparently associated with Perez and as seen on the blade of the sword here in OP. Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 21st April 2023 at 07:12 PM.

22nd April 2023, 05:41 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	This issue over (right or wrong) marriage of hilts to blades is in itself a vast subject, covering different angles. We know that a determined sword smith is generally known to be the one that forges the blade, and that's when the riddle starts. If in the one hand a (Toledan) smith had to pass an exam under the Guild inspection, where he had to show to be able to perform a few works relative to swords repairs, polishing, scabbards, grips, etc, for he had to pay twelve reales to contribute for the feast of Santiago and one hundred mararavedis in case he achieved his professional credentials. (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz). This does not prevent that countless blades were forged and forwarded to specialists for the execution of other periphals for embelishment or in raw for exports; or obviously for replacements, both because the origialns were worn or the customer wanted something personalized. Going back to our misterious Andres Martinez, once more we may witness the frustration of his 'anonymity', when not finding his name in the work of Don Enrique de Leguina (1897) among a zillion Martinez and their derivates. . Attached Images

22nd April 2023, 12:23 AM	#2
10thRoyal Member Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 82	Looks like who he was may remain a mystery, but his lineage is honestly less important to me than knowing he was a swordsmith who exist in that period. Whether he was actually even from Toledo sounds like a completely different can of worms! I'll be hanging on to this piece for a good long while as it's my first "real" sword I've purchased so there will be plenty of time for new info to appear. Once again thank all of you for your willingness to share information.

22nd April 2023, 07:05 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Thank you very much Fernando, as always very well explained and of course we are as always in accord. As I noted in the excerpt from DeCosson (1900) the Madrid fencing master Rodriguez del Canto attempted a record of notable Toledo masters in 1734, which apparently had certain differences which were often incongruent with those compiled by Palomares in 1849. Clearly these variations and omissions occur in the work of Don Enrique Leguina in 1897 in degree. It seems well known that along with misspellings, the writing of names using various dialectic or liguistic conventions, especially in the well known spurious application which plagued the control of makers, punzones etc. is the very bane of scholars trying to identify blades. This of course accounts for the apparent immortality of such makers as Tomas Aiala of Toledo and others whose name appears on blades many generations after their demise. The Andrea Ferara mystery is of course one of the most notorious of these dilemmas. It seems most likely the name on this blade is one of these 'commemorative' applications inferring the renowned quality of Toledo blades, and possibly using an 'adjusted' name of a famed family to avoid being lumped into the commonly known names so typically used. This of course would add the imbuing of authenticity. I have an early 17th c. blade marked to Wirsberg (Solingen) and inscribed in majescule letters SEBASTIAN, which would allude probably to Toledo maker Sebastian Hernandez, or perhaps not. If to a German maker, why not the entire name? Whatever the case, the implication is there, and perhaps in the same manner as this inscription with name that defies known registers. 10th, it is important to remember, that as Fernando has noted, these swords were not only mounted with blades imported from various sources, but also repaired using other batches of imported blades. In the Spanish colonies in America, boxes of rapier and dragoon blades have been found en masse in New Orleans and others. On one shipwreck off Panama, there were many boxes of blades only, most rapier using spurious inscriptions and Toledo marks. as the wreck(s) can be dated to 1690, we can see the period of the blades. So what you have is an intriguing rapier with unusually large hilt, as was often the case having hilts tailored to the prospective owner, and in the fashion preferred locally or by period. It is mounted with what is most probably a blade using a spurious signature and could be from Germany in any number of shops, or possibly Italy. These were the most likely centers and remember that by the 1690s Toledo was literally defunct so only its reputation remained intact, still being used with the names of its former masters, which were often misspelled or improperly used. The occurrence of the 'anchor' as used by Alonso Perez (found on the 1622 shipwreck) of course supports the theory of the spurious use applied to this blade. Often blades from Solingen had spurious names added along with Toledo markings which were not aligned with the names used.

23rd April 2023, 09:47 AM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	My bad. It took me so long to extract the pages with the Martinez listings from his PDF book that i missed the Andrés one ... precisely written in the same manner as in Palomares nomina. As for your sword being a 'fake Rolex', i will leave such assessment to others. I wouldn't mind to have it myself .