View Single Post
Old 13th October 2015, 03:35 AM   #6
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,800
Default

While I am hoping that Ulfberht and Jasper might comment on this as their exposure to these weapons is far greater than mine, I wanted to add what I can.
The blade is indeed somewhat disturbing as far as the curiously and dramatically reprofiled point, as if the blade had been cut down and the point added.
Also I would expect to see Turks heads on the wire wrapped grips rather than ferrules.

In checking the usual compendiums of markings, it seems the Munsten family had interesting complexities.
I would note that the markings Fernando shows in post #3 were puzzling to me (they are in Gyngell, 1959, which I always thought reliable) as the date 1516 is too early for the recorded Munstens. Andreis and his brother Peter were born in 1547 and 1552, respectively. Thus the Gyngell date is far too early and the head mark seems more attributed to Andres than his brother Peter.

While Andres went to Toledo in 1587, Peter remained in Solingen where he died in 1628. His son Peter (the younger) lived 1580-1629.

Though a Peter Munsten is supposed to have gone to Hounslow, the name does not appear in the records of the makers there as far as I found. Also, the Hounslow factory began around 1620-34. But as this sword is presumed to be Solingen made, the point is moot.

As for this 'PETHER MUNSTEN' the only one I found using that spelling of Peter was 'the younger', His mark was the Virgin and child, and his stamped markings included xx IHN x SOLINGEN.
The 'Solingen' in all of the markings I located was always properly spelled without use of the majuscule 'A', though the 'V' in place of 'U' was used in the according words.

I am assuming the 'maures' heads intends to mean 'moors' heads or 'blackamoor', marking symbols which were only used by Andres, but not by the Peter's.

The placement of these stamped marks paired at the ricasso as what seems part of the profiling lines on the ricasso 'shoulders' seem unusual to me also.
The date '1602' seems incongruent with the rest of the lettering, as if placed as addition, but does correspond to the period for this maker.

While there are compelling aspects of this sword, these are the elements I find uncomfortable, and as noted, I look forward to observations from the others.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote