Hi Spiral
Let's keep sporty.
I see no point in getting off topic, like bringing Queens and ransackings to discussion, on a hill-feeling basis.
Is there something you didn't bear in my posting, that i must apologize for?
Shouldn't we stick back to coherency in the area of arms collecting and its immediate supporting argumentation, with more or less humor?
I already said i wouldn't subscribe the 500 000 pieces, as being either an implausible aproach or even a misprint. As i already transmitted in a previous posting to Emanuel, i have passed the link for purposes other than for picking on that number and give it such an importance. Besides, i have read the article a couple years ago and didn't even remember about such figure ... as not even a point worth for questioning. My attention went more for the rare weapons the guy has, that i would like to have myself.
I already posted here links with more than twenty of his books that remain on market on line. It is not so dificult to admit he has writen sixty in his all life.
Enhancing knowledge and "inventing" variations are implicitly inaccurate situations, at least in academic terms. Nobody said the contrary.
It is true that nothing is left from Portuguese colonianism ... which makes me proud. We were forced to leave the colonies ... don't you know other nations that were also forced to do it, sometimes by the might of one only man? But honestly i don't know what this has to do with old weapons collecting , or how it belongs to topic, even as a side efect.
Indeed Catarina de Bragança married Charles II in the XVII century. Some bad tongues say she was so ugly that she had to carry a great dowry for the Brit King to accept her. Some others say that such story was invented by the King's staff, to cover up his ineptitude at picking such an horrendous creature. But if you are one of those traditional tea drinkers, remember that was she who implemented such beverage costum in England. However i hardly see Dona Catarina as a weapons collector ... i don't know about Charles II.
Sometimes natives also had guns and cannons, only that Europeans had them or handled them better. But nobody does o.k. by ransaking anybody else. I don't see your point.
The mentioning of looking to several pieces in a row was naturally another figure of speech. Just a rebating to your keen intention of numbering the necessary years to look at the 500 000 pieces. I see you didn't catch my intent.
I wouldn't know what you mean by India only having 29 Kings in whatever period. What i have learnt and said in my posting was that Industani India had 64 Kings between XVI-XVIII centuries. Are you referring to this?
I told you i was expecting to see naked rivets in Tirris tulwars, like i see in many other swords i have, as also in the tulwar example i personnaly saw, and not surrounded by decoration efects. I have admited my lack of
knowledge? Why are you coming back to this subject?
I didn't say you made up the 500 000 figure, nor did it occur to me who might have told you that. And neither did you mention in the first place where you got it. But i immediately told you that whatever was the source, couldn't controll decimals ( another figure of speech). However and if you think it is worth, you are naturally free to discuss this point with Antonio Cejunior. It is a public link, and maybe he has an explanation for that figure.
I was the first to tell that the book author is not concerned over our poor profile discussions.
He is not my favourite dealer. He is the only actual antique arms seller established in the country. There is another one in Oporto but is only a
small shop, with a reduced number of pieces, together with other non relative curious.
Also Mr. Daehnhardt isn't my favourite author. I actually don't share his horizons, outside the strict weaponry matter. It just happens that he is practically the only guy around that wrote more than just a single or a couple books on old arms. I buy what shows up in the market on the theme. All i seek in his works is the pieces pictures, their detail info and historical data. Same as when i go to his shop/s and i buy ( or don't buy ) some item, and he prompts to freely lecture me on items that i brought along for his apreciation.
I think i have been clear on this subject.
But what theories am i proposing ? I have simply quoted a book, in response to a coment made by David, and you started spitefully hammering me like you had some kind of prejudice?!
You don't agree with the man's statement that in the XVI century, tulwars were stored separated from handles ? No problem, i make a note of that and, next time i visit him, i will find an oportunity to tell him that ... honestly.
Probably he will come up with some kind of justification.
I hope not to have tease you with my wording, by any means. If so, accept my apologies. But please be so gentle and don't look to tease me back. You are in clear advantage, as english is you mother language.
Keep well
fernando
|