Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Cuirassier · 28th July 2011, 09:47 AM

Thanks for the replies.

Sorry, I do not believe this is an 19th Century Prussian blade, at all, 100% not.

I may not have an 1100 / 1200 Crusader blade, but I absolutely do not have a 19th Century Prussian blade either; the later I can speak with some level of knowledge.

Why would a 19C Prussian blade maker;
a) Traditionally hand forge a blade in the old European style / methods?
b) Copy a bulbous blade from hundreds of years before? Remember, the blade in mine and other similar kaskaras do not have an essential facet of European blades post, what, 17th Century; a forte.
c) Risk being the laughing stock of Prussia / Solingen; the centre of the sword making industry in Europe?

Conjecture.
Someone in the Sudan lands copied the mayfly trademark of Peter Kull, the orb of various earlier European swords, then added their own lion. Then, one day, a sword expert came along and found a few of these blades. "Ah, the mark of Peter Kull. So these other markings must be his too.". I notice I believe that these various marks are stated as being "attributed with" or "connected to" Kull, not known 100% marks of his? Nor would they be in 19th Century Solingen. Prussian makers made fine etched blades, not iron rich traditionally forged lumps with such basic maker marks (mayfly) stamped into them. Prussian blade makers were very proud; this is NOT a 19th Century Prussian blade.

I am not trying to convince myself I have the legend (a Crusader's blade). It most likely is a locally made blade IMHO. The trouble is, if I get the blade carbon dated, I may well get a 19th Century result that some would argue means the blade was made by Kull of Solingen. But, the more I look at the blade, the more I say to myself "If a Solingen maker produced this blade in the mid-19th Century, he would be derided everywhere you look."

Edster
The grip etc. is weird. I think the pommel nut is perhaps copper alloy because a) the coloration and b) the blue oxidation present. I have seen these pommel nuts before from the side (did not look nor see passant lions on the top) but can not remember where - they are quite common I think with these strange ridge protrusions.

The grip / hilt assembly is odd but very, very strong, and I believe period (late 19th Century / early 20th) because of the pommel nut. Why would anyone regrip the sword this way retaining the pommel nut? I mean, if it is one of these rastifications people talk about, where katana blades have been "restored" to crusader period mounts, they would not have kept the pommel nut. Kaskara hilts have a tendency to be frail right? This one is not for sure.

28th July 2011, 09:47 AM	#19
Cuirassier Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 5	Sorry, I do not believe this is an 18th Century Prussian blade Thanks for the replies. Sorry, I do not believe this is an 19th Century Prussian blade, at all, 100% not. I may not have an 1100 / 1200 Crusader blade, but I absolutely do not have a 19th Century Prussian blade either; the later I can speak with some level of knowledge. Why would a 19C Prussian blade maker; a) Traditionally hand forge a blade in the old European style / methods? b) Copy a bulbous blade from hundreds of years before? Remember, the blade in mine and other similar kaskaras do not have an essential facet of European blades post, what, 17th Century; a forte. c) Risk being the laughing stock of Prussia / Solingen; the centre of the sword making industry in Europe? Conjecture. Someone in the Sudan lands copied the mayfly trademark of Peter Kull, the orb of various earlier European swords, then added their own lion. Then, one day, a sword expert came along and found a few of these blades. "Ah, the mark of Peter Kull. So these other markings must be his too.". I notice I believe that these various marks are stated as being "attributed with" or "connected to" Kull, not known 100% marks of his? Nor would they be in 19th Century Solingen. Prussian makers made fine etched blades, not iron rich traditionally forged lumps with such basic maker marks (mayfly) stamped into them. Prussian blade makers were very proud; this is NOT a 19th Century Prussian blade. I am not trying to convince myself I have the legend (a Crusader's blade). It most likely is a locally made blade IMHO. The trouble is, if I get the blade carbon dated, I may well get a 19th Century result that some would argue means the blade was made by Kull of Solingen. But, the more I look at the blade, the more I say to myself "If a Solingen maker produced this blade in the mid-19th Century, he would be derided everywhere you look." Edster The grip etc. is weird. I think the pommel nut is perhaps copper alloy because a) the coloration and b) the blue oxidation present. I have seen these pommel nuts before from the side (did not look nor see passant lions on the top) but can not remember where - they are quite common I think with these strange ridge protrusions. The grip / hilt assembly is odd but very, very strong, and I believe period (late 19th Century / early 20th) because of the pommel nut. Why would anyone regrip the sword this way retaining the pommel nut? I mean, if it is one of these rastifications people talk about, where katana blades have been "restored" to crusader period mounts, they would not have kept the pommel nut. Kaskara hilts have a tendency to be frail right? This one is not for sure.