What can you tell me about this sword?

Tim Simmons · 20th November 2006, 08:21 AM

I still have doubts of the Jacobean designation here. Look how clean the forte section of this blade is. The only corrosion is at the blade tip. To me there seems quite a contrast with the hilt. Compere with the blade and hilt match with this one.
http://www.trocadero.com/faganarms/i...tem424534.html

fernando · 20th November 2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Look how clean the forte section of this blade is. The only corrosion is at the blade tip. To me there seems quite a contrast with the hilt.

This may be silly, but it could be that the blade area susceptible to have markings was cleaned, in later times, to provide for a clearer examination of all the symbols ?!
The riveting of the tang looks coherent with the pommel, in age.
fernando

Tim Simmons · 20th November 2006, 08:47 PM

That is ture the riviting does look old. I cannot put my finger on it but the whole forte section and the fullers just do not look 18th century to me. You have to admit that the basket has unmatched corrosion. Scots things and a Jacobite artistic revival was very popular at the end of the 19th century in the UK because of Queen Victorias love of Scotland. I may well be wrong but that basket is at odds with the blade to me.

Jim McDougall · 21st November 2006, 12:39 AM

Hi Tim,
It is good to be cautious in assessments of weapons from photographs, but such caution should extend as well to sales catalogs. I have closely examined a number of Scottish baskethilts with identical fullering and markings which are clearly from the second half of 17th century. The deteroration of the hilt is also consistant with these hilts of that period, and the sword here appears homogenous. It would seem rather odd to remount this blade on an aged and worn hilt, despite the heritage, especially as well made interpretations of Scottish basket hilts were being made during the Victorian period honoring that heritage.

Fernando has a good suggestion concerning the cleaning of the blade, and very well placed. It seems that the blade tip often is subject to more rapid corrosion as it is one of the thinnest areas of the blade.

Best regards,
Jim

RSWORD · 21st November 2006, 03:21 AM

I would offer a few possibities as to the difference in patina between hilt and blade. Perhaps there was a surviving scabbard for a good part of the blades life that protected much of the blade. The hilt would have remained unprotected while the blade better protected. A broken tip of the scabbard could have allowed more exposure to the blade tip than the balance of the blade. Also, another factor, is maintenance probably would have been more often for the blade than the hilt. I doubt the hilt was ever oiled or wiped down while I am sure the blade was. Another factor is that the blade and hilt are of different steel. I am sure a well forged Soligen blade of good steel would corrode at a different rate than the iron/steel that the hilt was made of which is probably a bit more crude than the blade. All of these factors would play into the hilt being more corroded than the blade over a period of a few hundred years.

Jim McDougall · 21st November 2006, 03:33 AM

Excellent observations Rick!!! I agree 100%

Hadn't thought of the scabbard possibility. The hilts on these were typically painted black (japanned) to protect the iron from rusting in the damp climate, and as this deteriorated and flaked off, they were open to rust.In examining many of these, you can still see traces of the black paint amidst the rust.

Best regards,
Jim

Tim Simmons · 21st November 2006, 08:19 AM

Oh okay then

!!!!

Good point about maybe having a scabbard for a long time. When as we often do see phooey stuff it is always like this so one gets a little careful. Once bitten------

20th November 2006, 08:21 AM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,925	I still have doubts of the Jacobean designation here. Look how clean the forte section of this blade is. The only corrosion is at the blade tip. To me there seems quite a contrast with the hilt. Compere with the blade and hilt match with this one. http://www.trocadero.com/faganarms/i...tem424534.html Last edited by Tim Simmons; 20th November 2006 at 11:30 AM. Reason: adding info

20th November 2006, 08:47 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,925	That is ture the riviting does look old. I cannot put my finger on it but the whole forte section and the fullers just do not look 18th century to me. You have to admit that the basket has unmatched corrosion. Scots things and a Jacobite artistic revival was very popular at the end of the 19th century in the UK because of Queen Victorias love of Scotland. I may well be wrong but that basket is at odds with the blade to me. Last edited by Tim Simmons; 20th November 2006 at 09:16 PM. Reason: spelling

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

21st November 2006, 12:39 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Hi Tim, It is good to be cautious in assessments of weapons from photographs, but such caution should extend as well to sales catalogs. I have closely examined a number of Scottish baskethilts with identical fullering and markings which are clearly from the second half of 17th century. The deteroration of the hilt is also consistant with these hilts of that period, and the sword here appears homogenous. It would seem rather odd to remount this blade on an aged and worn hilt, despite the heritage, especially as well made interpretations of Scottish basket hilts were being made during the Victorian period honoring that heritage. Fernando has a good suggestion concerning the cleaning of the blade, and very well placed. It seems that the blade tip often is subject to more rapid corrosion as it is one of the thinnest areas of the blade. Best regards, Jim

21st November 2006, 03:21 AM	#5
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,093	I would offer a few possibities as to the difference in patina between hilt and blade. Perhaps there was a surviving scabbard for a good part of the blades life that protected much of the blade. The hilt would have remained unprotected while the blade better protected. A broken tip of the scabbard could have allowed more exposure to the blade tip than the balance of the blade. Also, another factor, is maintenance probably would have been more often for the blade than the hilt. I doubt the hilt was ever oiled or wiped down while I am sure the blade was. Another factor is that the blade and hilt are of different steel. I am sure a well forged Soligen blade of good steel would corrode at a different rate than the iron/steel that the hilt was made of which is probably a bit more crude than the blade. All of these factors would play into the hilt being more corroded than the blade over a period of a few hundred years.

21st November 2006, 03:33 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Excellent observations Rick!!! I agree 100% Hadn't thought of the scabbard possibility. The hilts on these were typically painted black (japanned) to protect the iron from rusting in the damp climate, and as this deteriorated and flaked off, they were open to rust.In examining many of these, you can still see traces of the black paint amidst the rust. Best regards, Jim

21st November 2006, 08:19 AM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,925	Oh okay then !!!! Good point about maybe having a scabbard for a long time. When as we often do see phooey stuff it is always like this so one gets a little careful. Once bitten------