Heavy Sword 1602 for discussion

Jim McDougall · 14th October 2015, 06:42 AM

Thanks very much Fernando for the additional information on some of these disparities in some of the references. Like you, I claim no particular expertise in these matters, but wanted to point these out so as to be noted by readers and others who might join in here. The marks imaged by Gyngell are of course correct, but the 1516 date seems clearly to predate the biographical data on the Munsten's. You are correct in that the misprint is irrelevant so perhaps should have been omitted.

However, I think you have revealed that your familiarity with these references is well versed, and the notes you provide from Boeheim et al give us better perspective concerning these issues. I had not consulted, nor included the Boeheim material, which is indeed pertinent.

It is always good to have additional views on the complexities in things like markings as there are often sources which have not been brought into the discussion, and as you well note, authors and scholars typically have quite different views.

I had noted in my post that the issue on the Peter Munsten who had gone to London was moot as far as this example, but brought it up as a factor in the spectrum of this family of swordsmiths. Clearly the sword in discussion is of German form and believed earlier than Hounslow, so would not have been made by this individual in England.

Ulfberht, thank you for your kind comments, and I agree, it is very difficult to determine further on this weapon from the images, and I look forward to more from others.

fernando · 14th October 2015, 12:37 PM

Thank you Jim,
It was only my intention to give an idea of whom Peter Munster was, supported by his recorded whereabouts, but by no means pretending that this blade was made in London, as even its inscription clearly reads made in Soligen.
... Which inscription in any case seems to have an odd configuration, with the 'me fecit' before the smith's name, the unusual mispells, like Salingen (?) the date inserted in that niche with a so reduced font and all.
I will see to it that the date in the Gyngell image is deleted, so that will not misguide readers .
It would indeed need better pictures for knowledged members have a go at it.
By the way Andreas, it appears that the sword is not yet in your possession, neither is yet yours; am i wrong ?

AHorsa · 14th October 2015, 01:53 PM

Thanks for the further comments. I am still waiting for some more pictures.
Fernando, you are right. It´s not in my possession. But I got the permission from the owner to post it here for discussion.

Cheers
Andreas

14th October 2015, 06:42 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Thanks very much Fernando for the additional information on some of these disparities in some of the references. Like you, I claim no particular expertise in these matters, but wanted to point these out so as to be noted by readers and others who might join in here. The marks imaged by Gyngell are of course correct, but the 1516 date seems clearly to predate the biographical data on the Munsten's. You are correct in that the misprint is irrelevant so perhaps should have been omitted. However, I think you have revealed that your familiarity with these references is well versed, and the notes you provide from Boeheim et al give us better perspective concerning these issues. I had not consulted, nor included the Boeheim material, which is indeed pertinent. It is always good to have additional views on the complexities in things like markings as there are often sources which have not been brought into the discussion, and as you well note, authors and scholars typically have quite different views. I had noted in my post that the issue on the Peter Munsten who had gone to London was moot as far as this example, but brought it up as a factor in the spectrum of this family of swordsmiths. Clearly the sword in discussion is of German form and believed earlier than Hounslow, so would not have been made by this individual in England. Ulfberht, thank you for your kind comments, and I agree, it is very difficult to determine further on this weapon from the images, and I look forward to more from others.

14th October 2015, 12:37 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thank you Jim, It was only my intention to give an idea of whom Peter Munster was, supported by his recorded whereabouts, but by no means pretending that this blade was made in London, as even its inscription clearly reads made in Soligen. ... Which inscription in any case seems to have an odd configuration, with the 'me fecit' before the smith's name, the unusual mispells, like Salingen (?) the date inserted in that niche with a so reduced font and all. I will see to it that the date in the Gyngell image is deleted, so that will not misguide readers . It would indeed need better pictures for knowledged members have a go at it. By the way Andreas, it appears that the sword is not yet in your possession, neither is yet yours; am i wrong ?

14th October 2015, 01:53 PM	#3
AHorsa Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Rhineland Posts: 375	Thanks for the further comments. I am still waiting for some more pictures. Fernando, you are right. It´s not in my possession. But I got the permission from the owner to post it here for discussion. Cheers Andreas