Transitional, Victorian, Other?

MitsuWa. · 14th October 2019, 02:30 AM

Your hilt, handle, pommel and guard appear to be a casting rather than individual components from what I can see in the photos. What construction detail were you trying to figure out?

Hotspur · 14th October 2019, 05:19 AM

I don't believe the ferrules are cast to the grip, nor the plates and annelets part of the grip casting, with the pommel and peen blocks separate as well.

At any rate, such castings coming in by the mid 17th century.

I don't have a "twin" to compare it to, hence my being unconvinced of just about anything right now. Once in hand, I can be more sure of how many pieces comprise the hilt.

Cheers
GC

fernando · 14th October 2019, 01:37 PM

Glen, you know i am not a connoisseur at all but, i dare say that, the emblem for Castile in its single form dates far back in time, later replaced by the 'composite' Leon y Castela coat of arms, more consonant in period with what should appear in this sword. Also i doubt that the Toledo smith mark suggested by Udo is the one in your blade.
So, without questioning the authenticity of your sword, i seem to question the originality of its marks ... unless they were a personalized feature.
But then again, don't pay much notice to my mumbo jumbo.

mariusgmioc · 14th October 2019, 03:41 PM

The mark is neither punched, nor engraved but crudely acid etched.

This makes me believe it is a 19th or even 20th century replica.

My two cents.

fernando · 14th October 2019, 03:59 PM

An approach to the smith's mark would perhaps be this one; Switz ... but from the 12th century !

.

Hotspur · 14th October 2019, 04:35 PM

Thanks guys.

Yes, even a very modern replica is certainly a possibility. As to an acid mark, I would say that is not too uncommon at the earlier timeline. The size/scale of the hilt could perhaps explain a decorative purpose but then again, the acute point not what one would expect for such.

A 20th century piece would be more likely to be a threaded union but once in hand I might see more clues. It could be all pot metal and cast iron

.

Cheers
GC

Jens Nordlunde · 14th October 2019, 04:39 PM

Yes Fernando, but what about the crown, and is this blade not a bit early for this kind of sword?

fernando · 14th October 2019, 05:06 PM

I know Jens. I am just suggesting that the Switz symbol might (might) be the basis for a later smith's imagination.

14th October 2019, 05:19 AM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 522	I don't believe the ferrules are cast to the grip, nor the plates and annelets part of the grip casting, with the pommel and peen blocks separate as well. At any rate, such castings coming in by the mid 17th century. I don't have a "twin" to compare it to, hence my being unconvinced of just about anything right now. Once in hand, I can be more sure of how many pieces comprise the hilt. Cheers GC Last edited by Hotspur; 14th October 2019 at 05:40 AM.

14th October 2019, 03:59 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	An approach to the smith's mark would perhaps be this one; Switz ... but from the 12th century ! . Attached Images

14th October 2019, 02:30 AM	#1
MitsuWa. Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 22	Your hilt, handle, pommel and guard appear to be a casting rather than individual components from what I can see in the photos. What construction detail were you trying to figure out?

14th October 2019, 01:37 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Glen, you know i am not a connoisseur at all but, i dare say that, the emblem for Castile in its single form dates far back in time, later replaced by the 'composite' Leon y Castela coat of arms, more consonant in period with what should appear in this sword. Also i doubt that the Toledo smith mark suggested by Udo is the one in your blade. So, without questioning the authenticity of your sword, i seem to question the originality of its marks ... unless they were a personalized feature. But then again, don't pay much notice to my mumbo jumbo.

14th October 2019, 03:41 PM	#4
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	The mark is neither punched, nor engraved but crudely acid etched. This makes me believe it is a 19th or even 20th century replica. My two cents.

14th October 2019, 04:35 PM	#6
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 522	Thanks guys. Yes, even a very modern replica is certainly a possibility. As to an acid mark, I would say that is not too uncommon at the earlier timeline. The size/scale of the hilt could perhaps explain a decorative purpose but then again, the acute point not what one would expect for such. A 20th century piece would be more likely to be a threaded union but once in hand I might see more clues. It could be all pot metal and cast iron . Cheers GC

14th October 2019, 04:39 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes Fernando, but what about the crown, and is this blade not a bit early for this kind of sword?

14th October 2019, 05:06 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I know Jens. I am just suggesting that the Switz symbol might (might) be the basis for a later smith's imagination.