Looking for information on Andres Martinez of Toledo

[fernando]

Welcome to the forum, Michael . A bit confusing indeed. in Ramiro Larrañaga's work he extends this smiths name to ANDRÉS MARTINEZ DE GARRATE. He and his brother Gabriel (36) are sons of ZABALA. It could be that their father was JUAN MARTINEZ DE GARATA, ZABALA (46). We could consider that he is called el viejo (elder) by Palomares, to help distinguish him from JUAN MARTINEZ el mozo (younger) (42) in the table by their age, but not because they were familly.
Note that this is not 100% exact. It is known that the Palomares nomina contains a few inconsistencies. One thing we know as certain is that of JUAN MARTINEZ, that was active at an early stage, as listed in Lhermite's work (end XVI century), whose marks he describes are precisely the ones shown nowadays out there. Yet in Palomares nomina we can find not right name neither his full marks, which i suspect is listed in the table as JUAN MARTIN (39).
Confusing indeed .
Other members will know more about this riddle.


.

[10thRoyal]

I greatly appreciate the information Fernando, I never even considered that the two Juan Martinez's might not be related. Would also love to know what the meaning behind the words "Garata" and "Zabala" are.

And for completeness sake I've attached the rest of the photos I have. Just based on my amateur knowledge it looks like this is probably a composite sword. Or maybe not, I've been looking at so many of these that they are starting to blend together. The total length is 48 inches. I believe the reverse side of the blade reads "En Toledo Me Fecit". I had not even noticed the tiny anchor in the last photo until uploading these images.

[fernando]

Are you sure it says EN TOLED ME FECIT ? Not a good sign. These "me fecit" inscritions are more seen in Solingen blades; you know, "Solingen me fecit" or "me fecit Solingen" .
Can you take a closer picture ?

[10thRoyal]

Now you have me worried. It's definitely Toledo. I don't have it on hand to give a better photo.

[fernando]

No reason to worry, Michael. I reckon i was premature. This Latin inscription also appears in Toledan swords; maybe not so often, but it does. The smith marks in this blade are reprehensible. No doubt this is a genuine blade.
Whether the hilt is not from the period, hopefuly more knowledgeable members will pop in and give their impression.

[10thRoyal]

I'm very relieved to hear that FINALLY I have found something that is not entirely a Victorian reproduction. I was on the verge of giving up honestly. As for the inscription, I'm hoping it looks a little less janky after some time with a tooth brush but clearly a calligrapher Andres was not.

Something interesting I noticed from the armory catalogue I posted earlier, the mark on my sword seems to have been made with the same stamp as the example that was found in the armory. As in the exact same physical punch was used to make both markings. Not sure if that is actually interesting or not.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 10thRoyal

I'm very relieved to hear that FINALLY I have found something that is not entirely a Victorian reproduction. I was on the verge of giving up honestly. As for the inscription, I'm hoping it looks a little less janky after some time with a tooth brush but clearly a calligrapher Andres was not.

Something interesting I noticed from the armory catalogue I posted earlier, the mark on my sword seems to have been made with the same stamp as the example that was found in the armory. As in the exact same physical punch was used to make both markings. Not sure if that is actually interesting or not.

As Fernando has noted, it was not unusual to have this 'Latin' esque type of inscription on actual Toledo blades. There were a number of Solingen makers who actually worked in Toledo at times, such Henry Koll (Enrique Coel).
He has shown important detail on this maker from the remarkable resources that he has access to, so that seems well established.

I would point out that this punzone with the T is correctly placed as per authentic Spanish swords of 17th c. and Victorian replicas never had makers detail on them as they were not produced with deception in mind.
That mark with the hump over the T is interesting as it is unique, and it seems to this family. The T with other embellishment seems more often copied on other blades known produced in Solingen, often with incongruent Spanish makers names and marks.
Therefore, as agreed, yours has all appearance of the real deal, at least as far as the blade.

It is possible that the hilt was a later addition, and while replicas did occasionally use 'real' vintage blades, this was a common occurrence on authentically used rapiers as well. These were often repaired or rehilted in accord with changes in fashion or preference of owner through working lives, and to find an example not 'composite' is quite remarkable.