![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 688
|
![]()
My Hounslow Hangar has - along with a Passau Wolf latten - a date which actually corresponds to a local event in history:
This was the date of the crowning of the sixteen year old Lady Jane Grey, who reigned for 9 days before being subsequently executed. Because it said ANNO 1553 I was convinced it was a date, but it was a century before Hounslow were making these swords. Did someone date their blade to declare loyalty even after 100 years? Fascinating stuff to grapple with. Last edited by urbanspaceman; 29th July 2025 at 02:58 PM. Reason: typo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,453
|
![]()
It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.
It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf. Could this have been a Hounslow embellished blade intended to be taken as an old Solingen blade ? or a slightly later sword of 'Hounslow school' which were still mounted with these distinctive hilts and a venerable 'old' Solingen blade? I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices. As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year. So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given? Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history typically avoided. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or theories subjective in nature among most students of arms. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Bristol
Posts: 138
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,453
|
![]()
It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.
It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf. I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices. As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year. So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given? Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history fiercely avoided by most academics. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or unfounded theories. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Bristol
Posts: 138
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
it is still a very sharp blade. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 688
|
![]()
I always suspected - given the lack of a button - that the grip has a rebind; probably a working-life job and very well done.
Stuart Mowbray, Brit. Mil. Swords page 165 shows an identical hilt in the London Museum signed FECIT HOUNSLOE on one side and RECARDUS HOPKINS on the other. The blade differs however as does the grip which is spiral bound fish-skin. He does not identify Hopkins. Another, page 164, with a "silver dot and trellis" hilt but otherwise identical is signed ANDRIA FERARA and has a stag grip. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 688
|
![]()
Stuart wonders why there are so few "Made In Hounslow" blades on Hounslow hangars... Solingen blades seeming to predominate.
One of his examples is lavishly scripted "IN SOLINGEN ANNO 1644". Another with a 'cross and orb' features the palindrome 1551 and TOMIS AIALA. Yet another has ANNO 1414. Go figure! Many of these swords are in York Castle Museum. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|