![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,469
|
![]()
Well placed ideas Atlantia! I like your way of thinking, and the examples you show give plausible cause for consideration. The ebony grip is the key point that I noticed as well, but the piece does have definite character, which is often why I tend to like munition grade items. I agree this is a bit above that guage though.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
Could the pommel / ebony handle just be later replacement (in the 18th C), perhaps due to damage or refurbishment
![]() Surprised that someone suggested you place your thumb in the 'ring' ....ouch ![]() I also noticed that the 'ring' appears to be heart shaped....is that the case? Regards David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 48
|
![]()
Hi Folks,
I agree David that the grip and pommel could well be later replacements, I would suggest late C18th/early C19th. The pommel detail also has a repeated roped pattern, which does not appear on the quillions anywhere. It would be very common for pommels and quillions on both swords and daggers of the C17th to have matching patterns of some sort. The rapier pommels do look a bit similar, but the main difference is that pappenheimer pommels of this type typically tend to have concave faces to their form, whereas the late C18th/early C19th urn pommels have convex faces on the main body. The pommel is very similar to many late C18th or early C19th spadroon or court sword pommels. All the best, Macdonald |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|