Hello Richard,
Well actually the time is 16.30 – so morning and morning, but I will let this one pass.
We will never know how common it was to change the hilts, but we can try to guess, looking at the type of hilt/decoration and how worn the blade is. Some blades were used/kept for reasons of veneration, but the hilt could have been changed, due to the change of fashion – depending of how big the owner’s purse was.
Like it has been mentioned, it is likely to believe that in most cases the owner or one of his servants made the sharpening, and why sharpening the edge not being used? This is likely the reason why most blades are worn at the curve. Please remember, that swords were expensive, so when sharpening the blade there is no reason to believe they removed more steel than necessary.
I have, unfortunately seen a file or a grinder used on a blade, and it took me a long time to remove the marks – attached.
I am grateful that you will not open the topic about the hilt sizes, as I get red spots all over when the discussion starts. The Indians have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, and that is the reason why their hands fit the katar and tulwar hilts.
Hello Jeff,
If you grinded the blade down intentionally to get a lighter blade, would you do it at the curve? I think I would do it closer to the hilt, as a relatively good weight, close to the tip of the blade, would be important when striking, so I really think that the 5 mm missing are wear from sharpening. If the sharpening was done, carefully, it would have taken quite a few times of sharpening to remove five millimetres of the blade.
Here is also a picture of the hilt - worn, but still nice.
|