[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

My Revised edition 1996. Is it different than his description?


The conclusion of that paragraph/description of the sword describes the cast grip lion pommel of #18.

In an earlier post, I mention the bulk of his writing of #18 is about the overall bulk of similar sabers with organic and bound grips but otherwise similar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The quote is the same, point being.....? Oh I see that 38 years before the article in discussion Peterson implied that the Hilt is German. Ok I will give that to you.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

You might find this interesting in the light of Bazelon and his notes on Prahl and found elsewhere.



Now all we need is lion pommel cast spiral grips to go with them? Bazelon does not describe the sword contract any better than that, nor assign a maker to his grooved doggie in the PA collection. Does he do so in the 1992 article? Or, is he (as I read it) starting his foundation with the same type of information I add here above and Perterson's old testament (which is as often disputed as are other author's wrks and description)

~~~~

Thanks that is interesting. No Bazelon does not ascribe a specific maker. If five or six shops are casting hilts and 3 or four guards, who would you say the maker was. would you label them with one?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

What Bazelon does not describe may well be the grail as yet unfounded but Prahl was making brass gun mounts as of 1777 (also found elsewhere).

There were earlier brass foundries in Philly and that I do not deny Prahl either. There are some decent histories out there. Here is one I read through.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8uYkAAAAYAAJ

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you on my side of this? If true would you risk the embargoes during the Napoleonic and French revolution to get imported hilts for the above contract?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

As to Flayderman and Stuart Mowbray in contention regarding Bazelon's article and the earlier posts regarding Flayderman's own experience, as well as sales; I find Medicus as less supportive of the conjecture that appears to drive this particular discussion. For a third time, I now point to the lion pommel sabers listed in that book as counter to the Flayderman sale descriptions posted earlier. As the elder Mowbray's notes and Flayderman's collaboration I mention them as less absolute about a great many swords and offer less speculation than earlier sword books.

It was not the purpose of the book to prove or disprove anything. I don't know of any controversial issues mentioned in the book, even dates. The book was to showcase the massive collection and to give descriptions only. Controversies had no place there, but are saved for other venues like here and the literature.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Again, I have not read Bazelon's article and have only other's read on that. I have though read in this thread that some of what is definitive of Bazelon's article is presented only as second hand interpretations that could be as misread as I feel my own posts here are.

Cheers

GC

Glen your posts may have been misread by me, but, not intentionally I can assure you. I have most certainly questioned them. I have not been convinced by your arguments, do not take it personally. If the only part of the Medicus book that you feels outdates the 1992 article is a lack of a ringing endorsement of the theory, then I remain unconvinced. That would be counter to its purpose.
In my original post I suggested that the Bazelon article be reviewed to counter your observations, I still believe this. It is not now or ever been a 'blow off' . I could care less if you do, I do suspect you will not feel it is a waste of time. If my scanner was actually working I would try to get it to you.
Mark, As in the original post I still feel that the best theory on the origin of your hilt is Revolution-Federal period Philadelphia.

All the Best
Jeff