Thank you Fernando, and please note, you are not being stubborn, but prudent in more thoroughly testing observations and ideas to ensure the information we compile here is as accurate as possible.
I must confess that my suggestions and notes were actually placed as such in anticipation for your vetting, as your experience and knowledge in the swords of Portugal and Spain, as well as their makers, is exemplary.
While I have studied markings and these swords for many years, I have actually learned more in the past week in going through these details and with your assistance than I have in a very long time.
In ways though I have played devils advocate with regard to this rapier of the original post, but given the many variables and extenuating situations with not only early makers, but the production of these blades in centers such as Solingen spuriously using punzones and names, there may be wider berth for such anomalies. Adding this to the hilt conventions of provincial regions, the conundrums grow.
You have also brought up a most salient point which I had completely forgotten, that of taxation, which would be a most inducing reason for makers to seek such a title or honorific. In markings it is most difficult to determine which were indeed makers punzones; which may have been guild marks for compliances; or perhaps, which may have signified a royal exemption for taxation (possibly the half moon? for example) .
Such groupings in configurations are of course well known in silver mounted hilts where a makers mark, city mark, assayers mark etc are grouped together. We see certain blades with multiple marks and punzones which suggest key charges or devices signifying possible administrative meanings.
We can only guess at most as detailed records are long lost as to the structure of uses for these markings.
Palomares is our best source for what detail we use, though as noted, it is not without flaws. It is encouraging to know he did use actual blades for his records as he could, but the purloining of marks among makers later compounded by copying in other centers places expected doubts.
As you note there were conflicting reports on work locations for various makers. Possibly some of this from Toledo to Madrid was result of moving the Royal Court to Madrid around 1561. Other reports may have been simply moving for personal reasons or expanding scope of operation, or again taxation or financial reasons.
The dates of work seem to conflict at times due to similar or same names of father, son, brother etc and the usual record keeping errors .
Again, I thank you for your diligence in adding and clarifying these points in studying these details, which I know has benefitted my understanding on this topic. As always learning together.......you're the best Nando!!!
|