View Single Post
Old 24th February 2017, 03:17 AM   #29
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,719
Default How interesting!

Fernando,
I feel most fortunate for your sharing with me the information from Mr. Beraiz, which offers intriguing perspective on the character on these various marks, as well as the designation of 'Espadero del Rey'. As I had noted earlier, I had pretty much exhausted the resources at my disposal, and was hoping that with your access to contacts and resources in Portugal and Spain, you would add to what I had provided.

You also are most kind to have added translation of the material from Mr.Beraiz to spare me the trouble of doing so, and that the wording would be effectively placed. Knowing my difficulties in spelling and proper wording with your languages this would surely save you the frustration of having to correct me further, so thanks.

While I have no reason to dispute the material from Mr. Beraiz in these matters, I will gladly add it to my notes to be considered respectively with the information I have found elsewhere. Although his opinions are certainly most reasonable, the key value is the description of the complexity of the economic social and regal regulatory systems in place in these times.

It seems that the addition of the social factor of brotherhoods, in league with guilds which adhered to municipal regulation, and operating in degree under the auspices of the King, would emplace an almost unfathomable potential for use of markings and compliance devices.

Certainly the use of the phrase 'Espadero del Rey' would instantly represent the maker whose name accompanied it. But it seems that numerous makers carried out commissions for royal patrons on occasions, yet they seem not to have had such wording on their blades (at least necessarily) . Is it not possible that the half moon mark, occurring along with other marks, might have had significance to any of these groups in the hierarchy and even linked to Royal patronage rather than being a random or spuriously used symbol? Conversely, could this half moon have been used 'unofficially' in implying royal patronage in certain circumstances?

It has been my understanding that Toledo, with the Court moved to Madrid (1561), began deteriorating economically, and that its key sword making industry faltered badly by the opening of the 17th century along with other key aspects of its traditional standing. It would seem in these conditions, the prospects for corruption and counterfeit marks would be heightened. It is clear that by 1680 the guilds had been dissolved (Cohen, "By the Sword", p.115). By the time Palomares wrote (1772) there was virtually none left of the craft and King Carlos III was desperately trying to find smiths.

It does not seem that Toledo would have been exporting much in blades in the early 17th century, Solingen was quite consuming in its command of the blade making industry. It is even suggested that the German smiths using Spanish names may have deliberately produced lesser quality work to tarnish the reputation of the Toledo blades (Cohen, p.117).
The conflicts in the cities of various Spanish smiths listed as their workplace seems perhaps to be associated with the denigration of the industry as noted by the early 17th c.

I think there are many more factors and situations in the Toledo markings conundrums than can be conclusively decided in the data in any one singular report, or for that matter, numbers of them. I do however very much appreciate the inclusion of the valuable work of Mr, Beraiz in our discussion.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote