Thank you all guys for your input
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kisak
... I guess grabbing an old sword blade of impressive dimensions might make sense for such a sword... As for the mismatch in decoration between grip and guard, could they perhaps be from two different swords originally? The knuckle bow doesn't seem to fit the slot in the grip all that well...
|
Well, that's why i started calling it a 'three in one' specimen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by katana
...The blade to guard seems ill fitting..
|
There is indeed some looseness both in the blade to the guard as in the knuckle bow to the pommel.
However that could also/only be due to timely mishandling and consequent damaging of soft brass against hard steel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by katana
...The 'patina' (darkened area) on the inside of the guard that buts up against the hilt, suggests that the original hilt was a larger diameter...
|
Loking at sight, i don't really see such coherent signs ... independentely from that having being possible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by katana
...how does it 'feel' in hand ?
|
Sturdy, giving handling confidence for a successfull blow ... strike or thrust; point of balance 15 cms from the guard. If, like kisak sugests, this was only a ceremonial/dress sword, its owner wouldn't guess this was a pritty operational weapon. It looks like its blade didn't loose its properties with the re-hilting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Norman McCormick
...I don't think much of the blade is missing, only enough to complete the tip by following the line of the edges. Many 18th Cent blades had the main fuller ground to within a few cms or less from the point therefore I reckon the blade is almost full size and second half of the 18thC....
|
Thanks for your reasoning on the blade length (almost) integrity, Norman; i was thinking the same, but had no grounds to ensure myself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Norman McCormick
...a marriage, maybe of necessity, that may have taken place some time ago...
|
Certainly some significant time ago, i would say. As for the type of marriage, a few versions could have taken place; from the well intended setup of the mountings with the blade, to preserve the late for utility or for honour or sentimental reasons to, as you suggest, the replacement of one or the two elements for necessity, due to damage or other reason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... The backsword blade is indeed of 18th century form into the early 19th, and I believe is of cross section termed 'montmorency', typically seen on cavalry sabres and the straight cavalry blades as this appears to be.....
|
Thanks for your indication, Jim ...
pedia .
Montmorency, that's it
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... The hilt is truly a paradox, intended as neo classic but the motif seems to be combining the elements of hunting weapons and traditional nautical theme, more recalling a traditional event rather than as a naval symbol......
|
A traditional event ... why not? We can see a tower with flags in each side.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... Perhaps these crudely cast details recall that naval officers often carried hunting type hangers in earlier times.....
|
I follow your reasonning and, save my fantasy, while on the grip right side we can easily discern a deer over the dogs, on the left side, the animal could be a stylised whale
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... The flat, uncast side of the guard is a bit disconcerting, ....
|
Can't we find it plausible that, while having the sword inside the scabbard, it served its guard decoration pourpose and, whilst in action, had no necessity to show off its trimmings?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... the galleon or whatever the ship is here...
|
Maybe more like a frigate? certainly a war ship, even though stylized, judging by the artillery portholes.
Much obliged to you all and ... come again
Fernando
.