Thank you as well Fernando, for your also very generous reply.
Please understand, I did not mean to imply that my thoughts on the half moon mark being a Castilian statute or mark of such benefit was in any way unassailable. In fact, I would not ever consider any of my theories or matters being observed as such, as it would be contrary to my place as a student of arms, certainly not an expert.
What I meant is that I consider the data from Mr. Beraiz, as well as most of the work of Palomares in review as being valuable and highly considered, however that there may always be other aspects or conditions which might have put certain significance to the moons, not yet discovered or known.
While your explanations regarding the espadero del rey signature as most reliably described by Mr. Beraiz seem of course quite definitive, the conundrum of the moons to me remains very much inconclusive.
Actually I am with you in hoping for more definitive evidence of what significance or symbolism these half moons might have held; who used them; and why. The fact that some well versed and highly respected authorities, such as Sir James Mann (1962, Wallace Coll.) accepted the idea of links to the Espaderos del Rey lead me to believe that such a thought had some reliable source.
It is clear that even the most highly regarded authorities are not without certain information which may be incorrect or improperly assumed, but it is typically a singular or unusually rare case. That circumstance does seem to diminish proportionally with those who in specialized fields and in their own national context, such as Mr. Beraiz, so I recognize his comments accordingly as most reliable.
Thank you as always for such well placed and supported discussion.
All the best
Jim
|