Allow me Jim, to be stubborn ... like a mule (as we say here).
From within my empirical knowledge, let me put things in a backwards mode.
Whether Wallace material has a reliable significance, i can see no way that a symbol like a half moon is intrinsic to Toledan or other location smiths being appointed to the King. As for legitimate marks of such Masters, i would go as far as realize that the crown in some of them is a facultative procedure, one of his own choice, that not an imposition; this meaning that, the designing of each one's mark, be it one inherited from their family or made before such previlege was attributed, doesn't implicate in its mark composition including the crown.
Reading further in an article by Germán Dueñas Beraiz, a real expert in these things, he reminds us the Academy history records in that, what happened when a Master received the said privilege from the King, based on his known expertise or some service done to the Sovereign, was that he started signing the phrase Espadero del Rey in full words in the ricasso of the blade.
... algunos de ellos, por su sobresaliente habilidad o algun servicio a la Magestad, lograron el titulo de Espaderos del Rey, grabandolo en sus Espadas con todas letras en los cantos del recazo, como fueron Nicolas Hortuño, Juan Martinez, Antonio Ruiz,
Not only they had the right to engrave such phrase but also enjoyed the privilege of being exempted from a determined number of taxes.
But one must also bear in mind that, the engraving of the signature in the blades, was not per se a guaranty that the sword was actually a work of the respective master; neither some marks depicted by Palomares resist confrontation with examples of swords by some masters kept in the Real Armeria. Yes, Palomares made a work that, being deeply respected by critics, is not exempted from some discrepancies; besides having built his work a good couple centuries after the 'real thing', had a 'crush' for his Toledo base, to the point that, this or that Master was reported to be from Toledo and having 'also' worked in other cities, actually were from such cities and 'also' worked in Toledo; the more screaming case being famous Julian del Rey who, same as his father and brother, developed his work in Saragoça having 'also' laboured in Toledo, contrary to what he reported. Also noteworthy was Julian's mark, which real one was not the 'perillo' shown in the nomina but a cross inserted in copper
Some birth and activity dates ae also not precise, as is the case of Sebastián Hernández the elder, reported active in 1637 when in 1584 he was already dead, and 1625 for Tomás de Ayala, when he had his splendor in 1560, having died in 1583.
One other thing is that Palomares is thought to have only resourced the marks by observing them in the Toledo Municipality archives whereas evidence shows, as above narrated, that he also or mainly recorded them from the actual sword blades.
Just as an aside, the more than 90 mark punzones that were kept in the archives, and apparently were all present when Palomares has been around, have meanwhile mostly vanished (?), only some 14 currently existing.
Yours humbly
