View Single Post
Old 9th March 2017, 06:52 AM   #30
cornelistromp
Member
 
cornelistromp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando
True in a way, Japer ... but i realize the majority of the smiths only used one mark, that of their personal seal; otherwise period chroniclars like Jehan Lhermite would have related such profusion. Instead, he only mentions as using various marks one or two smiths, the more profuse being Juan Martinez. But we also know that, those with more than one mark, often used secondary ones as either prestige symbols (Espadero del Rey), or decoration signs, that not their personal seals. Juan del Rey is also said to have used a 'few' marks but then again, the perrillo was more of a 'quality' contrast and apparently there is no record of what the others may have been. Curiously Lhermite doesn't mention this famous master, probably because he was still working in Zaragossa by the time the Flemish passed by Toledo, a vital detail not well distinguished by Palomares



As already approched and according to specialists in this subject, Palomares, a Toledan native, had a tendency to list smiths as having 'also' worked elsewhere, when in fact they 'first' worked elsewhere (their home towns) and only after went to Toledo.


Another of his imprecisions.


Yes, he saw the 5 punzones in the Toledo archives but never found out whom they belonged to. Eventually mark #95 contains a fleur-de-liz and could (could) well be, not a personal mark but, an additional contrast mark belonging to an Espadero del Rey.
Mark #99 could (could) be that from whom Lhermite calls Machin, who recorded that he used an aguililla (small eagle) as his mark.


This was in fact a current use in tat period, to distinguish each one of the family, as so often the son was given the name of his father ... and this from his grandfather.



They are quoted to have the 'same' mark as the previous one as, according to regulations, they could use the mark and privileges of their fathers.


Historians mention that some smiths opted by only using the Toledo mark ... just as others used their personal mark and not the Toledo contrast.


.

Hi Fernando,

thanks but of course there are many possible explanations, but I think the fact that Palomares created the document in 1762 is decisive.

So 150-200 years after the blacksmiths worked, there probably was not enough information available.

it seems that there has been a previous blacksmith register before palomares made by Rodriquez del Canto, el discipulo instruido.
have you maybe heard of that document.


best,
jasper
cornelistromp is online now   Reply With Quote