Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you referring to the sword I posted?
What I wrote on this thread is about an issue that I have been thinking about for ages. That of the nature of the sample of data that we have to make judgement about objects. I have had discussions with the curator at the Met on the selfsame issue and his observations mirror my own.
This really has nothing to do with anything else, It took me a while to know what you were referring to.
No need for any apologies whatsoever.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ulfberth
Hi Ed,
If I hurt your feelings I'm really sorry, It was not my intend, all I meant that I never seen this type of blade before was just that, I never stated any conclusion to it that is was bad, I could just as well be understood that its rare.
The facts ( what we do know so far ) is I asked for other forum members If they had more info on this type of blade, that does not seem like someone who has drawn any conclusion but rather someone who wants to learn more. Lee is the only one who answered, other than that I have seen no photos of similar blades, so it must be a rare deviation.
I really think its sad that there is such a fuzz for just admitting my lack of experience on this type of blade ( not seeing it before ) is so misunderstood, the message after this no topic is however very well understood.
And self appointed experts what do we know about them? Well the fact is as Michael always said , there is no school were you can study antique arms, therefore all experts are self proclaimed or appointed by other people that are self appointed experts themselves, so this whole point of debate is pretty pointless, which brings me back to the original question, " what do we really know" perhaps ...... Its also good to ask ourselves "what do we really want to know and what not"
kind regards
Ulfberth
|