View Single Post
Old 9th April 2012, 11:01 AM   #49
Swordfish
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornelistromp
yes, Iam a friend of provenance

I expect that every serious sword enthusiast is familiar with this sword, a beautiful pommel formed outof 3 pieces and a unique Oakeshott type XVIII, " type? castillon G-A hoard blade".
The pommel is an absolutely beautiful work of art in itself with the legend Archiepiscopus and the arms of the cros family, possible to link direct to the cardinal/archbishop Pierre de Cros. the blade acts as a work of art not far behind.

If I may speak freely and open , and I sincerely hope I did not kick somebody against the sore leg.
If it would be in my possession, I would find out if the original pommel and original blade belong together or if it is later composed.
(I have no idea how to investigate this though, probably we now do need the expert eye here which you refered to in your previous post.)
Please do not get me wrong, it is only because the combination seems strange to me.
The blade seems to me outof the castillon hoard and I only would expect another pommel, as the known ones , not so exceptionally beautiful and unique.

best,

Well observed !

The blade, cross and pommel are surely genuine, but do they belong together? In this case no scientific test can ever help you, only your eye can help you.

When I saw the photo for the first time, the first that struck me, were the unbalanced proportions. The pommel is too large for a single hand sword. The blade and the remains of the cross show a close resemblance to the Castillon swords, including the patination and the corroded spots. For a single hand sword of this type I would also expect a pommel of wheel type and a tang button.

Pierre de Cros was appointed as Archbishop of Arles in 1374. If we assume that the pommel was not made much later, we have a date of c.1375. If we further assume, that the sword was not the first of its type, but in fashion ab. ten or twenty years before, we have a date for this sword type c. 1355-1365.

The Castillon swords are generally dated c.1410-1450. Is it likely that half of the swords from Castillon were of a nearly one hundred years old type? I don`t think so. I believe that the pommel was assembled to a cheap Castillon sword, to increase its value. I therefore would never acquire this sword.

But an assumption is no proof. Under usual circumstances, it would not be possible to proof that the pommel was added later.

But contacts to other collectors are allways helpfull. A collecting colleague of me saw this pommel many years ago as a single item in an antigue shop in Italy. He did not acquired it, because it was too expensive. I fully trust this collector. Then this is the proof for me.

Best

Last edited by Swordfish; 9th April 2012 at 04:00 PM.
Swordfish is offline   Reply With Quote