Quote:
Originally Posted by C4RL
Can I ask when you say the "Round poll camp axe" 1700~1800 is virtually identical to your example, what is different?
When I say carbon steel I understand that can be nearly anything, what I mean is your hatchet's steel looks quite refined & uniform, it doesn't look like wrought or a welded bit & it doesn't look particularly old. I suspect it's a single piece of hardenable steel which would make it more recent if that is the case.
The first image I posted shows three hatchets I picked up in Portugal, it's a very popular pattern there with many (possibly hundreds) of different stamps. I've seen many examples & yours looks identical to that style & in very good condition.
All these hatchets have round eyes, that isn't in the slightest bit rare amongst "slip fit" handles of many styles.
The initials look like they have been stamped using a cold chisel one line at a time, the sort of thing someone does to mark their initials.
Of course this is just my opinion, it could simply be coincidence that that these hatchet's look alike & I could be completely wrong, I'm no expert.
Could you post the reference "Round poll camp axe", I'd be interested to see it.
|
I have gotten the Nuemann book (1973) to post the illustration, where the description is as I have previously noted. It is described as French, and of course southern France along with the Basque regions in north of Spain are included in the Biscayan sphere, which is the more common term describing items and people of these areas.
In the 18th and early 19th centuries, materials to colonial regions, later America and Mexico, came in the trade vessels, and included were barrels of these kinds of axe heads (or 'hatchets' if you will). As mentioned, these characteristic deep stamped marks (the clover in this case) seem to have been some sort of bale mark rather than to any maker or guild. While no documentation exists that would identify the probable users of specific of these marks, there does appear to be consistency in the manner and location of placement on the axe head.
When I say my example is 'virtually' identical to the 'round poll camp axe' shown in Neumann (1973), what I mean is that it is considered prudent not to make adamant assertions that will invariably be contested in the inevitable micro-examinations of others particularly 'experts'. As I noted in my OP, I am by no means any sort of authority on these, but I am intent in research and open to suggestions in proper identification as always. While you clearly have more experience in this field, I appreciate you noting that in these kinds of situations, there are always exceptions and no assessment is necessarily absolute.
With my use of the Neumann example, I have had the honor of personal discussions with him on the weaponry included in his venerable reference,
and while we did not discuss axes, his expertise overall on the arms we did focus on was entirely beyond reproach, I have never seen any weapon description from his book questioned, so I feel confident his identification is correct.
My example is again, virtually, identical...its dimensions in accord with the Nuemann example as the appearance....the date range 1700-1800.
So why would this 'old' form of camp axe (hatchet, whatever) still be produced in the 20th century. In analogy, a bit like Ford continuing to build Model A cars in the 1950s in the old way.
I am pretty familiar with patination on swords, which is more my field, and this condition is consistent (as far as I can see) with very old examples, especially into the 1700s. The nature of the patination depends on the conditions of the items placement and period in situ. If this had been in the ground, the interior corrosion would have forced outward leading to the surface of an orange effect. While one seam on the bottom of the head remains apparent, no others appear, suggesting some sort of finishing further concealed by darkening of age.