Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.
I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.
I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.
My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.
The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.
Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.
|