Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

urbanspaceman · 29th December 2021, 12:06 PM

I haven't had the opportunity, or the contacts, to research the Mohll family in Solingen archives, but...
Johann Mohll Senior was listed as a grinder - but he was not a guild member!

This is what first made me suspicious, as in Solingen you HAD to be a guild member and membership was severely restricted - usually to family.

It is my opinion, and the issue that needs local verification, is that Johann Mohll owned the Huguenot built machine/s for speeding-up fullering and hollow blade production as opposed to hand filing.

Hermann Mohll, his son, operated out of - and into - Shotley Bridge; owning the big grinding mill complex directly under the bridge after he arrived with all the other immigrants in 1687.

His brother Abraham spent 3 years there, then returned to Oak (?) in Solingen where the grinding mill location they inherited became a paper mill.

Neither brother was ever under contract to the syndicate, or the company who owned the SB enterprise; and nor were they ever Solingen guild members, which is why they were not listed in the indictment by the Solingen authorities in 1688.

There is first hand evidence (and illustrations) of the existence of one of the 'hollow blade' machines at Shotley Bridge from Swedish spy Angerstein when he visited Oley's works in 1754 and observed hollow blade production, and acid etching, in full swing. Oley had long since owned the Mohll grinding mill (1724).

The crucial issue here is that every colichemarde I have seen (and globally they only amount to 0.3% of all smallswords, with the biggest number in the Greenwich Maritime Museum: 6 out of 120 smallswords) features a rolled lower hollow of constant width.
Actually, a friend of mine up here in the North probably has more than six in his collection.

It is not possible (even today) to automate and machine, in one pass, a reducing radius hollow into a blade; but a constant width groove (as we see in all colichemardes - and many smallswords) is a simple procedure and more than possible for those ingenious Huguenots.

I consulted various professors of engineering to establish just what was possible then... and now.

Given that the machine came out of Solingen with Herman Mohll, and also given that machines were subsequently banned in Solingen, I am of the opinion that colichemardes are the sole product of Shotley Bridge.

Quite a bit to consider... I know, but that is precisely what I have been doing for the last five years. The issue that remains unrevealed is the name.

BTW: an interesting idea (and more than plausible) was that those flat blade colichemardes were simply cut down broadswords. I really do want one of those!

29th December 2021, 12:06 PM	#14
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 515	Huguenots I haven't had the opportunity, or the contacts, to research the Mohll family in Solingen archives, but... Johann Mohll Senior was listed as a grinder - but he was not a guild member! This is what first made me suspicious, as in Solingen you HAD to be a guild member and membership was severely restricted - usually to family. It is my opinion, and the issue that needs local verification, is that Johann Mohll owned the Huguenot built machine/s for speeding-up fullering and hollow blade production as opposed to hand filing. Hermann Mohll, his son, operated out of - and into - Shotley Bridge; owning the big grinding mill complex directly under the bridge after he arrived with all the other immigrants in 1687. His brother Abraham spent 3 years there, then returned to Oak (?) in Solingen where the grinding mill location they inherited became a paper mill. Neither brother was ever under contract to the syndicate, or the company who owned the SB enterprise; and nor were they ever Solingen guild members, which is why they were not listed in the indictment by the Solingen authorities in 1688. There is first hand evidence (and illustrations) of the existence of one of the 'hollow blade' machines at Shotley Bridge from Swedish spy Angerstein when he visited Oley's works in 1754 and observed hollow blade production, and acid etching, in full swing. Oley had long since owned the Mohll grinding mill (1724). The crucial issue here is that every colichemarde I have seen (and globally they only amount to 0.3% of all smallswords, with the biggest number in the Greenwich Maritime Museum: 6 out of 120 smallswords) features a rolled lower hollow of constant width. Actually, a friend of mine up here in the North probably has more than six in his collection. It is not possible (even today) to automate and machine, in one pass, a reducing radius hollow into a blade; but a constant width groove (as we see in all colichemardes - and many smallswords) is a simple procedure and more than possible for those ingenious Huguenots. I consulted various professors of engineering to establish just what was possible then... and now. Given that the machine came out of Solingen with Herman Mohll, and also given that machines were subsequently banned in Solingen, I am of the opinion that colichemardes are the sole product of Shotley Bridge. Quite a bit to consider... I know, but that is precisely what I have been doing for the last five years. The issue that remains unrevealed is the name. BTW: an interesting idea (and more than plausible) was that those flat blade colichemardes were simply cut down broadswords. I really do want one of those!