![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 445
|
![]()
Oliver,
Proper criticism. I look at that picture and cringe. An idiot move on my part. Ulfberth, Thank you for the straightforward assessment. I knew it was a long shot. Some new questions come to mind now: - When did the technology become available to create symmetrical hilt components? I'm interested in the guard, but specifically, I know that in the typography a spherical pommel is classified as type 'R' (right?). Can you show an example that is an authentic such pommel? I've had a devil of a time finding one since I first started looking to compare to the one on this copy. I'd love to see the differences side by side, and I hope that would prove interesting for others here, as well. - Regarding the blade, I feel like the Victorians were prone to use stiff, overly heavy blades when creating their 'interpretations' of medieval weaponry. Could the one here be a repurposed rapier blade...actually, that seems unlikely given the size of the grip that the tang pass thru. Since I debunked my own question, do you think a blade was forged specifically for this historimus, and would they have bothered making one that seems so well tempered? As always, I appreciate the willingness to share such a wealth of knowledge. Of course I'm a bit disappointed, but the education is well worth the cost of tuition ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|