Heavy Sword 1602 for discussion

[ulfberth]

Hello Jim,

Thank you for your most detailed remarks and indeed these raise second thoughts.
The pictures as they are now are not clear enough to be conclusive on the materials used , I will wait for better pics for further comment.

kind regards

Ulfberth

[fernando]

As i first let conclude, i am not such one with enough knowledge to bear an expert discussion.
My first attempt was to post the mark/s of Peter Munsten in the context that the sword in discussion could or could not be authentic. My focus did not go for the date appointed by Gyngell, which in fact is earlier than the period both Munstens lived in. I would not intend to pulverize the thread with long (and poor) considerations, specially those out of the authenticity topic, but i dare say that the marks depicted by Gyngell appear to be correct, as well as the presence of Peter Munster in England, as approached by James Mann in Wallace collection, for one, and exhaustively narrated by Wendelin Boeheim in his work “PETER MUNSTER, MÜNSTEN, MÜNGSTEN der ALTE SOLINGEN LONDON”, where he cites swords historians like Weyersberg and Cronau.
As the title of the work suggests, blades are found in Copenhagen and Stockolm with the inscription Peter Munster me fecit London.
Also in “Pulley Sword” we may read in an article called “Swordsmiths in England” that Peter Munster joined his German trade colleagues, Johan Hopple, Recordus Hopkins and others, in immigrating to England (Hounslow), having later lost interest in such work and returned home.
Back to Boeheim, he refers that, besides Andreas having gone to work in Spain (Toledo and Calatayud), Peter’s swords had such a remarkable resemblance with those made in Spain, that suspicion exists that he has also been in Toledo. A strong sign would be his marks: the wild man and the Moor's head; the former being borrowed from Sebastian Hernandez the elder - the Moor's head – which has been already detected on blades of swords of emperor Karl V, from around 1530. Johannes Hoppe also used the wild man in similar shape, by the way. Cronau pretends that the marks of Andreas are like those of Peter.
Below are marks of Peter; the second one being a variation found in the blade at Scandinavian Museum.
But of course all the above, even more, mostly roughly translated from german, is far from being the unequivocal truth. But then, even the best scholars have difference of opinions in these things that occurred centuries ago.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Fernando for the additional information on some of these disparities in some of the references. Like you, I claim no particular expertise in these matters, but wanted to point these out so as to be noted by readers and others who might join in here. The marks imaged by Gyngell are of course correct, but the 1516 date seems clearly to predate the biographical data on the Munsten's. You are correct in that the misprint is irrelevant so perhaps should have been omitted.

However, I think you have revealed that your familiarity with these references is well versed, and the notes you provide from Boeheim et al give us better perspective concerning these issues. I had not consulted, nor included the Boeheim material, which is indeed pertinent.

It is always good to have additional views on the complexities in things like markings as there are often sources which have not been brought into the discussion, and as you well note, authors and scholars typically have quite different views.

I had noted in my post that the issue on the Peter Munsten who had gone to London was moot as far as this example, but brought it up as a factor in the spectrum of this family of swordsmiths. Clearly the sword in discussion is of German form and believed earlier than Hounslow, so would not have been made by this individual in England.

Ulfberht, thank you for your kind comments, and I agree, it is very difficult to determine further on this weapon from the images, and I look forward to more from others.

[fernando]

Thank you Jim,
It was only my intention to give an idea of whom Peter Munster was, supported by his recorded whereabouts, but by no means pretending that this blade was made in London, as even its inscription clearly reads made in Soligen.
... Which inscription in any case seems to have an odd configuration, with the 'me fecit' before the smith's name, the unusual mispells, like Salingen (?) the date inserted in that niche with a so reduced font and all.
I will see to it that the date in the Gyngell image is deleted, so that will not misguide readers .
It would indeed need better pictures for knowledged members have a go at it.
By the way Andreas, it appears that the sword is not yet in your possession, neither is yet yours; am i wrong ?

[AHorsa]

Thanks for the further comments. I am still waiting for some more pictures.
Fernando, you are right. It´s not in my possession. But I got the permission from the owner to post it here for discussion.

Cheers
Andreas