european sword for ID

[HUSAR]

Originally Posted by Reventlov

You're very welcome! It would be great to see the full length of the sword, and the mark on the other side. Also, is it as large as the swords in Zurich?

Finally I have found few minutes to take pic of whole sword, sorry not the best one I will try to make some in daylight tomorrow

[Reventlov]

Thanks for the photo!

I've found another example of a "forked-cross" type mark for comparison, with a more curved shape that may be a little closer to your mark. The wolf appears again and is quite similar, along with an additional cross potent. This sword is in the Slavicin museum in the Czech Republic.

[Terry K]

Great looking piece! Never see any of those over here.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Reventlov

Thanks for the photo!

I've found another example of a "forked-cross" type mark for comparison, with a more curved shape that may be a little closer to your mark. The wolf appears again and is quite similar, along with an additional cross potent. This sword is in the Slavicin museum in the Czech Republic.

Hi mark,

can you tell where you get this Picture from, very nice T-pommel sword.
Iam not sure if the "forked cross" with the round base displays a splitted cross or a monstrance.

sword of post 1, it looks as though the blade is 50-100 years older as the hilt.


best,
jasper

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

can you tell where you get this Picture from, very nice T-pommel sword.
Iam not sure if the "forked cross" with the round base displays a splitted cross or a monstrance.

Hi Jasper, you are right - it is not really the same mark as the split cross. Have you seen a monstrance represented this way elsewhere?

That illustration comes from an article by Petr Zakovsky, "Marked High- and Late-Medieval Longswords from the Collections of the Municipal Museum, Broumov", it should be available online. The text is in Czech, but there are other photos of swords with interesting markings.

I've found an article in volume V of Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde with many examples and variants of the mark, ascribed to members of the Stantler family. In the same series of articles I also came across what looks to be the original source for Wagner's table of wolf marks - but with more details as to location.

Finally, another example was sold by Hermann Historica, who erroneously describe the mark as an "imperial orb" while repeating the attribution to the Stantlers.

http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/s...6&currentpos=2

cheers!
Mark

[Jim McDougall]

I would like to thank Mark for adding this information and scans from these resources illustrating these markings, and for including the reference sources.
This really helps as these archived threads hold an important corpus of data which is very much daily used by those carrying out varying research on these and related topics. I learn every day from these kinds of entries so generously shared here.

It is interesting to see the suggestion of a monstrance, and how many of the markings used on blades carry ecclesiastical significance. With this blade and the curious forked cross, the running wolf and the encircled cross potent in such a grouping seem to be combined in almost a talismanic imbuement situation.

It has always seemed a bit of a conundrum with the running wolf (ostensibly from Passau) marking, which is not actually a makers mark but appears to have been some sort of guild mark which became a symbol implying quality and strength. It is very interesting to find the source which Wagner used (1967) and the variations of these highly stylized creatures. Actually many of them look like prehistoric 'cave art' and many range into Picasso-like impressions which become almost indiscernible.

It seems that much like the concurrent discussion on Spanish makers punzones, many of the markings and spurious examples of these markings used in Germany are quite conflicting. It has almost become a case of which purloined names and markings were favored by certain German smiths.
The 'Imperial orb' is another well known mark with ecclesiastical connotations which is often misconstrued in its use. Again, not a makers mark, but apparently favored by certain makers and perhaps regionally I Germany, and added along with inscription or name in blade marking.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I would like to thank Mark for adding this information and scans from these resources illustrating these markings, and for including the reference sources.
This really helps as these archived threads hold an important corpus of data which is very much daily used by those carrying out varying research on these and related topics. I learn every day from these kinds of entries so generously shared here.

It is interesting to see the suggestion of a monstrance, and how many of the markings used on blades carry ecclesiastical significance.

It has always seemed a bit of a conundrum with the running wolf (ostensibly from Passau) marking, which is not actually a makers mark but appears to have been some sort of guild mark which became a symbol implying quality and strength.

Hi Jim,
You are welcome and thanks for the kind words. I found this site to be a great resource long before I ever joined as a member, so I'm happy to pay it forward and share my own little bits of research!

Since religion was such a ever-present feature of day-to-day life in these times, it's natural that it would be inspiration for signs and symbols in other contexts, I suppose...

Since the wolf-mark seems to have been copied and spread so widely, it may well remain impossible to really identify the origin of any particular marked blade, but by comparing enough examples I think there is still the chance that interesting correlations and patterns may appear... Take version (c) of the wolf-mark in the table above for example: it is quite distinct and recognizable compared to the other marks, and so far I have found it occurring only on examples of the distinctive early types of spadas Schiavonescas used in Venice by the doge's guards.

I have only found four examples, so too few to draw any real conclusions - but in each case, this mark appears alone, without any of the associated crosses, monstrances, etc. that otherwise seem quite typical of Passau(?) blades. Since these Venetian swords are in general very uniform in appearance, and many of their blades have what are usually thought to be Italian markings, perhaps we can hypothesize that mark (c) at least is an imitation and not a true Passau marking.

[Jim McDougall]

HiMark,
Sorry for delay in getting back to this thread, lots going on in research etc. (which is great!).
In checking Boccia & Coelho (1975) examples 320 and 321 are apparently marked with virtually the same running wolf, both are from Venice (but not the early schiavonas) and both c. 1535-50. As you have found this mark on blades from Venice , but period we may presume mid to late 16th, it does seem that a number of these blades had come into Venice in this period.

At this time I believe the Passau wolf (as it became known) had still been in use there (the Boccia & Coelho reference cite it as the Passau Wolf) in these times, and perhaps a number of blades had entered the Venice context.
It does seem that about this time, the wolf had become spuriously used in Solingen and these blades may also have been from there.

Whatever the case, the running wolf mark was not as far as I have found, copied in Italy, though other inscriptions and names may have been. Most important is to find a group of these typically loosely applied marks (many almost indiscernible) which are virtually consistent in form and in the same period and regional context.

Its great working on these markings, and I think we are making some headway in many cases, so thank you for sharing the excellent findings and observations here!