two Dutch medieval daggers

Jim McDougall · 13th November 2009, 01:15 PM

Hi Cornelis,
Very well put points! and thank you as well for the kind words.
I completely agree, and as we know, often even the venerable and scholarly works prove that even they many times are not the final answer as new findings can completely revise knowledge.
What more respected scholar than the late Mr. Oakeshott could more perfectly describe this?
What you say is of course so true, we cannot draw conclusions or make final judgements on weapons we are only observing and making assessments on with the lack of the necessary dimensions of actual handling and close examination as well as all known information.
This is why I always look forward to participation here, to have more input presenting whatever information is at hand, the inclusion of other known examples, and extracts of material from published material from many countries or often rare and hard to find articles and books.

We are fortunate to have scholars and serious students of arms and armour dedicated to learning and sharing information here, and though it is obvious that we cannot make cinclusive judgements, we can continue to learn together, and that is truly a joy beyond description. Thank you for all you do in sharing the wonderful weapons and knowledge here!
With all very best regards,
Jim

cornelistromp · 13th November 2009, 04:04 PM

Boccia/coelho nr 300 rondel dagger.

cornelistromp · 13th November 2009, 06:12 PM

wheelpommeldagger Mueller Eur. hieb und stichwaffen.

katana · 15th November 2009, 06:38 PM

Hi
like Marc, I have reservations regarding the same dagger. I too freely admit I am no expert on medieval daggers....but several features do seem 'alien' to the daggers of the period.

The blade sits 'uneasily' within the cross guard and is not central. Rust and decay in that area could account for this, but with the good 'preservation' suggested, seems unlikely. The forte/tang area ( shoulder) would be shaped to fit the crossguard slot/hole to prevent movement, the handle and pommel once fitted 'locking' the components together.
The relatively deep fuller extends to the point, again AFAIK suggesting the blade has been shortened. Why design a blade that has a weakened point.....especially when it could strike/pierce armour and snap ?

The crossguard recess is almost 'diamond' shaped ....better designed to accommodate a blade that's cross section is square/diamond not a triangular section. This also suggests the crossguard and blade did not 'start life' together.

Also the fort of the blade where it meets the guard is flared .... I have not seen this on a cross guarded dagger of any period (but then this does not mean this is a fact) However, this 'flare' is seen where the blades butt up against a bowl or similar shaped guard.....like the short sword. See photos below.
If you look the size and shaping of these flares seem almost identical.

If this is not a medieval dagger, it is possible that this is a Victorian 'era' 'put together' ....common to the time due to the interest of Romanism and the fascination of the medieval period.

All these observations are from the pictures, which does not necessarily convey the 'whole story'. This is not an attack on the museum curator either, but people make mistakes, so his assessment should only be taken as a guide. After all doctors often seek a 'second opinion' ....even if they are certain their diagnosis is correct.

Look forward to your comments, all the best

Regards David

katana · 23rd November 2009, 03:55 PM

Hi
please has anyone any comments /opinions on my last posting ? I only wanted to put forward a few observations ..... are my conclusions wrong?

I feel that I have 'killed' the thread

.... when my intention was to continue the debate and learn.

Regards David

PS the word "Romanism" in my last posting should have read "Romanticism" ....missed out "tic"

Jim McDougall · 25th November 2009, 04:13 AM

David, just noticed this! Too many things going at once

Please dont feel as if you'killed' the thread here!!! It often happens that once the discussion and observations have saturated, the discussion will stall until other new material surfaces, or debate stalemates. Your observations were brilliantly presented, and compelling....outstanding forensics!!!! Very well written. Having detailed your observations so well it was pretty much a textbook case of examining weapons from photographs.

As one whose comments often appear in the last post of a thread, I have often feared the same thing. Realizing that my purposes in writing are mostly summarizing what I have researched in order to respond, and learn.....I just write. If anyone else learns from what I have found...all the better!!!

I think that you, Marc and Cornelis all have presented excellent perspectives on these daggers, and those who read this thread can well assess the case on them from the detail you have all shown.
Thank you guys! Well done

All very best regards,
Jim

A Senefelder · 1st December 2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Also the fort of the blade where it meets the guard is flared .... I have not seen this on a cross guarded dagger of any period (but then this does not mean this is a fact) However, this 'flare' is seen where the blades butt up against a bowl or similar shaped guard.....like the short sword. See photos below.

The flare you mention are the result of hollow grinding. While the technique tends to be associated with three sided, triangular small sword blades it can be found on medieval swords as well. In hallow grinding the grinding wheel is used to create rather than a flat face one that is slightly concave imparting stiffness to the blade. Dr. Jones has a nice 15th century fishtail pommel sword, of the type with a blade that tappers rapidly from forte to point that I had the pleasure of handeling that is hollow ground.

13th November 2009, 04:04 PM	#2
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,064	Boccia/coelho nr 300 rondel dagger. Attached Images

13th November 2009, 06:12 PM	#3
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,064	wheelpommeldagger Mueller Eur. hieb und stichwaffen. Attached Images Last edited by cornelistromp; 13th November 2009 at 07:09 PM.

15th November 2009, 06:38 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi like Marc, I have reservations regarding the same dagger. I too freely admit I am no expert on medieval daggers....but several features do seem 'alien' to the daggers of the period. The blade sits 'uneasily' within the cross guard and is not central. Rust and decay in that area could account for this, but with the good 'preservation' suggested, seems unlikely. The forte/tang area ( shoulder) would be shaped to fit the crossguard slot/hole to prevent movement, the handle and pommel once fitted 'locking' the components together. The relatively deep fuller extends to the point, again AFAIK suggesting the blade has been shortened. Why design a blade that has a weakened point.....especially when it could strike/pierce armour and snap ? The crossguard recess is almost 'diamond' shaped ....better designed to accommodate a blade that's cross section is square/diamond not a triangular section. This also suggests the crossguard and blade did not 'start life' together. Also the fort of the blade where it meets the guard is flared .... I have not seen this on a cross guarded dagger of any period (but then this does not mean this is a fact) However, this 'flare' is seen where the blades butt up against a bowl or similar shaped guard.....like the short sword. See photos below. If you look the size and shaping of these flares seem almost identical. If this is not a medieval dagger, it is possible that this is a Victorian 'era' 'put together' ....common to the time due to the interest of Romanism and the fascination of the medieval period. All these observations are from the pictures, which does not necessarily convey the 'whole story'. This is not an attack on the museum curator either, but people make mistakes, so his assessment should only be taken as a guide. After all doctors often seek a 'second opinion' ....even if they are certain their diagnosis is correct. Look forward to your comments, all the best Regards David Attached Images Last edited by katana; 15th November 2009 at 06:57 PM.

23rd November 2009, 03:55 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi please has anyone any comments /opinions on my last posting ? I only wanted to put forward a few observations ..... are my conclusions wrong? I feel that I have 'killed' the thread .... when my intention was to continue the debate and learn. Regards David PS the word "Romanism" in my last posting should have read "Romanticism" ....missed out "tic" Last edited by katana; 23rd November 2009 at 04:11 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

13th November 2009, 01:15 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,657	Hi Cornelis, Very well put points! and thank you as well for the kind words. I completely agree, and as we know, often even the venerable and scholarly works prove that even they many times are not the final answer as new findings can completely revise knowledge. What more respected scholar than the late Mr. Oakeshott could more perfectly describe this? What you say is of course so true, we cannot draw conclusions or make final judgements on weapons we are only observing and making assessments on with the lack of the necessary dimensions of actual handling and close examination as well as all known information. This is why I always look forward to participation here, to have more input presenting whatever information is at hand, the inclusion of other known examples, and extracts of material from published material from many countries or often rare and hard to find articles and books. We are fortunate to have scholars and serious students of arms and armour dedicated to learning and sharing information here, and though it is obvious that we cannot make cinclusive judgements, we can continue to learn together, and that is truly a joy beyond description. Thank you for all you do in sharing the wonderful weapons and knowledge here! With all very best regards, Jim

25th November 2009, 04:13 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,657	David, just noticed this! Too many things going at once Please dont feel as if you'killed' the thread here!!! It often happens that once the discussion and observations have saturated, the discussion will stall until other new material surfaces, or debate stalemates. Your observations were brilliantly presented, and compelling....outstanding forensics!!!! Very well written. Having detailed your observations so well it was pretty much a textbook case of examining weapons from photographs. As one whose comments often appear in the last post of a thread, I have often feared the same thing. Realizing that my purposes in writing are mostly summarizing what I have researched in order to respond, and learn.....I just write. If anyone else learns from what I have found...all the better!!! I think that you, Marc and Cornelis all have presented excellent perspectives on these daggers, and those who read this thread can well assess the case on them from the detail you have all shown. Thank you guys! Well done All very best regards, Jim