Bicol sword for comment

Battara · 12th July 2014, 09:49 PM

I agree with Ian. One difference is that in Bicolano pieces the tang goes all the way through the hilt like typical Luzon pieces do. In Visayan pieces I've noticed that the tang does not protrude through the hilt.

Sajen · 12th July 2014, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

I agree with Ian. One difference is that in Bicolano pieces the tang goes all the way through the hilt like typical Luzon pieces do. In Visayan pieces I've noticed that the tang does not protrude through the hilt.

Hi Jose, thank you as well for your thoughts. So what you think the first one coming from? The blade isn't chiseled which is a typical feature of Visayan blades. Waray maybe? But have a look to the this sword from Robert: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol which seems to be a Bicol sword where the tang also don't go through the hilt.

Second sword from Bikol?

Regards,
Detlef

Battara · 13th July 2014, 03:32 AM

Yes I would say the second one is Bicolano as far as I understand.

The minisbad in the link that belonged to VVV is also Biconalo as well.

Sajen · 13th July 2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

Yes I would say the second one is Bicolano as far as I understand.

Thank you Jose! And what you think is the first sword from?

Regards,
Detlef

Battara · 14th July 2014, 01:07 AM

For now I'd say the first sword is Visayan.....

Sajen · 14th July 2014, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

For now I'd say the first sword is Visayan.....

Hello Jose,

have a look to post #16 in this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol

The shown sword has a very similar blade shape and the tang isn't peened through the hilt. And look also to the scabbard. When the first sword would orginate from the Visayas wouldn't be the blade chiseled at the edge?

Regards,
Detlef

Sajen · 16th July 2014, 08:05 PM

Today I received a third Bicol sword and now it become maybe more clear why I am so confident that the first shown sword is from Bicol as well.

This sword has the same blade shape like the first shown sword and the handle shows clearly the same style (in up the head) like the first sword. The scabbard remains only as fragment. The first shown sword is complete from wood, the second seems complete leather and this one is wood covered with leather.
Maybe Robert will be so kind to show all three handles side by side again.

16th July 2014, 08:05 PM	#7
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,165	Today I received a third Bicol sword and now it become maybe more clear why I am so confident that the first shown sword is from Bicol as well. This sword has the same blade shape like the first shown sword and the handle shows clearly the same style (in up the head) like the first sword. The scabbard remains only as fragment. The first shown sword is complete from wood, the second seems complete leather and this one is wood covered with leather. Maybe Robert will be so kind to show all three handles side by side again. Attached Images

12th July 2014, 09:49 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I agree with Ian. One difference is that in Bicolano pieces the tang goes all the way through the hilt like typical Luzon pieces do. In Visayan pieces I've noticed that the tang does not protrude through the hilt.

13th July 2014, 03:32 AM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Yes I would say the second one is Bicolano as far as I understand. The minisbad in the link that belonged to VVV is also Biconalo as well.

14th July 2014, 01:07 AM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	For now I'd say the first sword is Visayan.....