A composite 17 th century sword for comment.

[ulfberth]

Hi Jean Luc thank you for posting extra pictures,

from what i can see on the structure of the metal the blade seems 16th C.
The blade looks to be thoroughly cleaned at one point in time because the lettering is partly worn out but there is little or no pitting in the blade.
The cross guard could be late 16th or early 17th C , the engraving is good for the period. I cant say nothing about the pommel.

kind regards

Ulfberth

[RobertGuy]

I too will admit that the clearer pictures have certainly clarified things and presented a much better impression of the sword. The lettering is certainly much better presented with the depth of the characters clearly shown.

Cornelistromp, I admit defeat I cannot find a decent picture to illustrate my earlier statement about the cross guard. Plenty of cross guards on tulwars, small swords an even some rapiers where the decoration is in the round but nothing on a similar hilt.. so my bad

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by RobertGuy

Cornelistromp, I admit defeat I cannot find a decent picture to illustrate my earlier statement about the cross guard. Plenty of cross guards on tulwars, small swords an even some rapiers where the decoration is in the round but nothing on a similar hilt.. so my bad

not of great importance, but thank you for the positive response!

[Jim McDougall]

This thread and the entire discourse is outstanding!! I cannot thank all of you participating here enough for these observations and the great illustrations.
This is like a course in arms study, and for an old nomad like me in a Winnebago who seldom sees or handles actual weapons in person, it is amazing

I thank Jen Luc for always sharing the excitement of new items he acquires so we can learn from them (Jasper, as you agree none of us ever stops learning).

Ulfberth, thank you for your astute skills in observing details on the metal work and components in their character.......things I certainly miss each time never escape your eye!

Jasper, if I may, it seems you mentioned that the spelling of Solingen adapted to that form at some point in time, leaving the SALINGEN spelling behind. Can you please reiterate?

On the blocked letters on the blade of original post, I would have taken them for more modern as they seem so heavily stamped and don't seem to have the fine serifs and flourished features of the early examples shown in some of these illustrations. Only experience and keen eye as with you guys could discern that these are indeed early.
Would that be likely from shop variation or worn stamps etc?

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Jasper, if I may, it seems you mentioned that the spelling of Solingen adapted to that form at some point in time, leaving the SALINGEN spelling behind. Can you please reiterate?

this is own interpretation!
nevertheless the silver hilted rapier from post nr16 with the MEFECIT SALINGEN blade is attributed by Claude Blair, the keeper of metalwork in the Victoria & Albert Museum for ten years before his retirement in 1982, to a Solingen workshop.
my date of 1630 , 10 years earlier for the rapier's is also own interpretation.

best,

[cornelistromp]

this one is also nice.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

this is own interpretation!
nevertheless the silver hilted rapier from post nr16 with the MEFECIT SALINGEN blade is attributed by Claude Blair, the keeper of metalwork in the Victoria & Albert Museum for ten years before his retirement in 1982, to a Solingen workshop.
my date of 1630 , 10 years earlier for the rapier's is also own interpretation.

best,

Salaams all.. Magnificent thread! ... In reference to http://art-of-swords.tumblr.com/post...lace-of-origin What does the text imply about this spelling? It appears to indicate that Latin uses the SALINGEN form rather than SOLINGEN. Is this the case here?

Quote"The hilt of this sword was made in England, almost certainly in London, but its plain, serviceable blade is stamped with a Latin inscription indicating that it was made in Solingen, Germany".Unquote

In that region in the past it has been called similar names but not Salingen: From wikepedia Quote "Solingen was first mentioned in 1067 by a chronicler who called the area "Solonchon". Early variations of the name included "Solengen", "Solungen", and "Soleggen", although the modern name seems to have been in use since the late 14th and early 15th centuries". Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I Quote" Salingen a Sword Cutler.—A sword in my possession, with inlaid basket guard, perhaps of the early part of the seventeenth century, is inscribed on the blade "Salingen me fecit." If this is the name of a sword cutler, who was he, and when and where did he live?"Unquote.

T.S. LAWRENCE.
(SEE this quote on page 133 at Gutenbergs page on http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13736...-h/13736-h.htm)

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

It appears to indicate that Latin uses the SALINGEN form rather than SOLINGEN. Is this the case here?

no this is not the case MEFECIT SOLINGEN and MEFECIT SALINGEN are both Latin.
it only indicates that the V & A specialist attributes the blade to Solingen, nothing more.