Older Toledo? Blade, Makers Marks I.D.

fernando · 10th January 2017, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

...P.S. Maybe someone will I.D. the I.B. under the crown as it seems distinctive enough to have been catalogued somewhere along the line...

Apparently not an easy task, Norman; i, for one, have revolved heavens and earth and had no results. Hopefully someone will succeed.

Norman McCormick · 10th January 2017, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Apparently not an easy task, Norman; i, for one, have revolved heavens and earth and had no results. Hopefully someone will succeed.

Hi Fernando,
Many thanks for your efforts on my behalf as always.

I have tried Geschichte der Solinger Klingenindustrie amongst other resources but have come up with nil as well. As you say maybe the cartouche will ring a bell with someone sometime. Once again thanks for taking the time and effort to search for an answer.
My Regards,
Norman.

Norman McCormick · 10th January 2017, 09:35 PM

Hi Jim,
I have another couple of 'different' swords to post so I hope you have your deerstalker to hand.

My Regards,
Norman.

Jim McDougall · 10th January 2017, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
I have another couple of 'different' swords to post so I hope you have your deerstalker to hand.

My Regards,
Norman.

...and the Drambuie!!!.....the games afoot !!

Jim McDougall · 12th January 2017, 04:19 AM

I think I might have it!!!
According to the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962 p.302 A595) a rapier by Jasper Bongen the elder, Solingen around 1620 with blade more in accord with usual form with narrowed ricasso. The mark is a crowned B.

According to Kinman ("European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks", 2015, p.14) this maker is recorded 1600-50, and his mark was a cartouche with IB and a crown, but in horizontal posture. There seem to have been variations of the mark, and his son 1640-75 used variations of a crowned ox.

I would say this is an arming rapier blade by Jasper Bongen the elder in Solingen first half 17th c . with the triple marks following the Wundes kings heads manner.

fernando · 12th January 2017, 12:43 PM

Jim, if you allow me, you are a master researcher and your conclusions must be taken into decisive account but, as you well mention, you might (only might) have it.
The marks that are shown in Wallace A595 ... and eventually A596, are precisely the same as shown by Gyngell ... as if they had the same printing origin and, as you well know, have no slight resemblance with the one seen in Norman's blade. As i ignore Kinmans's work (from which i would like to have a copy) i am compelled to accept the allusion to the horizontal crowned IB. I take it that such is only a written description, that not an actual design of the mark. A pity we can not see such cartouche; the IB font in Norman's blade is 'so strict', when compared to the (sort of) Italic B applied in the marks currently disposed. Not to speak that the blade in Wallace A595 is so distinct from the one discussed here, as they were forged by different hands but, that is another deal.
Pay not much attention to my inconsistent approach, as i obviously stand to b corrected.

.

.

Jim McDougall · 12th January 2017, 05:58 PM

Thank you Fernando, and actually I very much agree, my deductions were admittedly tenuous. Worse, I wrote after long hours of compiling research and did not elaborate on another important factor. The IB that was in horizontal next to the crown was actually a JB, however the J character was weakly representative and lacked prominent 'tail'.
That aside, I was relying on the early convention in written language of the times which typically used I for J. However while I know this applied in England, I am not sure how used in Europe.
In any case, another example of this makers mark uses a more distinct J.

Your observations are complete in noting the rapier in Wallace is a quite different blade, and as it was noted much earlier than the period I was suggesting as well as this being more of an arming blade, I thought that was in account to be a later blade.

It is well known of course that makers marks and the application of them was always in flux, even within given and recorded shops. As stamps wore down, the strike was often compromised as certain elements became degenerated. Given that these compendiums of markings are virtually always comprised of line drawings and sketches, the degree of variance becomes of even more concern.

A further instance is that even in specific shops, over time the marks recorded with guilds or otherwise accounted for, were subject to both alteration and change. It seems possible that such variations due to unknown reasons may have escaped the record keepers, but even more likely, such changes may have been intentional and covert.
Given the known practice of purloining of marks, it is possible that the maker may have deliberately altered or 'adjusted' their stamp, if their mark was compromised in such a way. The 'chop' of the tail on the J might have been such a case.
As noted, this example on Normans sword has a clear B, but might the I be less formative?
The alteration of configuration is also a notable consideration in addition to the triple application.

It is always good to examine these cases forensically, and a great exercise on deductive reasoning. The mysteries of markings have been my obsession for so many years, yet still so far from conclusions. Thank you for your well observed notes Fernando, and though a bit of a stumble...the game is still well afoot!!!

12th January 2017, 12:43 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Jim, if you allow me, you are a master researcher and your conclusions must be taken into decisive account but, as you well mention, you might (only might) have it. The marks that are shown in Wallace A595 ... and eventually A596, are precisely the same as shown by Gyngell ... as if they had the same printing origin and, as you well know, have no slight resemblance with the one seen in Norman's blade. As i ignore Kinmans's work (from which i would like to have a copy) i am compelled to accept the allusion to the horizontal crowned IB. I take it that such is only a written description, that not an actual design of the mark. A pity we can not see such cartouche; the IB font in Norman's blade is 'so strict', when compared to the (sort of) Italic B applied in the marks currently disposed. Not to speak that the blade in Wallace A595 is so distinct from the one discussed here, as they were forged by different hands but, that is another deal. Pay not much attention to my inconsistent approach, as i obviously stand to b corrected. . . Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 12th January 2017 at 03:26 PM.

10th January 2017, 09:35 PM	#3
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,618	Hi Jim, I have another couple of 'different' swords to post so I hope you have your deerstalker to hand. My Regards, Norman.

12th January 2017, 04:19 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	I think I might have it!!! According to the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962 p.302 A595) a rapier by Jasper Bongen the elder, Solingen around 1620 with blade more in accord with usual form with narrowed ricasso. The mark is a crowned B. According to Kinman ("European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks", 2015, p.14) this maker is recorded 1600-50, and his mark was a cartouche with IB and a crown, but in horizontal posture. There seem to have been variations of the mark, and his son 1640-75 used variations of a crowned ox. I would say this is an arming rapier blade by Jasper Bongen the elder in Solingen first half 17th c . with the triple marks following the Wundes kings heads manner.

12th January 2017, 05:58 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Thank you Fernando, and actually I very much agree, my deductions were admittedly tenuous. Worse, I wrote after long hours of compiling research and did not elaborate on another important factor. The IB that was in horizontal next to the crown was actually a JB, however the J character was weakly representative and lacked prominent 'tail'. That aside, I was relying on the early convention in written language of the times which typically used I for J. However while I know this applied in England, I am not sure how used in Europe. In any case, another example of this makers mark uses a more distinct J. Your observations are complete in noting the rapier in Wallace is a quite different blade, and as it was noted much earlier than the period I was suggesting as well as this being more of an arming blade, I thought that was in account to be a later blade. It is well known of course that makers marks and the application of them was always in flux, even within given and recorded shops. As stamps wore down, the strike was often compromised as certain elements became degenerated. Given that these compendiums of markings are virtually always comprised of line drawings and sketches, the degree of variance becomes of even more concern. A further instance is that even in specific shops, over time the marks recorded with guilds or otherwise accounted for, were subject to both alteration and change. It seems possible that such variations due to unknown reasons may have escaped the record keepers, but even more likely, such changes may have been intentional and covert. Given the known practice of purloining of marks, it is possible that the maker may have deliberately altered or 'adjusted' their stamp, if their mark was compromised in such a way. The 'chop' of the tail on the J might have been such a case. As noted, this example on Normans sword has a clear B, but might the I be less formative? The alteration of configuration is also a notable consideration in addition to the triple application. It is always good to examine these cases forensically, and a great exercise on deductive reasoning. The mysteries of markings have been my obsession for so many years, yet still so far from conclusions. Thank you for your well observed notes Fernando, and though a bit of a stumble...the game is still well afoot!!!