Very Nice Nimcha

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Dear Jim, may i extract a piece of your post to realize you are correcting my (more than) humble approach in that, arsenal marks are not makers marks; sure thing, as so i cared to mention both possibilities in my previous post. In any case, and playing positive, despite an arsenal stamp (stricto sensu) might not define the original blade provenance, it sure tracks the path it traversed to meet final assembly, a bit of info that helps construct the sword history. On the other hand, i am perplex at the distinction you seem to make at the discussed stamps being, or not, located in the forte. I fear i don't follow you; both Charles's and Midelburgo's examples have them located in the blade forte; or do you define forte (first strong third) as a different location in the blade ?
All yours .


.

Fernando, I did not mean my comments, which I admit got a bit complicated, as any kind of correction but just as an observation on my own account.
Arsenal marks are not as you say, usually an origin for a blade, but where it 'arrived' at some point and was either held for and used in furbishing swords.
Very good point in these marks establishing a factor in the blade/sword history.
I think the forte thing is more a matter of my own perception, I always think of the forte as with makers marks, to be located near the center of the blade near the guard, sometimes even under the langet etc.
The block forte is often seen on European blades, and such marks are on this section of the blade.

These circular cartouches are situated unusually near the cutting edge of the blade but indeed in the upper section of the blade near the guard, which may broadly be regarded as part of the forte. Perhaps you are right, defining the forte might be regarded as the upper third of the blade...just always thought of it as the root near the guard.