Transitional, Victorian, Other?

Hotspur · 18th October 2019, 07:52 PM

Point taken guys but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well. I was simply curious as to whom he refers. It is a pretty small world. I'm not here for the politics.

That opinion aside, here are some resized images. All fittings are ferrous and imo, steel or iron. The plates do appear cast but I believe I may have mentioned cast steel was coming into vogue by the mid 17th century. I do not think the plates were cast together with the body of the roped guard but joined hot. I have done my best to show sections that were assembled. I have scrubbed a section of the blade and will be taking off the grunge/varnish, whatever that top coat is. You can somewhat see it had been sharp and then somewhat bated at some point. If I return with after photos, that will reinforce my take on a shortened or re-purposed blade. I could guess it might have been from an older broken estoc or rapier but that is just speculation.

As this venue is not an exclusive inquiry and presentation of this piece, I can hope that if I happen to cross post a name or few that some can understand it is, collectively, a pretty small world and we all should be able to discuss a given object. I'm done for now.

Cheers
GC

Three more in the next post

Hotspur · 18th October 2019, 07:55 PM

That's it for now. Have a great day.

fernando · 18th October 2019, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotspur

... but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well...

Indeed.

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2019, 09:08 PM

I agree, it seems that common sense and courtesy would dictate certain matters and wording. While personally I have felt this sword is more likely an authentically intended weapon for actual wear and as much as with most weapons, possible use, my initial reaction was that it was a 'decorative' Victorian item.
An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse.

More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details.

As I said, my initial reaction was it was probably decorative Victorian, but seeing more detail, examination, discussion as better photos, I am inclined more toward Glen's views. It is amazing what sound discussion, supported observations and helpful evidence can give us in these kinds of exercises!

PS,I really like this sword !! especially seeing your excellent detailed photos!

fernando · 19th October 2019, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse... More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details ...

Impactive paragraphs, Jim ...
... As if you were an actual moderator

.

Jim McDougall · 19th October 2019, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Impactive paragraphs, Jim ...
... As if you were an actual moderator

.

Thanks Fernando, just expressing opinion, not direction.

Ed · 19th October 2019, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree, it seems that common sense and courtesy would dictate certain matters and wording. While personally I have felt this sword is more likely an authentically intended weapon for actual wear and as much as with most weapons, possible use, my initial reaction was that it was a 'decorative' Victorian item.
An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse.

More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details.

Jesus Christ Jim. Please give me a little credit. With the photos the person has as much information as anyone here. If he had an opinion he would have provided a rationale which I would have shared. You don't care, great but it comes across like .. I don't know, jumping on me before anything actually happened.

Bad form folks.

My god, lighten up.

Hotspur · 19th October 2019, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Jesus Christ Jim. Please give me a little credit. With the photos the person has as much information as anyone here. If he had an opinion he would have provided a rationale which I would have shared. You don't care, great but it comes across like .. I don't know, jumping on me before anything actually happened.

Bad form folks.

My god, lighten up.

Pm sent

Jim McDougall · 19th October 2019, 05:07 AM

Ed, very sorry, I think my perspective was in retrospect out of line. My objective was to have more information on what details brought the 'decorator' designation so as to better understand what to look for. Actually, the identity of the guy is irrelevant so I should have ignored that.

My regrets to you and Glen, it was not my intent to cause this.

midelburgo · 21st October 2019, 12:20 PM

I remember I read some 12 years ago:

GOGAN, Art. Fighting Iron. A metals Handbook for Arms Collectors. Lincoln 1999, Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0 917218 86 8.

SMITH, Cyril Stanley. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cambridge/ London 1988, The MIT Press. ISBN 0 262 69120 5.

And there was no cast steel used in weaponry before middle XVIIIth century. Cast iron was used in guns and cannonballs, but it was unreliable in this task until 1620s, and not used in swords. Too brittle.

Are you sure the piece is cast and not just carved and welded?
Now, my memory is worse by the day, so I could be remembering corrupted data.

I got myself entangled in a Victorian cast iron rapier hilt not long ago...

18th October 2019, 07:52 PM	#1
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 535	Point taken guys but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well. I was simply curious as to whom he refers. It is a pretty small world. I'm not here for the politics. That opinion aside, here are some resized images. All fittings are ferrous and imo, steel or iron. The plates do appear cast but I believe I may have mentioned cast steel was coming into vogue by the mid 17th century. I do not think the plates were cast together with the body of the roped guard but joined hot. I have done my best to show sections that were assembled. I have scrubbed a section of the blade and will be taking off the grunge/varnish, whatever that top coat is. You can somewhat see it had been sharp and then somewhat bated at some point. If I return with after photos, that will reinforce my take on a shortened or re-purposed blade. I could guess it might have been from an older broken estoc or rapier but that is just speculation. As this venue is not an exclusive inquiry and presentation of this piece, I can hope that if I happen to cross post a name or few that some can understand it is, collectively, a pretty small world and we all should be able to discuss a given object. I'm done for now. Cheers GC Three more in the next post Attached Images

18th October 2019, 07:55 PM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 535	That's it for now. Have a great day. Attached Images

18th October 2019, 09:08 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	I agree, it seems that common sense and courtesy would dictate certain matters and wording. While personally I have felt this sword is more likely an authentically intended weapon for actual wear and as much as with most weapons, possible use, my initial reaction was that it was a 'decorative' Victorian item. An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse. More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details. As I said, my initial reaction was it was probably decorative Victorian, but seeing more detail, examination, discussion as better photos, I am inclined more toward Glen's views. It is amazing what sound discussion, supported observations and helpful evidence can give us in these kinds of exercises! PS,I really like this sword !! especially seeing your excellent detailed photos!

19th October 2019, 05:07 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Ed, very sorry, I think my perspective was in retrospect out of line. My objective was to have more information on what details brought the 'decorator' designation so as to better understand what to look for. Actually, the identity of the guy is irrelevant so I should have ignored that. My regrets to you and Glen, it was not my intent to cause this.

21st October 2019, 12:20 PM	#10
midelburgo Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 275	I remember I read some 12 years ago: GOGAN, Art. Fighting Iron. A metals Handbook for Arms Collectors. Lincoln 1999, Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0 917218 86 8. SMITH, Cyril Stanley. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cambridge/ London 1988, The MIT Press. ISBN 0 262 69120 5. And there was no cast steel used in weaponry before middle XVIIIth century. Cast iron was used in guns and cannonballs, but it was unreliable in this task until 1620s, and not used in swords. Too brittle. Are you sure the piece is cast and not just carved and welded? Now, my memory is worse by the day, so I could be remembering corrupted data. I got myself entangled in a Victorian cast iron rapier hilt not long ago...