Here is my other hunting sword

[urbanspaceman]

My Hounslow Hangar has - along with a Passau Wolf latten - a date which actually corresponds to a local event in history:


This was the date of the crowning of the sixteen year old Lady Jane Grey, who reigned for 9 days before being subsequently executed.
Because it said ANNO 1553 I was convinced it was a date, but it was a century before Hounslow were making these swords. Did someone date their blade to declare loyalty even after 100 years?
Fascinating stuff to grapple with.

[Jim McDougall]

It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.

It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf. Could this have been a Hounslow embellished blade intended to be taken as an old Solingen blade ? or a slightly later sword of 'Hounslow school' which were still mounted with these distinctive hilts and a venerable 'old' Solingen blade?

I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices.
As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year.
So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given?

Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history typically avoided. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or theories subjective in nature among most students of arms.

[Triarii]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.

It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf. Could this have been a Hounslow embellished blade intended to be taken as an old Solingen blade ? or a slightly later sword of 'Hounslow school' which were still mounted with these distinctive hilts and a venerable 'old' Solingen blade?

I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices.
As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year.
So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given?

Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history typically avoided. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or theories subjective in nature among most students of arms.

I'm wondering if the numbers are simply the smiths of any region adding a bit of 'magic' to what was the 'mysteries' (as the London Cutlers Guild certainly called it) of blademaking. Make it a bit trickier for a non guild member to determine the secrets of quality blades by throwing them off of the scent.

[Jim McDougall]

It truly is fascinating to look into these conundrums! and I recall us discussing this amazing Hounslow example. The entire Hounslow enterprise, much like the later Shotley Bridge venture, was wrought with deception, intrigue and odd notions. It has always been unclear just how many actual blades were made in the shops at Hounslow, and how many blades from Solingen were actually brought in and finished there.

It seems there was always still a desire for the venerable old blades from the 'old' country in some degree despite the obvious freshly 'minted' products of the Hounslow smiths, who variously signed their blades, sometimes with dates. This was the exception to the familiar 'magic' dates often seen on blades with the running wolf.

I have an idea that perhaps, after the conventions associated with these magic numbers became largely caught onto, possibly there was deliberate attempt to defray the actual character of the inscription. Obviously the term 'ANNO' suggests 'in the year of' and typically referred to the year of production, or a 'commemorated' event. Either of these would suggest the deliberate distraction to the use of 'magic' numbers in times of notable paranoia toward such 'unholy' practices.
As noted, the date associated with Lady Jane Grey and her 9 day reign in that year(1553) would be hard to assess, as by the same token, she was dethroned for the Catholic Queen Mary, again same year.
So how could one determine which faction to which loyalty would be given?

Naturally all speculation, and admittedly tenuous, but these are the areas in the study of arms history fiercely avoided by most academics. Without any evidence to empirically reach conclusions, there is little to no interest in speculations or unfounded theories.

[Triarii]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

My Hounslow Hangar has - along with a Passau Wolf latten - a date which actually corresponds to a local event in history:
Attachment 246535
Attachment 246536
This was the date of the crowning of the sixteen year old Lady Jane Grey, who reigned for 9 days before being subsequently executed.
Because it said ANNO 1553 I was convinced it was a date, but it was a century before Hounslow were making these swords. Did someone date their blade to declare loyalty even after 100 years?
Fascinating stuff to grapple with.

Hi Urban. Any chance of a photo of the guard decoration please? I don't think I've seen one like that on a 'Hounslow' hanger before.

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by Triarii

Hi Urban. Any chance of a photo of the guard decoration please? I don't think I've seen one like that on a 'Hounslow' hanger before.

It's Keith - by all means.



it is still a very sharp blade.

[urbanspaceman]

I always suspected - given the lack of a button - that the grip has a rebind; probably a working-life job and very well done.
Stuart Mowbray, Brit. Mil. Swords page 165 shows an identical hilt in the London Museum signed FECIT HOUNSLOE on one side and RECARDUS HOPKINS on the other. The blade differs however as does the grip which is spiral bound fish-skin. He does not identify Hopkins.
Another, page 164, with a "silver dot and trellis" hilt but otherwise identical is signed ANDRIA FERARA and has a stag grip.

[urbanspaceman]

Stuart wonders why there are so few "Made In Hounslow" blades on Hounslow hangars... Solingen blades seeming to predominate.
One of his examples is lavishly scripted "IN SOLINGEN ANNO 1644". Another with a 'cross and orb' features the palindrome 1551 and TOMIS AIALA. Yet another has ANNO 1414. Go figure!
Many of these swords are in York Castle Museum.

[Triarii]

double post

[Triarii]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

It's Keith - by all means.
Attachment 246547
Attachment 246548
Attachment 246549
it is still a very sharp blade.

Thanks Keith. Much appreciated. I have two, one with the usual form of shell guard and the other identical to the one in Stuart Mowbrays work. Which means I missed the one that's similar to yours.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems there was a confluence of actual Solingen blades which came into the shops in the Hounslow enterprise, and while certainly some of the German makers there do appear to have made blades, there is good potential for numbers of swords hilted there with imported blades.

The marking of blades with the makers own name was contrary to the conventions of English makers, and possibly there might have been some resistance to doing so by the German and English both in some cases.
The seemingly small number of blades marked with Hounslow or the makers known in such blades are not representative of the numbers of swords of the styles associated with Hounslow.

By the later years of the Hounslow shops c. 1640s, the familiar style of the hilts of these hangers (riding swords) had gained renown, and became somewhat known as of the 'Hounslow school'. As such the hilt style continued in degree for some time after the shops in Hounslow had ceased, likely in about 1670s, though unclear it appears they were mostly gone.

Keith, this amazing example of yours with the curiously unique date which appears outside the normally seen sequences of numbers associated with magic etc,......might be related to the following.
'
In Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962, p.365) there is a 'falchion' which I have seen in various references and known as the PRINS ANGLIE sword. Mann describes it as English c. 1600-20, with the blade being 'either English or German'. The inscription on the blade;
EDWARDVS . PRINS. ANGLIE
In the catalog, A717 (the falchion) the famed collector/writer the Baron de Cosson, wrote in "Society of Antiquaries" proceedings, 2nd series, XVIII, 21 Jun 1900, p,206:
"...early in the 17th c. there was a strong antiquarian movement in England which found expression in books on heraldry containing much fictitious lore, "

further, noting the PRINS ANGLIE swords, he notes a number of swords with this inscription (described in 1786) and a running wolf (717) noting the wolf does not preclude its being marked by a smith in England rather than in Solingen. A mark of a bell accompanies the wolf on the blade.
this mark was known to John Phillipes of the armorers company in London in 1578.

Mann notes further;
"...the existence of several 17th century swords mounted in English hilts and bearing a like inscription ".
Similar blades bear the names;
ROBERTUS BRUSCHIUS SCOTORUM REX 1310 (Robert the Bruce of Scotland (1274-1329)
MARCHIO RODERICIS BIVAR (Rodrigo de Bivar, THE CID) marchio=brand, mark
HUGH LUPUS. King of the Goths (1047-1101) Norman England known as 'the wolf'.

Perhaps, your 'Hounslow' might fall into this category,which seems to have been the climate of historical and heraldic lore of the times ?
What is confounding is the word ANNO with the numbers 1553.........which would defeat the 'magic numbers' category summarily. Again, this would move toward something commemorative as you have neatly described.

It is noted that English blades copying German were certainly in place in Hounslow, and possibly even earlier (Greenwich?). Look at the blade point with clipped tip on example A717, and the curious neoclassic helmeted head pommel.

My Hounslow has a distinct German running wolf, and in latten (brass) as with German convention, but in the serrated back blade common to Hounslow. dating 1630s-40? No name, noting many of these makers there did not add their names.

The last pic of a Hounslow 'lionhead' which I think dates c1650s and represents what I take as 'Hounslow school' (Nuemann, 1973).

[Triarii]

Interesting hilt on that bottom right photo. Style of the ribbon and piercings is very much like that often seen on the English Type 87 and Type 91 hilts as AVB Norman calls them, like this one.

There's one of those Prins Anglie swords in the Fitzwilliam collection.

The part of this thread discussing makers names on blades, and someone asking me how long it took to make a single sword (no idea) has made me think, noting the caveat that we don't have that many survivors from the mid C17th, did smiths mark every blade that they made? If not, why only certain ones?

[Hotspur]

I would think the unmarked blades may have just been more a trade thing. I see a lot of US swords without any makers marks and I'm certain they are British production. Then British, German and French blades in American hilts. Italy, Spain and other forgings.

Cheers
GC

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Triarii

Interesting hilt on that bottom right photo. Style of the ribbon and piercings is very much like that often seen on the English Type 87 and Type 91 hilts as AVB Norman calls them, like this one.

There's one of those Prins Anglie swords in the Fitzwilliam collection.

The part of this thread discussing makers names on blades, and someone asking me how long it took to make a single sword (no idea) has made me think, noting the caveat that we don't have that many survivors from the mid C17th, did smiths mark every blade that they made? If not, why only certain ones?

There seem to be a number of swords with this inscription, but only about 4 or 5 recorded, the Fitzwilliam one is listed in Mann, 1962.

The idea of marking ones own name on blades produced was not necessarily a well practiced convention, though there are obviously those so marked in many cases. It seems more common in Germany that the use of spurious marks, mottos and names were far more common, especially through the 17th into early 18th c.
In England, it seems Aylward notes that the placing of his name on blade by the maker was just not done. I think this was more to the fact that most blades were sold to British cutlers typically from Germany. These were termed 'Dutch', likely more for the fact that these were exported through Dutch ports, most commonly Rotterdam......not necessarily for the idea of the pronunciation of 'Duetsch' for German.

Typically the British would place the name of the cutler on the locket of the scabbard on high end or officers swords, with other ranks of course these remained blank except cases where contracts were being filled ? or for notoriety in 18th c.
In the 17th c. many other ranks, hangers etc. had no name, and in Hounslow, like with my example hanger 1630s-40 only the brass wolf exists. As Holmes (1957) notes many Hounslow swords had no name or date, though many had just the wolf.

The export of many, notably countless, blades out of Solingen were effectively'blanks', produced in huge numbers for export, It seems often these may have been unfinished as it is noted that many grinders and polishers were employed in mills in Hounslow and Shotley. With the swords hilted in America, many were foreign (though America was technically British) and of course German typically, and the French examples while Spanish blades in the 18th c. were usually made in Germany until later in the c.

There are actually many surviving blades of 17th c. and as previously noted, there are many variations and exceptions as far as marking of blades depending on incidental cases. It is hard to say how long it took to make a blade, again, in what period, where, size of shop(s)...but blades were made in profound numbers even by small shops.