A Hand and a Half

Ed · 10th September 2025, 01:48 PM

Sorry ... I have been wool gathering ...

3lb 8oz
Length o/a = 47"
Blade=38.25"
Cross guard= 10"
Grip = 6"

I noted that the Christie's description description describes it as "composite". I see not evidence of that.

Thoughts?

Lee · 10th September 2025, 02:34 PM

I well remember my anticipation of the glossy sales catalogues from the major London auctions back when I was active...

The cataloging was pretty stringent back then...

Ed · 10th September 2025, 02:39 PM

Thats it. I wonder what the issue was?

Lee · 10th September 2025, 02:48 PM

I wonder if some features seemed possibly asynchronous to the cataloger at the time, then logic was to better call it composite to be on the safe side if someone later had doubts. When and if it turns out to all be contemporaneous on further study, then the buyer will not likely be unhappy.

Ed · 10th September 2025, 03:28 PM

Thats what I figured.

ulfberth · 11th September 2025, 09:08 AM

Hi Ed,
during that period, you'll see the same thing with good pieces at that auction, where specific knowledge is required, this went on for years.
However, items described as "composite" were never specified as to which part was actually composite. In some cases, you could see that the leather on the grip had been replaced.
Almost all the pieces were simply "good" not only that, it also happened a few times that good pieces were described as 19th-century.
This can still be verified using online catalogs.

10th September 2025, 02:34 PM	#2
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 949	I well remember my anticipation of the glossy sales catalogues from the major London auctions back when I was active... The cataloging was pretty stringent back then... Attached Images

10th September 2025, 01:48 PM	#1
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 279	Sorry ... I have been wool gathering ... 3lb 8oz Length o/a = 47" Blade=38.25" Cross guard= 10" Grip = 6" I noted that the Christie's description description describes it as "composite". I see not evidence of that. Thoughts?

10th September 2025, 02:39 PM	#3
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 279	Thats it. I wonder what the issue was?

10th September 2025, 02:48 PM	#4
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 949	I wonder if some features seemed possibly asynchronous to the cataloger at the time, then logic was to better call it composite to be on the safe side if someone later had doubts. When and if it turns out to all be contemporaneous on further study, then the buyer will not likely be unhappy.

10th September 2025, 03:28 PM	#5
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 279	Thats what I figured.

11th September 2025, 09:08 AM	#6
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 435	Hi Ed, during that period, you'll see the same thing with good pieces at that auction, where specific knowledge is required, this went on for years. However, items described as "composite" were never specified as to which part was actually composite. In some cases, you could see that the leather on the grip had been replaced. Almost all the pieces were simply "good" not only that, it also happened a few times that good pieces were described as 19th-century. This can still be verified using online catalogs.