![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 256
|
![]()
Interestingly, shortly after this exchange the barrel below came up on Thomas del Mar:
![]() Dated 1553 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 256
|
![]()
While Matchlock's opinion on ancient firearms is unassailable, he can often be found lying about himself.
Quote:
![]() Seriously, we are very fortunate to have him with us. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 256
|
![]()
Finally ... after some thought I made a mount that is "in the style of" the 16th c.
![]() ![]() and so it is currently displayed. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
I would like to add a few detailed images of the bronze cannon barrel dated 1553 from Tom Del Mar's London sale that Ed posted.
Actually, there was a pair of barrels in that lot, one of them heavily damaged. Please note the significant staging of the barrels, the inscription ANNO DOMI/NI and the date 1553, plus an owner's coat-of-arms, all cast and chiseled in high relief. The prolongated muzzle head closely corresponds to Ed's iron barrel of ca. 1540, although bronze barrels usually follow a more refined style scheme. Matchlock |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|