![]() |
|
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Madrid / Barcelona
Posts: 256
|
![]()
Well, after all this time I should have learnt to keep my mouth shut. But I still believe, fool of me, that submitting a piece to such an open scrutiny implies a desire by the poster to gather opinions about them.
And an opinion is what I have. It’s a pity it doesn’t coincide with yours or the curator of the Dutch Army Museum’s, but I still stand by it. ![]() There’s indeed a typology of medieval (14th-15th c.) dagger blade of triangular (or peaked diamond) section with a strong mid-rib. It’s there in swords, also. What I’m saying is that the blade of this particular piece is not one of them. It’s from a cut-down small-sword, probably an early one, given the inlaid decoration, maybe late 17th or early 18th. I wouldn’t dare to pass a definitive judgement by pictures alone, of course. And, for sure, my reasoning never took into account the actual condition of the piece, nor I think I said so. I know very well how dependent to particular conditions corrosion is, not to mention the wonders of restoration. ![]() I, of course, agree with Oakeshott, who wouldn’t. After all, what he says is the very basics of Antiques evaluation. It’s from there up that one builds a criterion for appraisal. ![]() Also (and here we disagree again, I’m afraid ![]() ![]() Well, in any event, let me repeat, it’s just my opinion. Probably it’s indeed only me ![]() P.S. The ballock dagger is still, again in my opinion ![]() P.P.S. The pictures are here only to illustrate my point about the typology. Last edited by Marc; 13th November 2009 at 02:34 PM. Reason: Spelling and wording |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|