Stiletto for comments ... please

fernando · 25th September 2019, 07:54 PM

What do you guys think of this one ?
Looks like it has a clear maker's mark
... A genuine item ?

.

.

CSinTX · 26th September 2019, 02:59 AM

It looks good to me. Hopefully others will chime in.

M ELEY · 26th September 2019, 07:09 AM

Awesome piece, Fernando! Looks like the real deal to me as well! Any numbers on the blade? (Gunner's piece?)-

fernando · 26th September 2019, 06:03 PM

Thank you for the kind words, Gentlemen.
No Mark, not a gunner's stiletto (AKA Fusetto).
I will have to find some lid to the mark.

fernando · 2nd October 2019, 06:01 PM

Amazing !
Be it because of the patina 'crust' or due to the unusual superficial marking depth, i did not see at first some of the gauge numbers still showing on the blade.
Considering that, as often written on the subject, these markings were often used to give a gunners look to the stiletto, as those as simple weapons were forbidden to carry by the authorities, one could think that in this specific case, those superficial numbers were intended to serve as a disguise ... my guess.
So, for what 'officially' counts, this stiletto is indeed a gunners fusetto, also called a centoventi, such was the name for they were popularly called, due to the numbers in the gauge going up to 120 (centoventi in Italian).
Given the work put on the dagger and the early style of the digits, i would dare to attribute its age to some time in 17th century.
But of course, i am ready to be corrected.

.

Philip · 3rd October 2019, 05:36 AM

Parabens, Nando! Tão sorte!

So nice to see the real McCoy for a change--so many spurious ones at arms fairs and in collections.

I suppose you have Marcello Terenzi's informative intro to the subject in Robert Held (ed.) Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I, pp 170-79: "Gunners' Daggers". I would recommend it to all readers of this post because the illustrations include three fakes and two broken-and-reshaped examples for comparative study purposes.

M ELEY · 3rd October 2019, 10:10 AM

Awesome to see the real deal, my friend! I am green with envy!

fernando · 3rd October 2019, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... I am green with envy!

...

Captain, you don't certainly mean

...

.

fernando · 3rd October 2019, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip

Parabens, Nando! Tão sorte!

So nice to see the real McCoy for a change--so many spurious ones at arms fairs and in collections.

I suppose you have Marcello Terenzi's informative intro to the subject in Robert Held (ed.) Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I, pp 170-79: "Gunners' Daggers". I would recommend it to all readers of this post because the illustrations include three fakes and two broken-and-reshaped examples for comparative study purposes.

Obrigado Filipe,
If i do behave, would you send me the vital (two, three) pages by email ?

.

25th September 2019, 07:54 PM	#1
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,638	Stiletto for comments ... please What do you guys think of this one ? Looks like it has a clear maker's mark ... A genuine item ? . . Attached Images

2nd October 2019, 06:01 PM	#5
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,638	Looking better ... Amazing ! Be it because of the patina 'crust' or due to the unusual superficial marking depth, i did not see at first some of the gauge numbers still showing on the blade. Considering that, as often written on the subject, these markings were often used to give a gunners look to the stiletto, as those as simple weapons were forbidden to carry by the authorities, one could think that in this specific case, those superficial numbers were intended to serve as a disguise ... my guess. So, for what 'officially' counts, this stiletto is indeed a gunners fusetto, also called a centoventi, such was the name for they were popularly called, due to the numbers in the gauge going up to 120 (centoventi in Italian). Given the work put on the dagger and the early style of the digits, i would dare to attribute its age to some time in 17th century. But of course, i am ready to be corrected. . Attached Images

3rd October 2019, 05:36 AM	#6
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	looks kosher to me! Parabens, Nando! Tão sorte! So nice to see the real McCoy for a change--so many spurious ones at arms fairs and in collections. I suppose you have Marcello Terenzi's informative intro to the subject in Robert Held (ed.) Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I, pp 170-79: "Gunners' Daggers". I would recommend it to all readers of this post because the illustrations include three fakes and two broken-and-reshaped examples for comparative study purposes.

26th September 2019, 02:59 AM	#2
CSinTX Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 232	It looks good to me. Hopefully others will chime in.

26th September 2019, 07:09 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,066	Awesome piece, Fernando! Looks like the real deal to me as well! Any numbers on the blade? (Gunner's piece?)-

26th September 2019, 06:03 PM	#4
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,638	Thank you for the kind words, Gentlemen. No Mark, not a gunner's stiletto (AKA Fusetto). I will have to find some lid to the mark.

3rd October 2019, 10:10 AM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,066	Awesome to see the real deal, my friend! I am green with envy!