Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Claymore from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sat 25 Aug, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Claymore from the Metropolitan Museum of Art         Reply with quote

Claymore

Date: Late 15th Century

Culture: Scottish

Classification:Swords

Credit Line:Bequest of Alan Rutherfurd Stuyvesant, 1954

Accession Number: 54.46.10

This is a particularly interesting Scottish two-handed sword. It is immediately noticeable that it has been kept in an exceptional state of preservation, with very little patination present. A second, noteworthy element is its very unusual pommel, which most closely corresponds with the scent stopper family of pommels outlined in Ewart Oakeshott's typology. From the pictures, it looks as though the pommel is affixed to the sword via a nail, although it is difficult to be certain. The third element of note is the engraving along the ricasso of the blade. Judging from its appearance, the blade seems to be of the Type XIX, with the two characteristic narrow grooves that outline the shape of the ricasso. In terms of blade profile and taper, however, the blade seems to be similar to the Type XIIIa war sword blades, although lacking the fuller usually present of swords of this type. Along the strong of the blade are several engraved diamond shaped pips, and what appear to be the letters “I”, “H” and “S”, followed by a ornamented cross pattée. Just below this there is an inlayed maker's mark, which appears to be made of bronze, or perhaps gold.







Photos and classification information from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,256

PostPosted: Sat 25 Aug, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Awesome....         Reply with quote

Anyone make a replica?.....Cause if they dont, they should. I've seen this sword before, but not in such great detail. Good pics.
View user's profile Send private message
Neil Melville




Location: Scotland
Joined: 27 Oct 2009

Posts: 183

PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 5:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the pics, Craig, they're excellent. Unfortunately you would have to examine the sword closely, out of its case, to see how the pommel is fixed - it looks odd. Maybe the grip is a replacement which is slightly too big for the tang, or the tang was shortened when the grip and pommel were replaced. By the way, for anyone not familiar with blade inscriptions, the letters IHS are the initials of Iesus Hominum Salvator (Jesus Saviour of Mankind) - a common religious invocation in the Middle Ages. I would be very interested in any other pics of the Met's two-handed swords. Thanks.
Neil

N Melville
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 983

PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 6:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seems a fairly solid Type XIX to me. The blade is clearly hexagonal in cross-section, one of the defining elements of Type XIX, as opposed to the lenticular XIII.
The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs -- I was a man before I was a king.
-- R. E. Howard, The Road of Kings
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
It seems a fairly solid Type XIX to me. The blade is clearly hexagonal in cross, one of the defining elements of Type XIX, as opposed to the lenticular XIII.


I agree, Type XIX is the best fit for the blade. It just seems that the blade is broader at the point than many XIX blades, although that does not make it a Type XIIIa.
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 2:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It looks to me as if there are several inches missing from the grip. I would not be surprised if the entire piece is a composite and the blade is not original to the hilt. While the individual components are all quite nice, the whole looks like a mess to me. The "late 15th century" classification seems early.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Claymore from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum