Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > new swords at the Met Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Mark Lewis





Joined: 19 Apr 2014

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Tue 23 Aug, 2016 4:52 am    Post subject: new swords at the Met         Reply with quote

I recently made a visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York and thought I would share some photos of five swords that are newly on display, all are on loan to the museum as of last year.

1) A Petersen type-V with traces of an inscription.



2) An earlier sword, possibly c. 800. Petersen's special type 6 - possibly a precursor of type K, with the pommel not yet divided into lobes. Inlaid with indistinct letters of patterns. Has been discussed previously: see second link for posts from the finder of the sword in 2002.

https://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5070
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000064.html



3) An XIIIa(?) with a very broad fuller. Inlaid with a single character in yellow metal.



4) Oakeshott's XVII.2 in Records of the Medieval Sword. Formerly in the E. A. Christensen collection, sold at auction in 2012.

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19796/lot/76/



5) A sword with a very distinctive pommel, perhaps type XII(?), inscribed with the letters S O S. Appears to be the same sword sold by Hermann Historica.

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm63...at63_a.txt

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Niels Just Rasmussen




Location: NykÝbing Falster, Denmark
Joined: 03 Sep 2014

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 800

PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug, 2016 9:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Great pictures, Mark.

By the way the Christensen sword (Oakeshott's XVII.2) we also discussed in this thread about the Boringholm sword. So great to see your even more detailed pictures.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=315...mp;start=0
View user's profile Send private message
J.D. Crawford




Location: Toronto
Joined: 25 Dec 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,611

PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug, 2016 6:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Two things catch my eye in this group; the XII with the odd pommel (seen this one before) and the XIIIa with the broad fuller. Is that fuller short like an XIII or long like an X? Hard to tell in the pictures...looks short in one and longer in another.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mark Lewis





Joined: 19 Apr 2014

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug, 2016 8:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J.D. Crawford wrote:
Is that fuller short like an XIII or long like an X? Hard to tell in the pictures...looks short in one and longer in another.

The fuller is short, the photo of the tip is misleading... what looks like a fuller is actually flat, the cross-section must be quite hexagonal. Conditions were not so good for photography, and I didn't get a photo that shows this more clearly unfortunately. The museum label gives the weight as 1743 g (about 3 lb, 13 oz.), total length was... probably 120 cm or so?

About XVII.2, Oakeshott wrote: "When I weighed it, after I had bought it in 1952, it was, surprisingly, nearly four pounds. This is very heavy, even for a XVII. It was clumsy too..." The museum now gives the weight as 1392 g, only an ounce over three pounds. So that's confusing...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neil Melville




Location: Scotland
Joined: 27 Oct 2009

Posts: 183

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 4:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mark Lewis wrote[quote]
" The museum now gives the weight as 1392 g, only an ounce over three pounds. So that's confusing..".

Not really, for all his knowledge and enthusiasm Oakeshott was notoriously careless when giving dimensions and weights of swords. It seems he frequently quoted these from memory, often long after examining the sword, with the results we now have to deal with. So where there's a discrepancy I would suggest go by the museum figures (though even these are not always 100% accurate).
Neil

N Melville
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Lewis





Joined: 19 Apr 2014

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 5:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Neil Melville wrote:
Not really, for all his knowledge and enthusiasm Oakeshott was notoriously careless when giving dimensions and weights of swords. It seems he frequently quoted these from memory, often long after examining the sword, with the results we now have to deal with. So where there's a discrepancy I would suggest go by the museum figures (though even these are not always 100% accurate).
Neil

Oh I'm well aware that Oakeshott's numbers are not to be trusted! I'm just a bit surprised that the error is so large even with a sword he once owned himself, and it can't help but call into question his more subjective observations of the handling and balance of the sword... Confused
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > new swords at the Met
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