Although I prefer simple and functional furnishings on swords, it is interesting to see the more bizzare looking specimens that appear to have actually existed historically.
Attachment: 106.43 KB
I saw this image in a text on book plates. Does anyone know of similar designed guards, or surviving ones that have actually been photographed?
Although I prefer simple and functional furnishings on swords, it is interesting to see the more bizzare looking specimens that appear to have actually existed historically.
Attachment: 106.43 KB
Although I prefer simple and functional furnishings on swords, it is interesting to see the more bizzare looking specimens that appear to have actually existed historically.
Attachment: 106.43 KBDon't know where I pulled this from, maybe someone on this forum, if it was, please let me know so I can write it down on the file, thanks.
Not exactly a longsword per se, but this is a claymore in the Edinburgh Museum. (Musuem Replicas by the way just released a poor copy of it).
Not exactly a longsword per se, but this is a claymore in the Edinburgh Museum. (Musuem Replicas by the way just released a poor copy of it).
This is totally unrelated to the artwork, but it reminds me a little of an M1840 Medical Staff sword, which was a dress sword with no real practical usage other than ceremony:
| Michael B. wrote: |
| Don't know where I pulled this from, maybe someone on this forum, if it was, please let me know so I can write it down on the file, thanks.
Not exactly a longsword per se, but this is a claymore in the Edinburgh Museum. (Musuem Replicas by the way just released a poor copy of it). |
I've been curious about that one since Museum Replicas announced their reproduction. I emailed one of my contacts there asking for documentation, but he only repeated that it was "an original in the museum at Edinburough".
However, I just now found that this sword was discussed here on myArmoury in 2005:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...p;start=40
Looks like the Museum Replicas reproduction is only 3/4's correct - http://museumreplicas.com/p-875-edinburgh-claymore.aspx
I could never figure out why MRL decided to leave off a limb. It just does not make sense. :wtf:
It does seem quite odd to leave off something that significant. Perhaps to save money? Or maybe we'll never know.
Losing an arm does make it easier to hang on a wall. Presumably MRL expects most to be bought for display.
| Nathan M Wuorio wrote: |
| It does seem quite odd to leave off something that significant. Perhaps to save money? Or maybe we'll never know. |
Seems like if you had four long arms, all at right angles, on that hilt, it's got a pretty good chance of getting caught up on your body when you swing.
| Michael B. wrote: |
| Don't know where I pulled this from, maybe someone on this forum, if it was, please let me know so I can write it down on the file, thanks.
Not exactly a longsword per se, but this is a claymore in the Edinburgh Museum. (Musuem Replicas by the way just released a poor copy of it). |
I tried to reply to this a few days ago, but it seems to have got lost somewhere.
I had a chance to view and photograph this sword last September at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.
The card with it says it was reputed to have belonged to Robert the Bruce but is actually 16th century. Myself, I still can't believe it, it is just wrong to my eyes. The four quillons for a start, but also the Narwhal tusk grip would make it unique among claymore that I have seen (and I have now seen and even handled a good portion of the 30 or so genuine ones in esistance). The proportions are very chunky and it would be a heavy sword to try fighting with (not to mention braining yourself on the quillons), but really a bit small to be a bearing sword. Also the patination is very heavy and even, which causes me further suspicion.
The curve in the grip is due to the tusk distorting over time (perhaps being displayed too long before it came to the museum with sun or heat on one side?) and the tang is actually snapped inside the grip (got that from a curator).
| Peter Lyon wrote: |
|
I tried to reply to this a few days ago, but it seems to have got lost somewhere. I had a chance to view and photograph this sword last September at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. The card with it says it was reputed to have belonged to Robert the Bruce but is actually 16th century. Myself, I still can't believe it, it is just wrong to my eyes. The four quillons for a start, but also the Narwhal tusk grip would make it unique among claymore that I have seen (and I have now seen and even handled a good portion of the 30 or so genuine ones in esistance). The proportions are very chunky and it would be a heavy sword to try fighting with (not to mention braining yourself on the quillons), but really a bit small to be a bearing sword. Also the patination is very heavy and even, which causes me further suspicion. The curve in the grip is due to the tusk distorting over time (perhaps being displayed too long before it came to the museum with sun or heat on one side?) and the tang is actually snapped inside the grip (got that from a curator). |
Yeah, some posts from a few days ago disappeared due to a Glitch in the server and Nathan has fixed the problem but those posts seem to be lost, one of mine also. ;) :D
Broken tang inside the tusk sort of explains very well the strange curve of the handle that seems un-handleable ( pun intended ) from a practical point of view.
There was also a mention about the 4 or rather 3 quillons by Museum Replicas in my post: I wondered if the fourth one might not be a shadow in the pic ? Now, thinking it over, maybe this is how Museum Replicas interpreted the drawing if they only used it as a reference ? I assume now that there are actually 4 quillons and the replica having 3 is inaccurate ! Leaving one out may have been, as someone suggested, to make it easier to display and hang on a wall ?
Now reproducing it with the curve in the handle only makes sense if the intent is to reproduce what it looks like now instead of how it would have looked like when new or just ignorance about the broken tang and that the horn had warped over time.
This does look " dubious " to me as a sword and could it be a Victorian fake or an honest Victorian reproduction/invented sword mistakenly attributed to an earlier time ? ( Obviously if it is documented as being in a Museum from an earlier time than the Victorian period then I wrong ).
Forgive the ignorant intrusion. I think it may have been said before, as well, but how about it just being a display piece? It might simply have been intended to show what the craftsmen involved could do and was never intended for actual use. Or it may have been experiemental in the sense of "Y'know, 4 quillons would look impressive, why don't we try it?" So it get's made and it looks ok but they find that no-one can carry it to battle with 4 quillons. By extension, if it's a later "reproduction", they were probably just trying to see how bad-ass (to borrow an american tv phrase) they could make it look.
[ Linked Image ]
The sword of king Ulaslo II (Hungarian National Museum)
Note the dolpin crossguard
There is a good picture of it in the book Temesváry: Kardok
[ Linked Image ]
The sword of king Ulaslo II (Hungarian National Museum)
Note the dolpin crossguard
There is a good picture of it in the book Temesváry: Kardok
[ Linked Image ]
Jean,
In the pictures of the weird claymore, the fourth quillon casts a shadow of its own, so it can't be a shadow. Descriptions that have been published refer to it as having 4, not 3, quillons.
In the pictures of the weird claymore, the fourth quillon casts a shadow of its own, so it can't be a shadow. Descriptions that have been published refer to it as having 4, not 3, quillons.
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
| Jean,
In the pictures of the weird claymore, the fourth quillon casts a shadow of its own, so it can't be a shadow. Descriptions that have been published refer to it as having 4, not 3, quillons. |
Yep, it does have 4 quillons. There is no way to comfortably carry that baby in a scabbard.
We at Museum Replicas want to thank everyone for their comments and photographs of the Claymore in the Edinburgh Museum. The photographs we used were based on a view of the sword that hid a quillon and showed what appeared to be 3 quillons. Because of your diligence we see the original had in fact 4 quillons which we verified. We have stopped production and are making the correction; we will re-introduce this item hopefully later this year.
We did want to point out that the curve in the grip is caused by the natural shape of the walrus tusk and is not distortion from age. The tang was made to follow the curvature of the ivory and we reproduced this with a traditional hardwood grip of the period since Walrus/ivory is illegal to procure and use.
Again, we really appreciate the comments. We are all students of history and we never stop learning or being appreciative of our patrons. We take constructive comments seriously, especially where history is being replicated so keep up the good work.
Ally Barnes
We did want to point out that the curve in the grip is caused by the natural shape of the walrus tusk and is not distortion from age. The tang was made to follow the curvature of the ivory and we reproduced this with a traditional hardwood grip of the period since Walrus/ivory is illegal to procure and use.
Again, we really appreciate the comments. We are all students of history and we never stop learning or being appreciative of our patrons. We take constructive comments seriously, especially where history is being replicated so keep up the good work.
Ally Barnes
Hello Ally Barnes-
I wanted to add a comment to say that I'm absolutely impressed with your diligence.
Very nice.
I wanted to add a comment to say that I'm absolutely impressed with your diligence.
Very nice.
Thanks, even though we cannot always respond to forum threads we still enjoy reading them and we certainly learn from them!
| Marton Pap wrote: |
|
The sword of king Ulaslo II (Hungarian National Museum) Note the dolpin crossguard There is a good picture of it in the book Temesváry: Kardok |
Thank you for posting this. It is more along the lines of what I had hoped to see. One of the swords in Oakshotts Records has a clam shell hilt if I remember it right, and other artistic finials and knots were sometimes incorporated into guards.
The direction this thread took on the claymore was fascinating to watch, and not anything like I expected. I still appreciate it though. Good forums can be amazing.
Sincerely,
Jared
| Ally Barnes wrote: |
| Because of your diligence we see the original had in fact 4 quillons which we verified. We have stopped production and are making the correction; we will re-introduce this item hopefully later this year. |
That's extremely cool. :cool:
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum