In the section in Records of the Medieval Sword where Oakeshott discusses the disputed sword of Edward III, he describes, in passing, a dagger that supposedly was also Edward III's. He pictures a couple of swords (one of them the Edward II sword) and 2 daggers from the Marcy sale. Is one of those the purported Edward II dagger? If so, which one?
Does anyone have any pictures of it or descriptions that go into more detail?
Thanks!
Not to hijack the thread, but does anyone have any more pictures/information of the sword on the right?
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks,
Dan
Not to continue hijacking, but...
The sword on the right now rests in the store room of the Deutsches Klingenmuseum in Solingen. It is a beautiful 19th C sword, made to appeal to the collectors of the time.
There is some reason to suspect all weapons in the picture that Nathan posted are composites (original blade /origininal hilt part mixed with newly made parts) or completely made from scratch in the 19th C.
Even the sword of Edward the III is not completely certain authenticity.
All are nicely looking swords, however.
I have held the one on the right several times. There is something not quite right about it. Difficult to describe, but disctinctve in real life.
All these came from one famous collection, I think. Canīt remember the details right now. Perhaps someone else is remembers the provenance?
The sword on the right now rests in the store room of the Deutsches Klingenmuseum in Solingen. It is a beautiful 19th C sword, made to appeal to the collectors of the time.
There is some reason to suspect all weapons in the picture that Nathan posted are composites (original blade /origininal hilt part mixed with newly made parts) or completely made from scratch in the 19th C.
Even the sword of Edward the III is not completely certain authenticity.
All are nicely looking swords, however.
I have held the one on the right several times. There is something not quite right about it. Difficult to describe, but disctinctve in real life.
All these came from one famous collection, I think. Canīt remember the details right now. Perhaps someone else is remembers the provenance?
| Peter Johnsson wrote: |
|
All these came from one famous collection, I think. Canīt remember the details right now. Perhaps someone else is remembers the provenance? |
All three swords and the dagger associated with the Edward III sword were all at one time in the collection of an antiques dealer Louis Marcy. Marcy made a career of selling both composite as well as completely fake objects along with genuine articles. Since this is the case the Edward III sword and associated dagger have always been under a cloud of suspicion. However, Oakeshott goes into quite a lot of detail in one of his books (ROTMS) about the entire case and exhaustively examines every component of the sword. His conclusion: there is nothing to prevent the sword from being genuine and indeed he was absolutely convinced that the sword was genuine.
Notably he also examined the other sword in the picture with the hexagonal pommel and came to the same conclusion Peter did... it was a fake and a rather unweildy one in the hand.
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| is this the photo?
|
That's the one. :) Oakeshott mentions a leaf-shaped blade, which makes me think it's the one on the left, if it's even in the photo. Anyone know for sure which it is (if it's even there)?
I think we tend to take the leaf blade shape a bit out of context sometimes. To me, a Randall #2 is a leaf blade shape (actually, not too far removed from that broad dagger). To others, if it isn't waisted, it isn't a leaf blade.
Cheers
GC
Cheers
GC
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: |
| I think we tend to take the leaf blade shape a bit out of context sometimes. To me, a Randall #2 is a leaf blade shape (actually, not too far removed from that broad dagger). To others, if it isn't waisted, it isn't a leaf blade.
Cheers GC |
Of course, leaves come in many shapes and sizes. :) The main problem is that I didn't find enough description from Oakeshott in Records to be able to figure out if the dagger is in that pitcure or not. :\
| Chad Arnow wrote: | ||
Of course, leaves come in many shapes and sizes. :) The main problem is that I didn't find enough description from Oakeshott in Records to be able to figure out if the dagger is in that pitcure or not. :\ |
Well, I see the dagger mentioned more than once and aside from the "odd leaf shape" comment are also other clues as to what is being discussed. The ornament being "on" the pommel, as the sword shows such on "one side of the pommel" That seems to relate well to the broad dagger in the photo. I found the mention in regard to the effigy of Edward IIIs second son William to be a possible secondary sight reference as well. I'm not finding good closeups quickly.
I do think though that the descriptives we have referenced here and others from those letters do seem to be pointing to the broader bladed dagger in the photo Nathan posted. I'll spend a little more time looking for a good shot of the alabaster effigy. I've not blown up the photo posted here to see if more matching detail is evident.
There is also the paragraph that seems to include all the details from ROTMS in Ted's article here
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_mow_ediii.html
Cheers
GC
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: |
|
Well, I see the dagger mentioned more than once and aside from the "odd leaf shape" comment are also other clues as to what is being discussed. The ornament being "on" the pommel, as the sword shows such on "one side of the pommel" That seems to relate well to the broad dagger in the photo. I found the mention in regard to the effigy of Edward IIIs second son William to be a possible secondary sight reference as well. I'm not finding good closeups quickly. I do think though that the descriptives we have referenced here and others from those letters do seem to be pointing to the broader bladed dagger in the photo Nathan posted. I'll spend a little more time looking for a good shot of the alabaster effigy. I've not blown up the photo posted here to see if more matching detail is evident. There is also the paragraph that seems to include all the details from ROTMS in Ted's article here http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_mow_ediii.html Cheers GC |
Glen,
I've read that section of Records many times and haven't found enough clues in Oakeshott's info to figure out which it is (if it's even in the picture). I wasn't able to find the effigy last time I looked; perhaps that would have helped. Edward III didn't have any sons named William that I could find. Must have been Edmund or Lionel or Thomas.
I've also read Ted's article. As lead editor on every piece published here the last couple of years, I've had a look at it once or twice. :) One reason we didn't include a photo of the disputed dagger in the article is that we couldn't figure out if it was one of the two pictured or not. :cool:
Does anyone have any more pictures of either dagger in Nathan's picture above?
Hi Chad,
I take the December 15th, 1904 letter to be specifically discussing the effigy of
William of Hatfield
Birth
BEF 16 FEB 1337, Hatfield Herts
Death
BEF 8 JUL 1337
Father
Edward III, King of England
Mother
Philippa of Hainault
http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r26.html
note; dates are screwy at that site. More notes on the family may provide better information. The tomb is said to rpresent a youth of about tens years of age
Edward's son William's alabaster effigy is mentioned here
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/newfile11.htm
and here
http://www.jelleyjar.com/ancestor/our/history.html
Again, I have not yet found good pictures of the lad's jupon related in the December 15th letter. the monument itself, yes.
The writer of the December 1st letter is responding directly to sent photographs. Whether talking about the photo posted here is unclear but worth speculation that the dagger would have been photographed with the sword and of particular note to the writer.
A handle mostly of gold could well be refering to either but one does cleary stand out as "an odd leaf shape"
I understand you are probably well familiar with material at hand but thought others might benefit from the article here, which gives an overview of some clues. I had not cracked open ROTMS in a long tme and it was a nice revisit.
Cheers
GC
I take the December 15th, 1904 letter to be specifically discussing the effigy of
William of Hatfield
Birth
BEF 16 FEB 1337, Hatfield Herts
Death
BEF 8 JUL 1337
Father
Edward III, King of England
Mother
Philippa of Hainault
http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r26.html
note; dates are screwy at that site. More notes on the family may provide better information. The tomb is said to rpresent a youth of about tens years of age
Edward's son William's alabaster effigy is mentioned here
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/newfile11.htm
and here
http://www.jelleyjar.com/ancestor/our/history.html
Again, I have not yet found good pictures of the lad's jupon related in the December 15th letter. the monument itself, yes.
The writer of the December 1st letter is responding directly to sent photographs. Whether talking about the photo posted here is unclear but worth speculation that the dagger would have been photographed with the sword and of particular note to the writer.
A handle mostly of gold could well be refering to either but one does cleary stand out as "an odd leaf shape"
I understand you are probably well familiar with material at hand but thought others might benefit from the article here, which gives an overview of some clues. I had not cracked open ROTMS in a long tme and it was a nice revisit.
Cheers
GC
Glen,
You've inspired me to go back and take another look at the pic and text in Records. :) I may have found something that confirms one of the daggers in the pic is the supposed Edward III dagger, and it's not the one we thought. :)
Oakeshott says:
Oakeshott references a letter from 12/15/1904 where the writer states that:
In reading this again, I'd have to say that the letter doesn't say the blade is that shape, just that that shape appears on the dagger somewhere. I guess the dagger-leaf-blade school of thought is a little shaky. :)
Attachment: 21.26 KB
The one on the left.
Attachment: 21.97 KB
The one on the right.
Attachment: 53.8 KB
Hilt of the one on the right.
Attachment: 28.3 KB
Blade of the one on the right.
You've inspired me to go back and take another look at the pic and text in Records. :) I may have found something that confirms one of the daggers in the pic is the supposed Edward III dagger, and it's not the one we thought. :)
Oakeshott says:
| Quote: |
| Also, a supposed relationship of our sword with the dagger on the right [referring to the same picture Nathan posted] is curious; the hitherto accepted argument assumed by the experts that similar stones covered the reliquary, though it is plain that chalcedony covers the sword's and rock-crystal the daggers's. This led to considerable uncertainty which probably damaged the reputation of the objects under consideration. |
Oakeshott references a letter from 12/15/1904 where the writer states that:
| Quote: |
| In Edward III's dagger is a very peculiar leaf-shape. Now, if you will look at Stothard's Effigy of William of Hatfield at York, two beautiful etchings, you will see precisely this leaf in the form of a diapered pattern all over the jupon the boy wears... |
In reading this again, I'd have to say that the letter doesn't say the blade is that shape, just that that shape appears on the dagger somewhere. I guess the dagger-leaf-blade school of thought is a little shaky. :)
Attachment: 21.26 KBThe one on the left.
Attachment: 21.97 KBThe one on the right.
Attachment: 53.8 KBHilt of the one on the right.
Attachment: 28.3 KBBlade of the one on the right.
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: |
| Hi Chad,
I take the December 15th, 1904 letter to be specifically discussing the effigy of William of Hatfield |
Ah. Right you are. He's not listed in some sources as a child of Edward III (okay, Wikipedia, which I checked before responding to your post rather than going to my bookshelf for better info) as he didn't survive to adulthood.
| Quote: |
|
A handle mostly of gold could well be refering to either but one does cleary stand out as "an odd leaf shape" |
The BAM test confirmed that the dagger's hilt was solid gold :!: . Here's more info on the dagger:
| Quote: |
| The actual form of it is quite consistent with its being genuinely of the mid-14th century. The very restrained elements of decoration on the blade - the St. George's cross in a shield and the little leaf-motif identical with the leaves on the jupon of the effigy of William of Hatfield (a son of Edward III who died in childhood) in York Minster - are consistent with the period and the good taste shown in decorating the sword. The fact that the hilt is of solid gold would be surprising in a fake. |
Geez, I guess need to do more reading before some of my posts. Sorry...
Hi Chad,
Geeze, now I'm going to have to go back and read that chapter again. Sometimes it takes many pairs of eyes to see the clearly obvious.
I keep my copy wrapped up and have had it out twice today. I'm sometimes in books three or four times to find a reference, only for me to realize it was in a different book or on an obscure web bookmark.
I am still looking for a good shot of the effigy. It may be a misssion for the next forumite that visits York.
Knowledge, there is no end to its knowing.
Cheers
GC
Geeze, now I'm going to have to go back and read that chapter again. Sometimes it takes many pairs of eyes to see the clearly obvious.
I keep my copy wrapped up and have had it out twice today. I'm sometimes in books three or four times to find a reference, only for me to realize it was in a different book or on an obscure web bookmark.
I am still looking for a good shot of the effigy. It may be a misssion for the next forumite that visits York.
Knowledge, there is no end to its knowing.
Cheers
GC
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