Seeking information of makers mark (18th century blade)
Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone could help me out on this one. My guess would be that this blade is of Solingen manufacture. (but I don't like to "guess" on matters like this ;))

______________________________________

bare smallsword blade- circa 18th century

blade length- 25 1/16"
blade width- 1 2/16"
tang length- 6 3/4"
(floral etching remains beneath the light overall pitting)

thanks,
Stephen


 Attachment: 82.22 KB
blade2.jpg
makers stamp on tang "tongue"

 Attachment: 106.97 KB
blade1.jpg



Last edited by Stephen A. Fisher on Mon 05 Apr, 2004 2:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Is that a bayonet blade? I don't believe I have ever seen anything except a bayonet that had so pronounced a ridge on one side only.
...


 Attachment: 115.33 KB
blade3.jpg


 Attachment: 118.37 KB
DSCN3774.JPG


 Attachment: 57.3 KB
DSCN3790.JPG


 Attachment: 103.99 KB
blade4.jpg



Last edited by Stephen A. Fisher on Mon 05 Apr, 2004 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
..


 Attachment: 112.33 KB
blade5.jpg

Steve Fabert wrote:
Is that a bayonet blade? I don't believe I have ever seen anything except a bayonet that had so pronounced a ridge on one side only.


Hello Steve,

No, this is a blade for an eighteenth century smallsword. Adult smallsword blades could range from 25-34" (28-32" being the most common) and came in many blade variations: ex. triangular, hexagonal, diamond, flat.

Take a look through the myArmoury.com albums for hundreds of examples.
Smallswords
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/thumbnails.php?album=55

and my album,
The Smallsword and its variations
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/thumbnails.php?album=96


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The socket bayonet, a French invention from the last half of the 17th century also contained a blade of triangular cross section, very similar to that of the smallsword.


 Attachment: 42.61 KB
socketbayonetforstevefabert.jpg
Brown Bess socket bayonet c.1810 (with triangular blade)
Stephen A. Fisher wrote:

No, this is a blade for an eighteenth century smallsword. Adult smallsword blades could range from 25-34" (28-32" being the most common) and came in many blade variations: ex. triangular, hexagonal, diamond, flat.


That certainly explains my ignorance. My sword-related reading interests jump from about 1475 to 1815, so I am not familiar with the smallsword variants.

It must have taken a great deal of effort and care for a smith to produce that sort of complex geometry - or were these manufactured with some early form of automation that reduced the degree of individual skill required?
That reminds me, Stephen-Have you seen Alchem's new colichemarde smallsword for historical fencing? You'll appreciate this: http://www.alcheminc.com/safeflexrapiers.jpg
Sean Flynt wrote:
That reminds me, Stephen-Have you seen Alchem's new colichemarde smallsword for historical fencing? You'll appreciate this: http://www.alcheminc.com/safeflexrapiers.jpg


Hi Sean,

Yes, unfortunately the 36" length is a turnoff. Though they could probably be shortened somewhat. I don't know why they have labeled it as a "colichemarde," :eek: as it is clearly not. I'm not very fond of their rod tangs either. But I'm sure they could probably make something more suitable if asked.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A big thanks to Richard Dellar from the Antique & Military Sword Forum on SFI, he was able to locate the makers mark in the German book, Me Fecit Potzdam: Altpreussisches Blankwaffen des 18 Jahrhunderts ( Prussian Swords of the 18th Century). He mentioned that crossed keys was the trademark of the Solingen cutler Friedrich Herder & Sohn (which still makes knives today). http://www.herder-solingen.de/ He suggested that it could possibly be an early version of the mark.

If one of our German forumites could help out in translating the caption for me, I would be very much obliged. This it what the online translator service deciphered.

"Sign with gekreuzsten keying did not identify in pearl wreath oval on bikonvixer dragoon blade; around 1780"


 Attachment: 72 KB
Image6.jpg
scan from "Me Fecit Potzdam"

 Attachment: 97.92 KB
Image7.jpg

Stephen A. Fisher wrote:


If one of our German forumites could help out in translating the caption for me, I would be very much obliged. This it what the online translator service deciphered.

"Sign with gekreuzsten keying did not identify in pearl wreath oval on bikonvixer dragoon blade; around 1780"


I am not a native speaker, but it approximates as “Unidentified mark with crossed keys in oval wreath of pearls on double convex dragoon blade - about 1780.”

A similar crown and single key appear on the arms of the city of Bremen. A swordmaker in Bremen may therefore have used such a modified mark.
Steve Fabert wrote:
I am not a native speaker, but it approximates as “Unidentified mark with crossed keys in oval wreath of pearls on double convex dragoon blade - about 1780.”


Thanks Steve.

Quote:
A similar crown and single key appear on the arms of the city of Bremen. A swordmaker in Bremen may therefore have used such a modified mark.


This is an interesting subject. The symbol of St. Peter is a pair of crossed keys, and the symbol was used widely over Europe throughout the centuries on various seals, heraldry, etc. Many also contained a crown above them. But we can can agree that this blade is of German origin considering the source. The only makers mark that I have found thus far is that of Friedrich Herder & Sohn which features crossed keys. (early 20th century example attached)


 Attachment: 11.97 KB
BS055.jpg

The presence of the crown in your first photo is what reminded me of the Bremen arms, and I note that the crown is absent from the more recent Herder mark. The crown was generally used to signify the status of a major city like Bremen. But without some confirmation that there were swordmakers in Bremen in the 1780s, it's just a guess. Since the authors of the book containing the photo of a similar mark were unable to identify it, the rest of us are unlikely to figure it out just by pooling our general knowledge of heraldry.
Steve Fabert wrote:
Since the authors of the book containing the photo of a similar mark were unable to identify it, the rest of us are unlikely to figure it out just by pooling our general knowledge of heraldry.


I agree.

Page 1 of 1

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum