I've recently become interested in The Wallace Collection's A466, Oakeshott type XVIII sword:

[ Linked Image ]

From the Wallace's page for this sword:

Quote:

Unknown Artist / Maker Italyc. 1460 Iron or steel, gold, bronze, copper and horn Length: 88.3 cm Width: 4.1 cm Weight: 1.34 kg Maker's mark Inlaid in copper, 18.5cm from hilt A466 European Armoury I History: E. Juste, 1867; comte de Nieuwerkerke; Sir Richard Wallace, 08/1871. Further Reading: Mann, Sir J. G., Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms and Armour Volume II, London: The Trustees of the Wallace Collection, 1962 Norman, A. V. B., Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms and Armour Supplement, London: The Trustees of the Wallace Collection, 1986

This piece is listed in Oakeshott's Records as 'XVIII. 8' on page 179:

Quote:

Type: XVIII Find-place: Unknown Collection: The Wallace Collection, London. A.466 Blade-length: 34 3/4" (88.3 cms) Pommel-type: V Cross-style: Clubbed and short, Style II Date: c.1440-60 Condition: Perfect. Carefully preserved in indoor conditions. The pommel is of gilded iron, perfectly preserved; the grip of black horn equally so, but the cross is of copper, more coarsely made than the pommel and the gilding looks different. Some suspicion has recently been cast upon it, the suggestion being that it is a 19th century replacement. There is a mark, inlaid in copper on each side of the blade. This is the second sword in the family referred to under XVIII.4 above. Publication: Mann & Norman; Seitz, vol.I; Laking, vol.I. - Oakeshott, E. (1991). Records of the medieval sword. Woodbridge, England: The Boydell Press.

I was about to put out a call for more photos of this piece when I saw Julien M's fantastic pics in Peter Lyon's Al's Type XVIII thread.

Julien only posted four thumbnails there, but the detail he has captured is so wonderful, I thought it would be good to 'rescue' these by posting the links here, and let everyone see the amazing detail on this piece (as well as thank Julien for his work in capturing this!):













Julien M, you're a gentleman and a scholar ...

Now, some questions:

1. What else do we know about this sword? My copy of Mann's Wallace Collection Catalogues is on order ...

2. If the artist / maker is unknown (Wallace Collection), and the find-place is uknown (Oakeshott's Records), what is it that tells us this sword is Italian? Oakeshott's The sword in the age of chivalry (Woodbrige: The Boydell Press, 1964/2009), lists 'the only survivors' of this type as being in the Wallace, the Musée de Cluny, Madrid, and Zurich, with his postscript to the 1994 edition adding that the Castillon find added at least six more into circulation. He says that the Type V pommel is 'less rare in art', citing effigys in Germany and England, as well as Hans Memling's 'The Virgin and St. George'. He finishes his discussion with:

Quote:

Several other Flemish and German paintings show this pommel type, so much so that it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is a North-Western European rather than an Italian type. (p. 108)

3. Did Carlo Paggiarino include the A466 in his The Wallace Collection? Carlo's detail in the Churburg book was incredible, if slightly frustrating sometimes in its 'can't see the trees for the leaves' detail ... but in studying something like the A466, and seeing the richness in detail in Julien's photos above, I can see how that could actually be a benefit.

4. What was the outcome of 'Some suspicion has recently been cast upon it, the suggestion being that it is a 19th century replacement'?

5. And, er, hands up who else likes the A466 ... :D

The level of detail is excellent.
With a guard like that I would be surprised that I was not Italian.
Thanks for sharing, Mark.

Mark,
I think this is a beautiful sword, one of the most visually splendid examples out there.

Carlo's book on the Wallace Collection does not picture this sword (unless I missed it thumbing through it just now).

Below is some more info (though most of it isn't that detailed), from various Wallace Collection Publications, including the catalogue you'll received soon.

They're in chronological order by date of publication.

---

 Attachment: 64.35 KB

1924 Catalogue by SJ Camp

 Attachment: 90.03 KB

1962 Catalogue by James Mann

 Attachment: 32.98 KB

1992 Pamphlet by David Edge sold at their souvenir shop.

I wonder how many other horn-gripped swords there are out there? I'd always missed that detail before.

The shape of the grip is also kind of odd, it looks rather 'ergonomical'.

Thanks for all the replies, and to Chad for the extra descriptions and image ... it's interesting how different lighting (such as in the photo from Edge's pamphlet) can highlight different details, even though it's not a close-up.

Now, the location and dating: curiouser and curiouser!

In 1924, Camp says 'Italian'; in 1964, Mann adds '(?)' after 'Italian', while Edge (1992) seemed confident in 'North Italian or Southern German' - he didn't preface that with 'probably', for example. Given that Oakeshott (1991) didn't give any proposal for its origin, I find it interesting that the Wallace Collection now categorically lists it as being Italian - they obviously have access to these other sources, which seem to suggest this isn't definite. I wonder if some other details came to light in more recent research there ... or if someone simply missed the question-mark in Mann, for example.

Does anyone have Norman's Supplement to the catalogues (1986) and would be happy to see if he has to say anything about it?

I'm also interested in the variance of the dates: Camp, Mann, and the current Wallace description give c. 1460, while Oakeshott places an earlier range of 1440-1460, and Edge gives the later range of 1450-1475 ... obviously, all in a roughly-similar timeframe, but I'm curious about what would have prompted Oakeshott to go early, and Edge to go late.

Fun stuff!

William Knight wrote:

I wonder how many other horn-gripped swords there are out there? I'd always missed that detail before.

Me too - on both counts. Anyone ...?

William Knight wrote:

The shape of the grip is also kind of odd, it looks rather 'ergonomical'.

Does anyone know if the other swords that share this kind of grip design - whether XVIIIs with V-type pommels or otherwise? Records shows the Cluny sword's pommel (XVIII. 4 (iii)) which has a different kind of shaping, and makes for an interesting comparison. Here's a pic of it posted by Dan Dickinson on Al Muckart's Accurate guard style for a fishtail pommelled XVIII.b thread.

---

 Attachment: 92.39 KB

image provided by Kirk Spencer via Dan Dickinson

Here's the info from the Wallace Supplement:

---

 Attachment: 65.2 KB

This might be common knowledge by now, but A&A currently has a reproduction based on this sword up for sale on their "Muster" page, with a pommel molded from the original piece:

http://www.arms-n-armor.com/muster.html
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

I think it's a beautiful rendition of this striking artifact.

I figured others interested in this sword might appreciate this lovely bit of work from Arms & Armour.

Hi Zach,

Thanks for adding those pics to this thread. That sword is what got me interested in researching the original - I'd not really been drawn to type V ('fishtail') pommels before, but to see the detail and the complex lines on Arms & Armor's reproduction really gave me a different perspective.

For the sake of completeness of the thread (and because the info won't be on A&A's site for much longer), I'll copy their text about the sword here - it makes an interesting point about those complex lines:

Arms & Armor wrote:

15th C. Knightly Sword A singularly beautiful knightly sword of the 15th century. This piece is based on the sword in the Wallace Collection in London. The pommel is a strikingly three-dimensional fishtail form molded from the original. The guard of steel is similar to several from the family of swords in this style. The blade is 1650 steel tempered to a period hardness and sharpened to a fine edge. The grip is carved to enhance the shape of the pommel and is covered in a rich brown leather. This piece is an excellent example of the challenges facing the modern replicator of swords. The pommel is as the original maker shaped it but it makes it difficult to create a sword that looks aligned in all planes. The two faces of the pommel align to different medial line, so one most shape and form the parts to divide differences. Even with its unique symmetry this elegant sword is an exceptionally good looking piece that illustrates the craft and beauty of the original medieval craftsman. Overall L: 41.6" Blade L: 34.8" BP: 5" Weight: 2.7 pds SOLD

Did your post made someone pull the trigger, Zach? Someone in the world now has a very beautiful sword!

Chad Arnow wrote:

Here's the info from the Wallace Supplement:

If anyone has copies of those artworks given in the Supplement, it would be great to add them to this thread. I'm busy for the next few days, but will see what I can find if no-one else has them to hand.

Thanks again to all for making this such a well-rounded and informative thread!

Here are some of the images mentioned in the sources above for Type V ('fishtail') pommels in period art. While they're not images of the Wallace A466 as such, I think they add to our knowledge about this type of sword, show indicative date ranges for when this type was common, and provide a visual reference for what Mann, Oakeshott, and Norman refer to in their references/comparisons.

Hans Memling, The Virgin and Child with Angel Saint Georges and Donor,1470-1480:

[ Linked Image ]

---

 Attachment: 128.41 KB

The Resurrection of Christ, Hans Pleydenwurff (c. 1465-1470)

 Attachment: 128.54 KB

Detail from The Crucifixion, Hans Pleydenwurff (c. 1465-1470)

Here's another by Michael Pacher, c.1465-1470, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons:

Quote:

Saint Catherine of Alexandria, wearing her crown (as an attribute of her victory and martyrom) and holding the instruments of her martyrdom, a sword and a broken wheel. From a panel of an altarpiece in the Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck, Austria.

---

 Attachment: 136.6 KB

And, while we're collating comparisons / reference points for the Wallace A466, here's another image of the Cluny sword, Oakehott's XVIII. 4 (iii) in Records. Photo by Mathieu Harlaut from this thread.

---

 Attachment: 101.66 KB

Photo by Mathieu Harlaut

Here's another look at the Wallace A466, from myArmoury's own spotlight article on Oakeshott Type XVIII Swords:

[ Linked Image ]

Hi Mark,

More shots of the Cluny fishtail taken during my last stay in Paris.






Cheers,

Julien

On the question of origin on the A466 and similar types: Clive Thomas' recent article on the Castillon swords has some interesting things to say. The A466 is similar in overall design to the 'Group B' swords from Castillon. Here are the relevant quotes:

Quote:

Maker's marks, where they occur, are often variants of the common 'running beast' and 'crozier' marks, with a three-pointed mark perhaps resembling a crown being seen in conjunction with these on some examples. These are usually associated with the South German workshops (i.e. Passau and environs), and are almost always inlaid with a copper alloy such as latten/brass. (p. 49)

Quote:

Outside the Castillon group, swords with pommels that resemble our Styles B-1 or B-2 [close to Oakeshott's V1 and V - MT] are mostly seen in a Western European context, and with blades often bearing South German maker's marks. This leads one to suspect that they might have been exported as complete swords from the German workshops. (p. 50)

Quote:

The swords of Group B are almost certainly of German origin and seem to have been exported widely. The pommel styles and crossguards of both groups are types that were very common across Eurpope at the time, and one suspects that these were the most commonly available when the swords were assembled. (p. 59) - All quotes from 'Additional notes on the Swords of Castillon', Clive Thomas, The Spring 2012 London Park Lane Arms Fair [catalogue], Thropton, England: David A. Oliver, 2012, pp. 40-63.

So, while reasons for assigning the A466 as Italian might be valid but not entirely clear (and we have Edge's assignation of possible German origin), we do know that this general form, which Oakeshott called J-type family swords, were common across Europe, commonly produced in southern Germany, and shown in German artwork of the time.

I think this is important, as given the A466's common label as Italian, and some sources saying this form was English (whether due to assigning the Castillon swords to English ownership, or due to the examples of V-type pommels on English brasses, or some other reason, I'm not sure), there seemed to me a danger of not considering the type as relevant to German contexts; Clive's article will hopefully now prevent this.

Hi Carlo,

Thanks for resurrecting this thread ... I'd forgotten how rich it had become!

I had since picked up your Wallace book, and enjoy it very much ... and have come to have a much better appreciation for the details you capture so well!

Regards,

Mark