Hello people! Which of these Armourclass baskethilts is most appropriate for first half of the 17th century? I guess the one with S filler is a bit too late? Btw, if anyone has a baskethilt they would like to sell or trade, let me know. Either Armourclass or something else.

---

 Attachment: 19.49 KB



 Attachment: 19.19 KB



 Attachment: 18.62 KB

In my opinion, the bottom one is most appropriate for the first half of the 17th century

I thought so too, but the one with rings and dots also loojed to me like rather early type.

Btw, is the "early basket" from Armourclass typical for England or Scotland or is it a more universal type?

Dear Luka,

On Sunday 30 December 2018, you wrote:

I thought so too, but the one with rings and dots also loojed to me like rather early type.

According to Mazansky, the additional bars at the rear of the basket (around the opening for the user's hand) are a feature not found on hilts from the early seventeenth century (or earlier), so the particular one that Armour Class makes might be more of a retro than an early design. No doubt it's also possible that a genuinely early basket was later altered to have the additional bars, and that was Armour Class' inspiration.

And on Thursday 3 January 2019, you also wrote:

Btw, is the "early basket" from Armourclass typical for England or Scotland or is it a more universal type?

Again, Mazansky's analysis suggests that the basket style is more universal, but I'm afraid I don't recall whether the Scots and the English favored different pommel shapes at that time.

I hope this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

I know this thread has been dead for afew weeks, but I recall Paul Wagner saying something along the lines of the "English like their balls" for pommels. I would have to do more digging on that.