Two swords with odd cross-sections
I was thumbing through the Christie's catalogue from the sale of Howard Curtis' collection. Both feature unusual cross-sections. Unfortunately, these are the only pictures I have.

The first one is double-edged but has an unsharpened area on one side (half a ricasso?).

The other is even more unusual.

Anyone seen stuff like this before?


 Attachment: 40.91 KB
Odd sword 1.jpg


 Attachment: 46.68 KB
odd text 1.jpg


 Attachment: 29.31 KB
Odd sword 2.jpg


 Attachment: 41.98 KB
odd text 2.jpg

That unsharpened area in front of the guard on the first one is common on sabres, though I'm more familiar with later period ones. Also, since the accompanying text says the forte is single edged, that sounds like it is in keeping with many sabres, as they are a form of backsword.

The other one is just odd though :-)
As for the second sword, I have seen a fair number of examples of what I understand to be termed "staged ricasso fullers", that is, multiple fullers in the ricasso to various depths (e.g. three very shallow fullers at the hilt, below which are two broader but deeper ones followed by a final narrow one that runs down the length of the blade) and which can be deeper/shallower in turn, but never a fullered ricasso with variable depth fullers that extreme. thanks for sharing! tr
Are you sure that the first example isn't a backsword?

Check out This Sword in the Wallace Collection. I'm not near my books, but it appears to be a nice single-edged weapon with an interesting ricasso as well.
Nathan Robinson wrote:
Are you sure that the first example isn't a backsword?



I can't be sure, actually, but I doubt it based on their wording alone. The sharpened side (on the left in the picture) clearly has an unsharpened ricasso/forte; you can see where the sharpened section starts. So if it is single-edged (ie a backsword), the other (right) side wouldn't be sharpened as it's the back (unsharpened) edge. Therefore, the forte would be totally unsharpened, not single-edged as they state.

It could just be poor/incorrect wording on their part, though, and it could be a backsword.

By the way, I couldn't get your Wallace link to work.
Chad Arnow wrote:
By the way, I couldn't get your Wallace link to work.

I fixed the link. Man, that Web site leaves a lot to be desired.
The confusion might be thinking of forte meaning only the ricasso. I always thought it ws the third of the blade closest to the hilt. Mezzo and foible being the other two thirds. The ricasso is just a section of the forte.

Cheers

GC
Hi Chad,

I think the wording the fine, the term forte covers more than just the first couple inches: generally 1/3 or 1/2 of the blade. I think the right side of the blade in the picture (i.e. the back) is unsharpened over the entire part of the blade shown in the picture, which is all forte. Therefore, most of the forte is sharp, there is only that heel or ricasso that isn't.

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