[Joshua Anthony]

I'm considering having the pommel of my new sword engraved or etched with my personal sigil, and I was hoping that others who have had work done on their swords would be willing to share pics or stories of their experiences. It doesn't have to be pommels exclusively, it could be a quote etched into the blade or in other areas as well.

Were you satisfied with the work, or was the job done badly or botched altogether? Finally, would you recommend etching over engraving, what are the strengths and drawbacks of each?

Thanks in advance!

[Paul Hansen]

I would recommend engraving, as etching was not generally done in the middle ages. Even better would be inlaying, especially for early medieval swords. For a high medieval sword, enameling is another option.

Personally, I ordered a sword from Vladimir Cervenka, with engraving on the pommel, and I have to say it greatly enhances the appearance of the sword as well as makes it more personal. It's a type X from around 1100, so inlaying would have been a better (more historical) option than engraving. Nevertheless, the engraving was my idea, and I really like how it turned out.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

First choice would be inlaying. Second would be engraving. I, personally, can't stand etching as it's not historical

[Robert Muse]

You might contact Sonny over at Valiant Armoury. He does really nice etching that from a short distance looks much like inlay. He offers several different styles. There are lots of photos of his work on the forum and I have had several done. I admit that silver inlay looks very good, but is more expensive. You have to consider the value of the sword you are having worked on. More expensive than an Albion and I would try inlay.

Robert

[Craig Peters]

Joshua,

One thing to keep in mind is that very few swords, if any, would actually have the arms of their owner placed somewhere on the sword. In Records of the Medieval Sword, the only swords with arms, whether those of the owner or otherwise, are XI.4, possibly XII.15, XII.17, XIIa.5, XIIIb.1, XV.13, XVIIIa.1, Unclassified 13, and the sword of Edward III. That means that in a book containing approximately 230 swords (leaving out pre-medieval swords, complex hilted swords, and the rare swords without pommels that are incomplete weapons) only 9 swords have any form of arms on them. This works out to being approximately 4% of all swords- not exactly a high figure. Further, in his comments on engraving and other such work, Oakeshott notes, "There is (and was) nothing easier, and nothing more often done, than to add the embellishment of arms, badges or inscriptions to existing hilts, just as is often done very skillfully by the 20th century faker" (p. 56). This is a pretty clear indication that arms and crests are far more commonly associated with modern fakes or false embellishments on authentic medieval swords, rather than on period weapons.

We might also notice that all of the swords found on this list date from the 13th century or later. The earliest sword to have a set of arms is XI.4, which has the personal arms of Otto IV on the pommel- but given that it is the coronation sword of the Holy Roman Emperors, and not a tool of war, we must certainly see this embellishment as being atypical of this part of the 13th century. Otto was crowned emperor in 1209, so the design must have been completed either shortly before, or some time after that date. Thus, a sword with arms which is supposed to be a 12th century or earlier weapon is historically inaccurate, and this makes sense, given that the first arms really only began in the mid-point of the12th century, and certainly were not common enough to appear on sword pommels until the 13th C.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a coat-of-arms on a modern sword. If I was going to have it done, I would place it on the pommel, because it will really look out of place on the blade. That having been said, recognize that in placing a coat-of-arms on your sword, you are diminishing the historical accuracy of the weapon somewhat. Yes, obviously arms appeared on period swords, but since they are rare, and since modern people are so fond of the idea of having arms on a sword, placing a set of arms on a sword marks it as being "more modern" and somewhat less historical in my view. As we have seen, putting a personal coat-of-arms on a sword is a largely ahistorical and modern preoccupation.

[Craig Peters]

By the way, if we disregard swords that Oakeshott dates as being from the 12th century or earlier, which is fair enough, we are left with an approximate total of 170 swords. I have included XI.4 as being from the 13th century for this count; although the sword was most probably made prior to the 13th C, the arms on the pommel, which is what we are interested in, date from the 13th century. This count must be far more approximate than the previous one, for the simple reason that several of the swords are undated, and thus intelligent guesses must be made as to their date. Also, in a few cases, I excluded swords which Oakeshott dates to the 12th century, since it is known that he had a tendency to date swords to an earlier, rather than later, date when he was writing Records. These swords would consist of about another -10 swords to the list.

Working from a reasonably generous figure of 160 swords, we find that around 5.5% of swords from the 13th century onwards have arms on their pommels. So even excluding pre-13th century swords, around 94.5% of all swords found in Records have no arms on the pommel. Even if you adopted more rigorous criteria for excluding swords than I did, you are unlikely to come up with a total figure of higher than 7% to 8% of all swords in Records bearing arms on the pommels. This means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of swords, some 92% or so, do not.

[Adam Bohnstengel]

Mr. Peters, that's some great data you've thrown out there. What about crosses on the pommels though? Is that more or less common?

Just trying to keep you busy.

[Craig Peters]

[Joshua Anthony]

Excellent information Craig, thanks for the great posts! I really appreciate such thoughtful responses.

[Craig Peters]

By the way, I would be very leery of buying a sword from the crusading era with a cross on the pommel unless you are looking for a sword from the mid-13th century onwards. The same goes for requesting a cross on the pommel of a custom sword. As with coats-of-arms, crosses are far more common on swords from the latter half of the 13th century onwards. Putting a cross on the pommel of a sword for the First through Fourth Crusades screams ahistorical and modern to me. For a sword for the Fifth and Sixth Crusade, it's more difficult to say, although I do not think crosses are particularly common on pommels from that era, circa 1213 CE to 1229.

It makes far more sense to have a cross engraved or preferably inlayed into a blade. As my previous post indicates, this was quite common on crusading era swords, which means that it can fit the modern collector's desire for a "Crusade Sword" while still being historically accurate and appropriate. Be aware too that the "conventionally-shaped" Latin cross,†, is not common on medieval swords, whether on the pommel or on the blade. Greek Crosses, Cross Patees, Cross Potents, Cross Molines, and Crosslets are the more common types of cross seen. See here for images of the different crosses: http://www.freecrosses.com/types_1.gif. If the Geibig Article here on myArmoury: http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_geibig.html is somewhat representative, it seems that Cross Potents are the most common type of crosses found on blade inlays.

[Joshua Anthony]

Thanks again Craig, you certainly are a wealth of information and it's very much appreciated.

In regards to crosses on swords, the Albion Arn Templar sword comes to mind, though of course it was from a movie. If memory serves, the inspiration for that sword came from a historical example, but I might be getting it mixed up with another. Still though, I think the Arn Templar shows engraving can be done tastefully, if not completely historically accurate.

[Peter Johnsson]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

The Albion Baron has a cross potent engraving or stamp on the pommel. so this must have been a feature on atleast a few swords from the era.

A commonly depicted type XIIIa in Oakeshott's works has a copper inlayed cross on the pommel which would seem to be from the same general date as the Baron of 1250-1300.

[Peter Johnsson]

[Joshua Anthony]

[Peter Johnsson]

I am sorry, but I cannot name any specific craftsman.
I would first try professional engravers, who works with guns.

As the blade is hardened it will take a good graver to cut it. I am not sure it is even possible to make an inlay in hardened steel
The hilt is not hardened (as a rule) and can take cutting and inlaying much better.

If you research a text, a letter form and an image and supply this to an engraver, I am sure you will get good feedback on what is possible and finally a fine result.

[Ralph Grinly]

Regardless of what, or where you choose to have something engraved..may I suggest you shop around for someone who does REAL engraving..with hammer and graving chisel, rather than the more usual rotary burr engraving ( aka Dremel-type tool) Hammer and chisel would have been the way it was done in the past and looks MUCH better and crisper than today's stuff. I'd check with local jewellers to see if they know anyone they can recommend. If you chose to have the engraving done on the blade, be sure to let engraver know the blade is hardened

[Joshua Anthony]

[Craig Peters]

Adam, and anyone else who may be interested: Please see my new thread about crosses here http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24645

[Paul Hansen]

I think what we have to consider is whether the sword you want to recreate is representative of a certain type, whether you want to recreate a specific historical sword or whether you want to create your own personal sword,

I agree that decorated pommels were never the norm, certainly not in the early medieval period. But they did exist. So in my opinion, it is justified to decorate your personal sword with a device, as long as the device used is representative for the period. If you want to replicate a specific historical sword, then of course it is historical.