| Author |
Message |
Craig Peters
|
 Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 10:01 am Post subject: The Lost Oakeshott Type: The XVIIa |
 |
|
Are there examples of swords that can be classified Type XVIIa? That is to say, are there examples of swords which were of single handed length and had a hexagonal cross- section without the ricasso found on the Type XIX?
The sword below, Wallace Collection A461, seems to be a possible candidate, although in Records of the Medieval Sword Oakeshott classifies it as a Type XVII. Its blade length seems more like a single hander, however, and its grip appears to be a short hand and a half, much like those found on Type XIII swords.
Are there any other swords like this? Is this a viable subtype?
 Attachment: 40.72 KB
|
|
  |
 |
|
Antonio Ganarini
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if this could help, but Del Tin makes a sword very similar to the one in your picture:
http://www.deltin.net/5148.htm
Ciao a tutti!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Woodruff
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have often thought the same thing. Perhaps some of the swords Sean posted in this thread are canidates? http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26140 Pl XXXI from Tveegged Svaerd by Bruhn-Hoffmeyer (sp?)
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Woodruff wrote: | I have often thought the same thing. Perhaps some of the swords Sean posted in this thread are canidates?http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26140 Pl XXXI from Tveegged Svaerd by Bruhn-Hoffmeyer (sp?)
Edit: dangit, my link ain't workin'. It is the thread on single-hand scent-stoppers. |
HERE is that link -
If you want XVIIa's, then how about XIXa's, exemplified by the very long Oakeshott's, Records XIX.9 and XIX.10?
Or this Peter Johnsson drawing of a longer XIX (I don't know if this is based on an actual antique)
Attachment: 11.13 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it is a good observation, but the type XVII does include some rather short swords, that are even smaller than some large single handers. The sword from the Wallace Collection at the beginning of the thread is a good example. It is not alone. Quite a few XVII are rather small swords, while others are large two handers. Oakeshott seems not have thought size mattered for this type.
The XIX(a) Roger posted above is based on an original that is kept in Museo Civico, Piacenza. Its blade is broken, but the ricasso remains and enough of the blade to show a typical type XIX cross section.
(Sorry for the bad quality of the snap shots)
So, again, grip length is not a diversifying factor within the group. There are many swords with long grips that have XIX type blades.
It is fairly common among later period two handers, but I do not think Oakeshott meant his typology to stretch that far in time.
Attachment: 61.23 KB
Attachment: 78.36 KB
|
|
 |
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter,
Do you have any other photos of swords that are short, with hexagonal cross sections, but without signature XIX design near the ricasso?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Craig, it is common that type XVII swords have hexagonal sections. It is even a key feature. I am not sure I understand.
There are many type Sempach swords that answer to your description.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Craig, it is common that type XVII swords have hexagonal sections. It is even a key feature. I am not sure I understand.
There are many type Sempach swords that answer to your description. |
Sorry, what I meant was, "Do you have photos of XVIIs that are more like single handed swords in length, but swords which are not XIXs with their distinctive ricasso?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic