Passau wolf sword -- myArmoury.com

Mattias Hill · Posted: Thu 13 Aug, 2015 5:31 am Post subject: Passau wolf sword

Hello everyone !

A couple of weeks ago i acquired this 17th century sword marked with Passau running wolf. It is also marked with SHAGOM which i think is a wallonian mark ? . The hilt looks quite early period maybe before 1650 .... Anyone who knows what the 4 stars resemble ? There is also some kind of mark on the blade no 37 . The sword is marked on both sides .It has previously been owned by a Swedish castle / Thanks

Jeffrey Faulk · Posted: Thu 13 Aug, 2015 7:33 am Post subject:

Hello,

The Passau mark was copied all over the place.

SAHAGOM, SAHAGUM, SHAGOM and varieties thereof are an attempt to attribute the sword to Sahagun, a city in Spain. Again, you see these on many swords from a variety of sources.

A number mark could be anything-- date of manufacture, inventory control, someone's birthday...

Here's an interesting thread from Vikingsword forums that may be helpful:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5453

Sorry, but this is one of the reasons it's hard to reliably date old swords... a lot of people copied or imitated everybody else's marks, and they were spread all over the place, plus actual swords with honest marks were traded very widely and so may have ended up a long way away from their origins. Your best bet if you want a reliable analysis is to find a professional to take a look at it.

Mike Ruhala · Posted: Thu 13 Aug, 2015 11:04 pm Post subject:

What a wonderful sword! Does it have a finger ring on both sides of the grip?

Mattias Hill · Posted: Thu 13 Aug, 2015 11:35 pm Post subject:

Mike Ruhala · Posted: Fri 14 Aug, 2015 2:45 pm Post subject:

Interesting! An early precursor of the martingale.

Is the original point intact? How long is the blade?

Mattias Hill · Posted: Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:02 pm Post subject:

Mike Ruhala · Posted: Sat 15 Aug, 2015 3:34 pm Post subject:

These kinds of swords can be a bit difficult to date precisely because they were popular for a few centuries and the modern approach to classification is hopelessly broken. The details of this specific piece suggest to me that it is probably one of the older examples, 17th or 18th century.

It would appear that the "No 37" is a reference to the length of the sword. The blades were mass produced and distributed to sword smiths who would hilt them and/or make minor adjustments to suit themselves or their clientele, the overall length of the blade and tang before the pommel was peened probably was 37 inches. Some vestige of this manner of doing things is preserved in the way modern sport fencing blades are referred as No. 0-5, higher numbers being progressively longer.

E.B. Erickson · Industry Professional

I would say that this sword is from the mid-1600s.
As a point of interest, note that the knucklebow has been broken.
A good, decent old sword!

Mike Ruhala · Posted: Sat 15 Aug, 2015 10:06 pm Post subject:

Yes, I was curious about that. How wide is the blade?

Mattias Hill · Posted: Sun 16 Aug, 2015 6:23 am Post subject:

Mike Ruhala · Posted: Sun 16 Aug, 2015 7:31 am Post subject:

The current configuration is essentially identical to a great many short rapiers but it may have originally been configured as some sort of lightened felddegen, the "martingale" would have been a thumb ring. That doesn't necessarily mean the knucklebow broke off though, removing it frees up the fingers and wrist while affording a grip that's better suited to agile point work, a blade 35mm wide at the strong will perform better with the slice and thrust than with a cleaving cut. I know I'd much prefer it in its current state than if it had a knucklebow.