[Allan Senefelder]

[Shane Allee]

Since it has been asked about pre-1100 makers marks, I can add a bit. In the La Tene (I'm sure people get tired of hearing that from me by now), stamps on blades are not all that uncommon. These range from animals, anthropoid figures/features, astrological, and just things... Are these makers marks? Maybe, maybe not. They might be makers marks, tribal marks, or of some spiritual significance. We will never know for sure. When I picked a mark that I wanted to use, I picked one of these stamps. As of now I have yet to start marking my work though.

Shane

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Roger Hooper]

As long as the maker’s mark is unobtrusive, in good taste, and would not be out of place on a medieval sword, I am strongly in favor of it. A bad example is the Windlass MADE IN INDIA, but as Jean said, it can be scraped off.

Besides the reasons already set forth, here are some others:

If a sword is being resold, a maker’s mark will tell me that the sword is really an Arms and Armor sword, and not some inferior copy.

Many of the fine swords being made today will still be around in a hundred years or more. The maker’s mark will inform our descendents who made them. One guy who refuses to put such an ID on his work is Angus Trim, so his credit will be lost down the line.

Maybe I should go back and reread this thread more carefully, but I don’t remember you saying why you didn’t want a maker’s mark on a pre-1100 recreation, besides the fact that many of them were not marked. Well, these aren’t pre 1100 swords, but 21st century replicas that look like those originals. As such, a maker’s mark will let people know that it isn’t an original, though very few swords that old would be in great shape.

You can always ask the swordmaker to leave off his maker’s mark, but I don’t think you will find anyone besides Gus Trim who will do that for you. Your request would be not entirely unreasonalbe, but pride in their work, plus all the other reasons listed in this thread will get you an unfavorable response.

[Allan Senefelder]

[Nathan Robinson]

To everybody:

Please play nice.

Thank you.

[Nate C.]

Hello all,

An interesting debate so far. I personally have to agree with the smith on this one. I think that it is reasonable to expect that any smith, especially the more prominent ones will mark the issue from their workshop. Not only does it allow them credit for their work, it also makes it harder to pass off as an antique, and easier to identify a forgery of their own work. To use the car analogy someone brought up earlier, an auto maker may not be resonsible for someone driving into a lamp-post, but they do use things like anti-lock brakes, airbags, seat belts, and other devices to lessen the chance that the customer will be injured. A maker's mark can serve the same purpose. I have also heard of some smiths making slight alterations to a design (reversing the 'S' on a basket hilt) to safeguard their work in a 'less' noticeable way.

I personally like the approach of one of my favorite smiths. He is fully capable of producing a sword that would be indistinguishable from an antique without carbon dating. He chooses to mark his pieces with the same mark for all periods but he does them in the style of the period and culture of the sword he is making. for example, iron inlay in a viking pattern welded blade, incorporated into the cartouche of an Arabian blade. This allow historical accuracy and his mark to co-exist rather well I think.

Regardless of reason, I do think it's a bit unrealistic to ask an artist not to sign his or her work in some way. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

[Michael Curl]

It also must be remembered that a mark is like a brand, if you see a mark of a reputable manufacturer then you know that it stands for quality, and that you can trust that sword, which makes a sword more valuable if you resell it as an anonomyous seller is not very trustworthy but a mark (if not faked) can be trustworthy.

[Dustin R. Reagan]

My 2 cents:

It comes down to how accurate of a reproduction you are wanting. That being said, although it may be an annoyance to your sensibilities, I don't think it is unreasonable of the smith in question to refuse to make a piece without his customary mark. It is his perogative (and as Mr. Senefelder has pointed out, the smith may even feel that it is his responsibility). Remember, most sword smiths today are not in it for the money, but for their own form of non-monetary gratification. If the smith in question is willing to lose business over this, so be it...he (or she?) is doing what they feel they should.

[Daniel Michaelsson]

[Mat Billings]

That's what I love about my Angus Trim 42 1/2" practice Rapier blade. There is no etched stamp on it.

At that, I have no problem with a maker's mark on the blade, it makes blade origin identification easy.

[Don Stanko]

If you are looking for historical examples of early swords with maker's marks, I would suggest researching Illerup Adal. These iron age swords are about 1800 years old and they had many maker's marks recorded on the blades. Some were even stamped with names. One was marked "ACRESSIMM" and another was marked "LOISIM". A little earlier than you are talking about but I thought it might help.

[Patrick Kelly]

It's the sword makers right to mark his product as he wishes, that's part of a free market system. It's the buyers right to seek satisfaction elswhere if this detail is a sticking point, that's also part of the free market system. Requiring a maker to leave his product unmarked, and therefore unidentified as his effort, is unreasonable.

[Jean Thibodeau]