Posts: 32 Location: Chicago, IL
Fri 14 Aug, 2009 10:55 am
Thanks Nathan
Posts: 1,532 Location: Tennessee
Fri 14 Aug, 2009 4:19 pm
| Bruno Giordan wrote: |
,: this could explain why the balance point is so far off the hilt,, along with a lack of distal taper.
It would be fundamental to have some distal taper data for both blade and tang. |
Given the kind of discrepancies/possibilities in different datings in the background of the writing, find, etc., I am wondering if anyone considers it possible that this was an older blade that was later rehilted?
Posts: 249 Location: New Zealand
Sat 15 Aug, 2009 2:04 pm
Just a further note about the Cawood sword, the pommel is actually very thin (maybe only 8-10mm in the detail area and a little thicker in the base of the pommel) - so the holes could well be showing the top of the tang inside the pommel. Whether they are corrossion, or were for wires to be pushed into, there is no trace now to confirm either way. Before anyone asks, I can't post the photos I have as I had sign an agreement that requires permission from the museum before I publish them anywhere.
This pommel is more about decoration and leverage for the hand, than counterweight, it would weigh no more than 150 grams (about 6 ounces). One of the reasons it felt so good in hand, I think, is that the short grip (85mm) held my hand snuggly between the cross and pommel base, and probably allowed me more leverage with the sides of my hand than if my only contact was the tang. Another aside, I have long fingers but an average sized hand, so there would not be much room to wear any sort of glove with this grip without feeling pinched.
Posts: 146
Sat 15 Aug, 2009 2:15 pm
Thanks for that, Peter! More information is always welcome!
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