| Author |
Message |
Luka Borscak
|
 Posted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 1:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Awesome. From the picture from the edge it doesn't seem to have any noticable distal taper.
|
|
  |
 |
|
J. Douglas
|
| Posted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fascinating article. The sword looks to be in great condition!
~JD (James)
|
|
|
|
|
Guillaume Vauthier
|
| Posted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, this article is great ! And the sword seems to be insanely preserved. It looks quite heavy too.
| Roger Hooper wrote: | | Blade thickness of 4.5mm at guard? Not sure I got that right. Too bad there weren't more blade thickness measurements. |
Yeah, 4.5mm seems to be thickness at guard. That's curious that the sword doesn't have a distal taper. In fact the tip seems even thicker than at handle... The PoB must be quite far on the blade.
|
|
|
|
|
William M
|
|
 |
|
|
Mark Lewis
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Oct, 2017 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William M wrote: | | still can't get my head over why the guard and pommel would be so simple though. I guess having a two part pommel would have significantly added to the cost. |
| Greg Ballantyne wrote: | | maybe the overall hilt proportions give it the odd look. |
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | Well, there is that theory that type M "upper guards" and pommels were basic fittings that cutler would put on a sword so that it is functional, but wealthier customers would order new fancy fittings after choosing their blade. |
| Guillaume Vauthier wrote: | | It looks quite heavy too. |
This is mentioned in the article, but I think it is worth highlighting and it may help explain why the proportions seem a little "off": the upper and lower guards of the hilt are actually mismatched. The lower guard appears to come from a type C hilt, which is older than type M, and several examples are very heavy. A temporary or permanent replacement pommel of type M would presumably be both affordable and within the capabilities of any local craftsman.
| Mark Moore wrote: | | I'm glad that someone else made mention that this could be a possible hoax. |
The mismatch suggests to me that if it is not authentic, then this is a very clever and original hoax indeed... 
|
|
 |
|
|
Paul Mullins
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Oct, 2017 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I personally think we wrap ourselves in typologies too often and convince ourselves that there were certain standards set in stone with no outliers or anomalies. While I am certain there are certain patterns that are distinct to regions and time frames, I do not automatically discount something because it does not fit into our view of the past or the norm. After all, our ancestors were human and subject to their own wiles and whims, just as today.
|
|
  |
|
Harry Marinakis
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Oct, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The title of the article is somewhat misleading.
1,640 meters is most definitely not "high altitude" by any yardstick.
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hargis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic