Sunday, 23 March 2014

Sunday.


At midday today, we went to a village hall a mile or so up the road, where the  ladies of the Church put on an excellent three course lunch about once every two or three months, the proceeds of which go towards the upkeep of their church. At our table were Gloria, John, David, Wendy, Philip (David's son),  Hilary, meself and Ann.. John and I take it in turns (as far as we can remember)  to buy a bottle of wine (my turn today). Usual good, solid lunch, and excellent company.  Took the above and below photos just before we set out.


                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------


The photos below show this week's mystery object. They are two swords, very similar in design, but one is much smaller than the other, but nicely in proportion to it. Why do you think this should be?



The photo below shows the hilt of the larger sword in detail. You may well be able to work out the date the sword was made from the details of the hilt, probably to within five years.




                                                    Good guessing.

21 comments:

Rog said...

Could they be for a father and son?
I'm in complete ignorance of swords but will suggest a wild lottery date of 1805

Mike and Ann said...

Thank you Rog. I should add one more piece of information. The smaller of the two swords is slightly later in date than the larger sword, probably between five and ten years difference.

Rog said...

Frustrated by my ignorance, I must confess that I put into Google "Dating of Swords" to try and be a smarty pants.
Unfortunately this led me to "Swords Dating Site" which appears to be a match making site based in Dublin. Now I'm just trying to explain this unfortunate chance to Mrs Rine. Help!

Mike and Ann said...

Hello Rog. I will of course confirm your argument that, in this case, the expression 'sword dating' has nothing whatever with dating sites, although, of course, I do not know what the expression 'dating site' means, although we could both (as antique dealers)put up a pretty good argument that dating sites, if about antiques, could be jolly useful to us. I think that what Wodehouse called 'a policy of stout denial' is probably your best defence mechanism in your present dilema (about which, of course, I know nothing).

Sir Bruin said...

The smaller sword was made for the owner of the larger one because he became unable to manage the large one due to age or infirmity?

Rog - deny everything, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. Don't give much for your chances though.

Crowbard said...

Sorry Rog, neither truth nor fabrications will be of any assistance; mothers teach their daughters two rules about men.
1. If a man's mouth moves and a noise comes out it is a lie.
2. Men are always guilty of something!
Wine, chocolates, bouquets and jewels are your only hope of re-establishing a tranquil existence.
Follow up with shoes, perfume and handbags in the event of persistent frostiness.

Crowbard said...

To be honest Mike I have difficulty unscrambling the curlicues on the hilt but I think it suggests the reign of William IV dating it between 1830 and 1837 so I will plump for 1833 and a half.
I think the poignard or maine-gauche was out of favour at this time so the smaller sword is unlikely to be one of those. Perhaps it was an accoutrement for a drummer boy? Or a bandsman's sword mainly for display or ultimate defence?

Crowbard said...

Could the smaller version be an officer's piquet or dress sword for social occasions when a full-sized blade might interfere with social activities such as dancing and dining or attending court.

kippy said...

1817. One is a dress sword. The other one is for actual use in battle. Just guessing.

kippy said...

1817. One of them is a dress sword, the other is for use in battle. Just guessing.

Mike and Ann said...

Once again, between you, you've got it right. The one thing you don't use is the usually accepted name for the smaller sword of the two. It is a Levee Sword, although a 'Parade Sword', or as Kippy calls it 'a dress sword' would be as good. Oddly enough the levee sword usually has a 31 inch blade, and this one has an unusually short 28 inch blade, which makes me suspect some form of Cadet Regiment, and makes Rog's original suggestion of 'Father and Son swords' perfectly possible. The larger sword, as Crowbard spotted has markings on the guard for King William IV (1830 to 1837). It's blade is the usual 34 inch length.

-----------------------

Going back to Rog's confusing a dating site with a dating of antique swords site, I'd still recommend a policy of stout denial. A reputation for being an elderly, fumble fingered innocent, as far as modern technology is concerned is no bad thing, in fact possibly the best position for someone in Rog's predicament. A murmur of "Now how the Hanover did that happen?" can work wonders.

Mike and Ann said...

P.s. The reputation I advocate for Rog to cultivate happens to be factual in my case.

Mike and Ann said...

Should have said that although the larger sword bears William IV marks (1839 to 1837) the smaller one bears V.R. marks to the blade, ergo the smaller sword was made after 1837.

Crowbard said...

Jude says "Happy Birthday Annie"
And was intrigued by the swords - She said she also had a good stab at it, but wasn't sure she had got the point!
She says she is sure Rog had no untoward intentions and would be pleased to support his case.

Maggie said...

I take great offence at
remarks, I have never been that way with the men in my life and certainly have not taught Emma to be either. Maybe I should have been?

Trouble is I don't like nagging and hate to hear it as well, life is too short!

May happy returns to Annie, I hope you made her a birthday cake and provided presents, flowers, chocolates etc etc x

Mike and Ann said...

Hello Maggie. Please do not take offence at the remarks in these comments. It is not to be took serious - simply us blokes being blokish with one another. Would you remember that Goon-show-ish joke :- If I accused my neighbour of taking my gate, would he take offence ?

Crowbard said...

To all the respected and gracious ladies, Mike, who read the comments on your blog I do most sincerely apologise and regret my vapid generalisations. Of course there was no actual nor real person in mind when I made the comments and I can only deplore my insensitivity for my indefensible words.

Mike and Ann said...

Dear Mag, Ann thinks your of'fence' remark about the swords is rather a subtle pun, although this may have 'foiled' it.

Margaret Brocklehurst said...

Very sorry, didn't realise my remarks were so sharp! Wasn't really taking a stab at anyone, just having a bit of a strop! Xxx

Mike and Ann said...

Hello Mag. Glad to hear you weren't looking daggers at me. I'm afraid we must share the paternal sense of humour, we his oldest and youngest offspring.

Crowbard said...

Hi Maggles,
When you look daggers, I take your point!
Loving blessings always,
MiggleBruv