|
Post by paranger on Jun 12, 2020 6:17:41 GMT -7
One of these knives is an original 17th c. piece from a large Edinburgh collection. The other I just finished. One is a 3 pin full tang and the other is a 3 pin half tang - both are PC. Can you tell which is which?
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 12, 2020 11:53:49 GMT -7
First, allow me to say I'm not sure which one is the original, because I'm not holding them in my hands. However, my GUESS is the top is the original even though it has larger pins in the grip. Here's why:
The pins on the handle of the bottom one don't show any oxidation coloring or rust on them and that's a dead give away either as a repro or as someone who probably refinished an original handle. The blade has a bolster and though they had blades with bolsters in the 17th century, they were not common for utility knives unless they had been made from damaged higher end knives. However....the bottom blade looks like it might have a maker's mark and I don't see one on the top knife.
The shape of the blade on the top one is more what I would expect of a 17th century Scottish blade.
Now if my guess is wrong, that's quite all right with me. I have a much better feel for judging the age of a knife or sword in my hands compared to a photograph.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 12, 2020 12:17:38 GMT -7
First, allow me to say I'm not sure which one is the original, because I'm not holding them in my hands. However, my GUESS is the top is the original even though it has larger pins in the grip. Here's why:
The pins on the handle of the bottom one don't show any oxidation coloring or rust on them and that's a dead give away either as a repro or as someone who probably refinished an original handle. The blade has a bolster and though they had blades with bolsters in the 17th century, they were not common for utility knives unless they had been made from damaged higher end knives. However....the bottom blade looks like it might have a maker's mark and I don't see one on the top knife.
The shape of the blade on the top one is more what I would expect of a 17th century Scottish blade.
Now if my guess is wrong, that's quite all right with me. I have a much better feel for judging the age of a knife or sword in my hands compared to a photograph.
Gus In all fairness, I realize it is difficult to go on a picture alone. If I could have you handle both, I gladly would To clarify, neither knife has a maker's mark OR bolster.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jun 12, 2020 12:21:06 GMT -7
In my head I'm am reasoning through both of them, and starting to sound like Vizzini in The Princess Bride reasoning out which drink is poisoned....
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jun 12, 2020 12:34:17 GMT -7
I went with the bottom one even though I agree with everything Gus said, and I see more evidence on the bottom one of recent sharpening. I also see a maker's stamp on the bottom one, although it is not stated what the newer knife was "finished" from, the spine on the bottom one has some weird dips in it, or the shadows are strange. They both break some of our standard "rules" for knives of this period, the bottom one seems to break them in a uniform way, full tang with a bolster, maybe repurposed kitchen knife? The top one has pins considered to be too large, but could be an exception, I also can't recall seeing pictures of an original with the front of the wood carved like a guard of some type. Again, this could be a period exception, but it could also be an adaption based on comfort and modern use.
In the end, coin toss. The 50/50/80 rule says I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 12, 2020 13:48:19 GMT -7
In my head I'm am reasoning through both of them, and starting to sound like Vizzini in The Princess Bride reasoning out which drink is poisoned.... You cracked me and with that one. I love The Princess Bride! Have fun storming the castle...
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Jun 12, 2020 16:22:11 GMT -7
One of these knives is an original 17th c. piece from a large Edinburgh collection. The other I just finished. One is a 3 pin full tang and the other is a 3 pin half tang - both are PC. Can you tell which is which? Just to play along, I pick the bottom one as being new.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 12, 2020 18:17:42 GMT -7
First, allow me to say I'm not sure which one is the original, because I'm not holding them in my hands. However, my GUESS is the top is the original even though it has larger pins in the grip. Here's why:
The pins on the handle of the bottom one don't show any oxidation coloring or rust on them and that's a dead give away either as a repro or as someone who probably refinished an original handle. The blade has a bolster and though they had blades with bolsters in the 17th century, they were not common for utility knives unless they had been made from damaged higher end knives. However....the bottom blade looks like it might have a maker's mark and I don't see one on the top knife.
The shape of the blade on the top one is more what I would expect of a 17th century Scottish blade.
Now if my guess is wrong, that's quite all right with me. I have a much better feel for judging the age of a knife or sword in my hands compared to a photograph.
Gus In all fairness, I realize it is difficult to go on a picture alone. If I could have you handle both, I gladly would To clarify, neither knife has a maker's mark OR bolster. Thank you for the clarification. I'm still going with the top one being the original. Something I didn't point out is the bottom one has been sharpened on the cutting edge more recently and I HOPE no one would sharpen an original 17th century knife blade. Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 14, 2020 16:58:21 GMT -7
Drumroll, please...
The top knife is in fact the original.
The bottom one started life as a 19th or early 20th c. sheepsfoot carving knife. After reshaping the blade to mimic the profile of the original, I shortened and reshaped the tang to a more period looking form.
I enjoyed your observations and insights - thanks for playing along. If I made you stop and think a little bit, I will consider it a success!
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 14, 2020 19:59:40 GMT -7
Well, alrighty then.... of course a whole passel of questions come to mind on the original knife. Hope you won't mind sharing what you know?
First, as to the provenance, how was it determined to be 17th century? Was the blade locally made in Scotland or did it come from Solingen/other Germanic source, or France, or was it perhaps from England? Was it described as a common utility cooking knife or maybe something involving butchering, even if only on a house hold scale. Was it possibly described as a woman's common/personal knife? OK, now as to questions on shape and dimensions of the knife.
1. Is this the three pin, half tang knife you mentioned earlier?
2. What is the length of the blade from the grip to the point?
3. What is the length of the width of the blade at its widest point?
4. What is the thickness of the blade at "the back" or opposite side of the edge?
5. How is the blade profile ground when you look at it from the point? My guess is it is a full flat ground, but I can't see it well enough to be sure. Below is a link showing different types of blade grinds or profiles, in case anyone is not sure how to describe it or understand the question. agrussell.com/files/content/image/Redone%20Blade%20Grinds%201400%20x%20800-min.png
6. What wood is the grip made from? I'm wondering if it is Bog Oak, if a local made knife?
7. How thick is the grip?
8. How long is the grip?
9. Not exactly sure how to describe this, but what is the length of the gripping surface between the bottom of the angled surface at the front and back of the handle?
10. What is the length top to bottom of the wood "guard' at the front and the "hook" at the rear?
11. I don't expect the pins to be uniform and they have been peened over, which makes it difficult say, but do you have an idea of the diameter of the pins used to hold the grip on?
Any other information you can pass on about this knife?
Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 15, 2020 4:07:41 GMT -7
1. 3 pin, half tang. 2. Blade length = 7 1/2" overall. 3. Blade width = 1 3/8" 4. Thickness = 1/16" (similar to English 18th c. trade knives) 5. It is a full flat grind. 6. Grip wood is unknown. 7. Grip thickness = 3/4". 8. Grip length = 5 1/4". 9. Bottom grip surface = 3 1/2". 10. Guard and pommel width both = 1 1/2". 11. As stated, pin diameter is difficult to determine given peening, but thicker than the typical 3/32" found on English 18th c. trade knives.
I am afraid I don't have much additional to offer regarding provenance. I purchased it from a reputable dealer in Scotland, but do not have access to the collector whose collection he liquidated. I will say that the overall blade shape and dimensions are similar to other ca. 17th/ early 18th c. attributed pieces I have seen online, though the handle seems to be unusual.
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 15, 2020 7:43:29 GMT -7
I forgot to add that it appears as if there is still some residual cutler's resin in the gap of the tang slot, typical of the period.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 15, 2020 7:53:53 GMT -7
2. Blade length = 7 1/2" overall. 8. Grip length = 5 1/4". I am afraid I don't have much additional to offer regarding provenance. I purchased it from a reputable dealer in Scotland, but do not have access to the collector whose collection he liquidated. I will say that the overall blade shape and dimensions are similar to other ca. 17th/ early 18th c. attributed pieces I have seen online, though the handle seems to be unusual. Thank you very much for the additional information.
Just to be clear in my mind, with an overall blade length of 7 1/2 inches, does that mean around 5 1/2 to 6 inches of blade protrudes beyond the front of the grip and around 2 inches or less for the half tang inside the grip?
The shape of the grip is unusual for the period, but so is the length of the grip, even considering how the "included" guard and pommel cut down on the actual gripping surface. Please don't take this to mean I'm suggesting it is not PC, though. The one thing I've learned about 17th and 18th century "common" Scottish knives is "uncommon" shaped and style grips/hafts were common. As an example, Red Stag Antler was surprisingly common on Scottish common knives, probably due in large part to the deforestation of Scotland's forests.
I think you have a lovely example of a period Scottish common knife and thank you for sharing it with us.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jun 15, 2020 8:36:29 GMT -7
My pleasure, Gus.
The blade measures 7.5 inches from the handle, so that is the actual working blade length. I would say the tang extends an additional 2 inches into the handle. Tough to be precise, due to the length of the slot being partially obscured by cutler's resin.
Thanks for your observations, particularly on Scottish handles and their variability: useful context for me.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 15, 2020 16:41:37 GMT -7
My pleasure, Gus. The blade measures 7.5 inches from the handle, so that is the actual working blade length. I would say the tang extends an additional 2 inches into the handle. Tough to be precise, due to the length of the slot being partially obscured by cutler's resin. Thanks for your observations, particularly on Scottish handles and their variability: useful context for me. Wow, that's a good sized blade and longer than I expected, but it is hard to judge size in a photo when there is not any kind of a measuring scale by it to give a size comparison. That takes it beyond the size of the common personal knife and into either a general kitchen or butcher knife or maybe even a Gralloching (Hunting) Knife, though if the latter - it would have more likely been used by servants.
I was surprised when I first learned how short handles were on 17th/18th century Scottish Highland Dirks. A good sized one ran normally not longer than around 4" and considering the pommels on them, that didn't leave much room to grip them. I've got large hands and when I grip an original, I realize I would not have been sharpening the last inch or more of the blade near the grip, or else I would have risked cutting into my "pinkie" finger at least, if not my ring finger as well. The grips/handles on Scottish Highland personal knives, carried by most common folk (even women) were also usually not longer than about 4". (Lowland Scots of this era were more "English" in tradition and did not normally carry personal knives.)
So to me at least, it seems the size grip on your knife would have been for a fellow with rather large hands in the period.
Gus
|
|