There are marks on the stones in the Mont Saint Michel, possibly later in history, but interestingly the explanation was so they could pay the workers. And they are a number or a letter, not a symbol. So very likely locals in the time period knew who made them, but a visiting noble would have no idea.
I do wonder how many of those marks are associated with the maker vs something that would be akin to marks still in use today as military acceptance/proof marks that shows an item to be within specificaitons. For example I have seen things like bayonets from ww1 that had specific marks to indicate they were bend tested and whatnot.
Ulfberht had 8 makers marks. When the other makers saw that, they knew he'd run away with it and there was no hope to compete from such a deficit. Other makers marks started appearing once they could feel confident that he was dead and no longer a threat (ironically, the renaissance). I think striking something on the tang is a nice bone to throw the people of the distant future. A nice alternative might be to include a slender non-bio-degradeable slip or insert on the inside of the grip, or if you want punk, you could punch something that doesn't look like a maker's mark, but can be read as an earbleeding audio file. =p
apart from some miniatures i have found, there are only a handful of dutch 15th century effigies that show any amount of great detail. one featuring a lovely set of assymetrical besagews! apart from that, the low countries' style of armor completely evades me, it was in no doubt similar to our german neighbors, but i'm positively sure that it had some unique traits to it to identify itself. try searching for dutch and belgian miniatures and effigies, maybe you'll spot something i haven't.
Fascinating stuff. I have a question about those pommels on the two oldest swords. The first one looked especially "globular" and very irregular, as if the edges had worn or melted away. Is that due to the age and wear over time, or was that the way it was made and looked like when new? Pommels of every modern reproduction from every maker are so "perfect" today, even with oblong-shaped pommels, that when I look at antiques I wonder about the obvious major "imperfections" and if they were made that way or if they became that way over the centuries of being exposed to the elements. The cross guards look very symmetrical and well preserved, so I'm thinking those pommels were made that way.
Yes, in most cases they are made that way. It would have been a pommel or hilt maker banging them out on a forge and then passing on to a grinder or furbisher to finish. They may have been made as a set or it equally could have been someone contracted to make X amount of wheel pommels.
Honestly I don't care one way or the other if a sword has a maker's mark. They can be cool especially on custom or higher end swords as "bling" but they don't do a thing for function & barely matter in aesthetics.
I'm not a fan of maker's marks. I find they tend to detract from the aesthetics of the sword (basically someone makes a piece of art. And then they stamp it. That can ruin it for me). I wouldn't be averse to a maker's mark being in a more hidden part of the sword, though, such as the tang. (that could be useful for future historians). Probably what I hate more than maker's marks are stuff like serial numbers (especially in modern replicas), company logos and 'Made in, etc' inscriptions.
Apparently in the medieval period blacksmiths were actually sort of looked down on. The prevalence of Christianity is the reason, something about blacksmiths being descendants of Kane and therefore impure, dirty, sinners. You probably wouldn't want the name of the blacksmith on your sword, especially if you were a noble of some sort. I think they kinda thought of blacksmiths as a best not to think about it kinda thing, they probably didn't want a reminder stamped into the blade. It would be like...not a great comparison but if instead of just saying made in China something said "made in China, possibly in a sweatshop." You would be like "gross..." right? So yeah it would probably have been an unpleasant reminder of where it came from.(unpleasant to a medieval person.) Almost makes me think that so many blades were stamped with crosses to "purify" them.(maybe lol)
I don't like the makers mark stamped on the blade, that's pretentious. It should be on the tang. I think epoxied handles are are corner cutting. A good blade should be made to come apart.
Never been a fan of makers marks because most of the smiths don't align it or it just looks very crude compared to the rest of the sword. Not to mention the symbols most sword makers use seem like it was designed by a middle schooler. I prefer a clean blade or the Japanese way of signing a blade.
Crazy, I was sippin' Maker's Mark when I logged into youtube and see this video. Good stuff. Thank you
Very cool!
Great talk guys I learned something new today
Bring it back! I always thought they looked neat.
There are marks on the stones in the Mont Saint Michel, possibly later in history, but interestingly the explanation was so they could pay the workers. And they are a number or a letter, not a symbol. So very likely locals in the time period knew who made them, but a visiting noble would have no idea.
Yay,
Fascinating understanding of the mindset and trying to replicate it.
I do wonder how many of those marks are associated with the maker vs something that would be akin to marks still in use today as military acceptance/proof marks that shows an item to be within specificaitons. For example I have seen things like bayonets from ww1 that had specific marks to indicate they were bend tested and whatnot.
for sure there were lots of maker's marks, but mostly after the medieval period.
Ulfberht had 8 makers marks. When the other makers saw that, they knew he'd run away with it and there was no hope to compete from such a deficit.
Other makers marks started appearing once they could feel confident that he was dead and no longer a threat (ironically, the renaissance).
I think striking something on the tang is a nice bone to throw the people of the distant future.
A nice alternative might be to include a slender non-bio-degradeable slip or insert on the inside of the grip, or if you want punk, you could punch something that doesn't look like a maker's mark, but can be read as an earbleeding audio file. =p
Where is a good place/book to start learning about Medieval Dutch arms and armor? I am stumped
apart from some miniatures i have found, there are only a handful of dutch 15th century effigies that show any amount of great detail. one featuring a lovely set of assymetrical besagews! apart from that, the low countries' style of armor completely evades me, it was in no doubt similar to our german neighbors, but i'm positively sure that it had some unique traits to it to identify itself. try searching for dutch and belgian miniatures and effigies, maybe you'll spot something i haven't.
Fascinating stuff. I have a question about those pommels on the two oldest swords. The first one looked especially "globular" and very irregular, as if the edges had worn or melted away. Is that due to the age and wear over time, or was that the way it was made and looked like when new? Pommels of every modern reproduction from every maker are so "perfect" today, even with oblong-shaped pommels, that when I look at antiques I wonder about the obvious major "imperfections" and if they were made that way or if they became that way over the centuries of being exposed to the elements. The cross guards look very symmetrical and well preserved, so I'm thinking those pommels were made that way.
Yes, in most cases they are made that way. It would have been a pommel or hilt maker banging them out on a forge and then passing on to a grinder or furbisher to finish. They may have been made as a set or it equally could have been someone contracted to make X amount of wheel pommels.
Ah, good tie in with the whisky being Maker's Mark!
We try. :-)
For a movie prop would it be hard to add a mark to an already completed sword?
It would be hard to stamp it if it's a hardened modern sword. You could acid etch a Mark in which would be very easy.
So multiple makers could write "ULFBERT"? Really? Never would have thought that!
Honestly I don't care one way or the other if a sword has a maker's mark. They can be cool especially on custom or higher end swords as "bling" but they don't do a thing for function & barely matter in aesthetics.
People thought a stamp at the ricasso would weaken the sword?? What the heck.....
I'm not a fan of maker's marks. I find they tend to detract from the aesthetics of the sword (basically someone makes a piece of art. And then they stamp it. That can ruin it for me).
I wouldn't be averse to a maker's mark being in a more hidden part of the sword, though, such as the tang. (that could be useful for future historians).
Probably what I hate more than maker's marks are stuff like serial numbers (especially in modern replicas), company logos and 'Made in, etc' inscriptions.
Apparently in the medieval period blacksmiths were actually sort of looked down on. The prevalence of Christianity is the reason, something about blacksmiths being descendants of Kane and therefore impure, dirty, sinners. You probably wouldn't want the name of the blacksmith on your sword, especially if you were a noble of some sort. I think they kinda thought of blacksmiths as a best not to think about it kinda thing, they probably didn't want a reminder stamped into the blade. It would be like...not a great comparison but if instead of just saying made in China something said "made in China, possibly in a sweatshop." You would be like "gross..." right? So yeah it would probably have been an unpleasant reminder of where it came from.(unpleasant to a medieval person.) Almost makes me think that so many blades were stamped with crosses to "purify" them.(maybe lol)
I don't like the makers mark stamped on the blade, that's pretentious. It should be on the tang. I think epoxied handles are are corner cutting. A good blade should be made to come apart.
Never been a fan of makers marks because most of the smiths don't align it or it just looks very crude compared to the rest of the sword. Not to mention the symbols most sword makers use seem like it was designed by a middle schooler. I prefer a clean blade or the Japanese way of signing a blade.