|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881
|
OP
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881 |
Being a dagger man I am completely out of my depth on these. At the moment these are the only pictures I have to go on so apologies in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881
|
|
OP
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,806 Likes: 13
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,806 Likes: 13 |
No expert here, till better advise comes along. The Oakleaves w. Swds. do not match what I have observed in books for a Godet 900 21 marked set 1st or 2nd type.
--dj--Joe
<BR>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,359
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,359 |
No expert either but the quality just isn't there for a Godet piece, as for the KC, I do not like that one either, the ring attachment looks a but crude and the 1813 date seems awfully thin. Let's see what others with more expertise have to say but these are my from the hip thoughts.
Fritziii
<BR>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881
|
|
OP
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,881 |
Thanks guys, I have checked Mr Williamsons book but it unfortunately does not go into too much detail regarding Godet. I know there was 2 different types, this being the later but thats about the limit of my knowledge.
I appreciate the opinions. I also read somewhere that the 800 marking on the KC is normally always centred, is that true?.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,344
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,344 |
both appear to be poorly cast copies... 
|
|
|
|
Forums42
Topics31,669
Posts329,108
Members7,524
| |
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
|
|
|
7 members (Documentalist, C. Wetzel-20609, ed773, Baz69, Vern, den70, ANTIK-1933),
567
guests, and
95
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from cartman.eclipse.co.uk]](http://www.cartman.eclipse.co.uk/GDC1.gif)
