Deepeeka Pugios

[Marcus Mummius]

Salvete,

I'd like to have this one cleared out once and for all. What is wrong with these two pugios deepeeka produces? On which finds are they based? Are they useable? Can they be re-worked to reach reenactor standard?




Valete

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

[size=150:33tlkx8o]S[/size]upposedly, the top one is a fantasy piece, made up of different elements of originals. The second one is the deepeeka copy of the "Leeuwen Dagger." However, the real thing has the line work done w/ castings which are soldered onto it, vs. the deepeek amodel which just has them stamped into the body.

[Crispvs]

Marcus,

The top one fails on a number of points.

Firstly, the shape of the sheath itself is wrong, being triangular rather than the slightly more complex shape of most of the originals, a shape which the second Deepeeka sheath does a better job of representing.

Secondly, the lower suspension rings are placed too far down the sheath.

Thirdly, the dagger handle is incorrect. The ends of the guard should be left open but Deepeeka has added extensions to one side of the guard, folded these around the ends and rivetted them to the other side of the guard, as you can see in the photo. This is fairly easily rectified by filing off the rivet heads on the guard and then unfolding the extensions and cutting them off. New rivets will need to be put through the guard. After this the dagger itself should be quite acceptable in most re-enactment groups.

Fourthly, and most significantly, the brass plates rivetted to the front of the sheath, according to our present knowledge, are just simply wrong. No such brass plate decorated sheaths have been published and I know of know actual examples, published or otherwise. The sheath pictured appears to be based on a reconstruction which appeared in Dan Peterson's book which was, I believe, made by Michael Simkins. Simpkins (if it was indeed him who made it) seems to have misinterpreted line drawings of a sheath from Kempton (now paralelled by a very similar sheath from Cetina), which was in fact decorated with silver inlay and decorative rivets. In the decorative schemes used on first century AD dagger sheaths it is very common to have four fields of decoration (not including the terminal). These fields are normally bordered by inlaid lines arranged in quadralateral or triangular shapes around the decorative fields themselves. The reconstructor clearly mistook the drawings of these lines for lines indicating the edges of plates which he mistakenly thought were rivetted on with (actually purely decorative) rivets. The result was the incorrect reconstruction in Dan's book and the ugly and unusable reconstruction by Deepeeka which appears to have resulted from that and which is pictured here.

For the second dagger, I would reitterate DMV's description of the decoration but I would add in its favour that it has a much better shape than the 'brass plate' sheath and the lower rings are positioned more correctly. The suspension ring loops are also much more accurately depicted. In my experience the dagger handle exhibits the same problem as the first one but it is equally easily sorted out. Overall then, depite a definite shortcoming in its method of decoration, this is the only dagger in Deepeeka's range that I would by prepared to (slightly grudgingly) accept as being fit for use (or sale for that matter).

Crispvs

[Marcus Mummius]

Salve crispus,

About the shape of the first scabbard being incorrect: this was the case with the first version of this dagger. The current version has a much more correct shape. It's not at all triangular! I've seen the old version and the new version together and you are right, the old version really is triangular! Perhaps someone can post a picture of one of the newer scabbards? If not I'll do it in a few days.

Would the first dagger be better if the brass plates were tinned? Just an idea...

Best regards,

[santell]

Marcus, Are you thinking about tinning the whole sheath or just the plates. I would think the whole point of the discussion above was to point out that the decoration should have been integral with the front sheath plate and not give the appearance of being separate plates.

[Crispvs]

Marcus,

As Santell says, the appearance of applied plates, tinned or not, would not be correct according to our current knowledge. The sheath with the brass plates is best thrown out and a new one made by someone who knows what they are doing. I haven't seen Deepeeka's latest attempt but if the shape is as good at their attempt at the Leeuwen sheath, with an AWFUL lot of work it might be usable. However, to make it look realistic, not only would the brass plates need to be removed but the sheath taken apart so new decoraive rivets (preferably silver headed) could be put through the holes where the previous rivets had been taken out. Before the rivets were replaced however the rest of the pattern would need to be engraved and inlaid. If you didn't feel up to doing genuine silver inlay you could probably get away with melting silver solder into your engraved lines. After replacing the rivets the sheath could be reassembled. The loops holding the suspension rings would also need to be replaced. If they looked like the loops on the Deepeeka Leeuwen sheath in the photo they might be salvageable. I can't see from the photo whether Deepeeka have put a small rivet through the loop adjacent to the ring or whether they have correctly embossed it to look as if each of the 'legs' of the loop is actually a separate piece of metal which has been joined side by side to two others. If they are the latter you can probably re-use them, but if they are the former they should be discarded and replaced with something more realistic. After doing all this you may have produced a fair reproduction of a Roman sheath or you may have made a pig's ear which you cannot use. Either way it might be interesting to try. Just don't use the sheath as it arrives from Deepeeka!

Crispvs