User talk:Michael Chidester

File:Hans Talhoffer.jpg

Hello Michael --

this file is supposed to show Hans Talhoffer, the man, I take it. In this case, you have mis-cropped it. In the old version, it shows Talhoffer on the left, and the guy on the right is just some kind of banner-bearer. You then changed it to this, which I believe does indeed also show Talhoffer. But then last October you changed it to the current version, which only shows one hand and one foot of Talhoffer on the left margin :)

If you do not mind, I can change it back to something that does indeed show Talhoffer as he depicted himself (I think there are a number of other instances where he is shown, always with the characteristic curly hair and longish nose). Regards, --Dieter Bachmann 07:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

PS, perhaps the best and most naturalistic portrait is the 1467 one (wikimedia commons) which shows him in mature years as drawn by an actual artist. --Dieter Bachmann 07:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to change it every time I update the article. However, I'm not sure why you think the current image is not Talhoffer--he's wearing the Lion of St. Mark as a pendant, he looks like a fencing master in his late 40s, and is holding a banner with his name on it. He also has the same large nose. I assume that it's an image of him instructing someone in sword and buckler.

If that's an error, I can certainly swap it out for the self-portrait on 136v of the Codex Icon 394a. However, until we get the imaging engine back online, no new images that we post will be visible.

By the way, I appreciate the work you've been doing on the Hugues Wittenwiller page. In the next few days I'm going to go in and tinker with some of it to match Wiktenauer conventions (as far as possible since the tables aren't rendering properly at the moment), but don't let that stop you from continuing.

~ Michael Chidester ^(Contact) 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, personally I am sure Talhoffer is the guy with sword and buckler on the left, but of course I cannot prove it.

more importantly, please note my reply at Talk:Codex Ringeck (MS Dresd.C.487). If a consensus emerges for this, so be it, but until it does, it would be wise to be conservative with excessively accurate claims ("1504-1519"), especially as dating-by-watermark is more or less a discipline of the black arts. --Dieter Bachmann 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When we get images back online, I'll probably put the whole page on there with the caption "Talhoffer offers instruction in sword and buckler" and let readers decide which is which for themselves.

~ Michael Chidester ^(Contact) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)