Keith, my pleasure of course, as this is a fascinating though challenging sector of sword esoterica. I am unsure of exactly when the 'fluted' blade arrived in England, but Burton (1884, p.135) says "...the small sword was introduced in England during the 18th century"....but this cannot be correct in accord with the production of small sword blades in England in mid 17th.
Interestingly, Burton in this text also notes in describing blade cross sections (fig. 124, #4)the BISCAYAN shape, which seems to be the 'fluted' trefoil.
He notes, "the Biscayan shape, the trialamellum of more ancient days, with three deep grooves and as many blunt edges by which the parries were made".
Further noting, "..there is so much difficulty in making the blade straight and of even temper that many professional men have never seen one not crooked or soft. Yet this is the small sword proper of the last century, which stood its ground as far as the first quarter of the present century".
Going to Castle ("Schools and Masters of Fencing", Egerton Castle, 1885. p236):
"...the prismatic shape of the blade was retained in many dueling swords until the middle of the 17th c. when it was gradually abandoned in favor of the still more deadly and lighter THREE CORNERED FLUTED BLADE. The most USUAL blade however remained until the middle of the 17th century one of the DOUBLE EDGED type. "
The scientific term 'prismatic' does not do well in this case in blade study, and what it refers to is geometrics, in this case a 'lozenge' (=diamond) section blade, which Burton (1884,p.135) describes as "making a strong, stiff, and lasting but very HEAVY sword. He notes further this type blade (previously noted as the tuck, estoc or 'Verdun' was known to English armorers as the 'Saxon' type blade, to workmen often as the 'latchen' blade.
The only reason I add these notes is that while going through period references describing blades etc. these terms might be helpful semantically.
Returning to the colichemarde topic, and again Burton (p.135) notes the introduction of these blades around 1680, and that this was ",...a trialamellum very wide and heavy in the whole string quarter near the hilt, and at about 8 inches suddenly passing to a light and slender rapier section. ".
Further "became a favorite dueling blade, the feather weight at the point making it the best of fencing weapons. It remained in fashion during the reign of Louis XIV, then suddenly disappeared".
In a footnote to that text, it is noted that it was suggested in 1881 by an English writer that the colichemarde had fallen out of favor due to its COSTLINESS and inelegant appearance when sheathed. ??
Most of these references, while not of any great help in most of the questions posed here, are simply to frame the context of these colichemarde blades and the difficulty, thus cost of making them. These would seem of notable consideration with the desire to have a machine that would not only be more efficient in quality but volume in producing these blades.
The mystery of what English maker could have produced such a blade as you note remains a conundrum, and much deeper diving into the resounding esoterica of English blade production .
|