1730 Rapier or a Victorian 'Copy' .........any ideas?

katana · 23rd November 2006, 10:16 PM

Not an Ethnographic weapon.....but I know there are those on the Forum with exceptional knowledge of early European blades.

I have taken a chance on this....it is 44'' long overall, cup hilt with s- shaped cross guard. Inscribed 'anno 1730' (obviously could have been engraved recently)...certainly has age....the 'acorn' shaped pommel seems to have the tang 'peened' over.....not the usual 'screwed on' type typical of 'Victoriana' wall hangers.

The sword weighs nearly 2 kgs , approx. 4.4 lbs, no scabbard.........The handle is leather covered wood.

So Gentlemen......please tell me....what have I got?

Tim Simmons · 23rd November 2006, 10:48 PM

Hi David.

What is the pad in the cup made of? I am not sure about the engraving the style is quite modern looking to my eye. It is certainly a very heavy version of an epee like weapon. The picture are not that good. Could you take better pics?

katana · 24th November 2006, 12:05 AM

Hi Tim, not in possession of the sword ...yet. It'll be on its way soon.
I believe the pad is leather....but not certain. I agree the lettering seems suspect...but I have seen, on the net, examples of engraved lettering from around that period (early 18c) and it could be authentic .....but then again a good forger would ensure it was similar....

I also agree about the weight......seems business like, have you any further thoughts on it?

Marc · 24th November 2006, 10:48 AM

With the usual disclaimer about how cautious one has to be doing evaluations through photographs...
I would say it's a "Victorian Copy", meaning it's a piece made for decoration, probably quite some time ago, but not that much as 1730. It's an attempt to a cup-hilt rapier, but it's only intended to look kind of well in a wall. Not even the blade seems original, also, but I would need better pics to really say that. Just some hints, as I don't like to just drop statements without some reasoning behind: the quillions are wrong, in shape and section, the construction of the hilt is wrong, the different elements don't harmonize together, and the blade, as I said, for what little I've seen is wrong, too. And, if the weight is correct, then it's too heavy, also. I apologize for not being more precise, but I'm a bit shorto fo time, right now.

I'm sorry.

spiral · 24th November 2006, 12:25 PM

Nearly 4 1/2 pounds in weight!

So No chance its a real fighting rapier, so then i would say it must be a wallhanger.

Spiral

Ian · 24th November 2006, 05:00 PM

The date inscription is definitely later than 1730. If applied at the time of the manufacture of the blade, this one is a fake.

Ian.

spiral · 24th November 2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

The sword weighs nearly 2 kgs , approx. 4.4 lbs, no scabbard.........The handle is leather covered wood.

&

The weight given is approx. for shipping purposes so it is less than that....but by how much ..I can't say.....what is a reasonable weight ...if this was a genuine sword?

Now we get the facts!

Id expect at least half that weight to be packing then! hopefully a lot more!

What weight would you like to fight & fence with one handed & wear on your belt all day as a civilian?

Thats what I would guess a rapier weighs. Very Light in other words.

Spiral

katana · 24th November 2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

Now we get the facts!

Id expect at least half that weight to be packing then! hopefully a lot more!
What weight would you like to fight & fence with one handed & wear on your belt all day as a civilian?

Thats what I would guess a rapier weighs. Very Light in other words.

Spiral

Good point Spiral......I wrote down the weight and forgot that it included packing

........at least the sword is looking a little more 'promising'

If it is indeed a 'heavy weight' do you think I could argue that it is a lunar dueling sword......afterall with 1/6 less gravity on the moon, it would suddenly become very light indeed

Lew · 24th November 2006, 09:55 PM

Throw a few cornish hens on that puppy and give them a good roasting

Looks like a wall hanger to me.

Lew

spiral · 24th November 2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Throw a few cornish hens on that puppy and give them a good roasting

Looks like a wall hanger to me.

Lew

Sorry to say, Id still take money on Louis kebab theory as the most realistic!

It looks a clumsy tool to me more of a bludgen than a rapier.

Spiral

katana · 24th November 2006, 10:48 PM

Please Gentlemen .....be easy on me......else I won't invite you round for to my BBQ ...with my new novelty 'spit roast' turner

Andrew · 27th November 2006, 03:48 AM

Is the original sword basically consistent with cup-hilt rapiers dated to 1730?

Jim McDougall · 27th November 2006, 07:02 PM

Hi Andrew,
Actually the cuphilt rapier had essentially given way to the smallsword in most of Europe and England by 1730, however the Spaniards, who remained formidable and extremely tradition swordsmen, still clung to thier cuphilts through the 18th century and even into the 19th.
While this example clearly is not of true cuphilt form, it is an interpretation of one.
One thing I would note at this point (no pun intended

is that the 18th century was a period of neoclassicism, revivalism and fashion obsession. There was the traditional mens obsession with dueling, and most certainly various schools of fence were wrought with members of the gentry honing thier skills for the fashionable possibility of the duel.
I think the single hope that this weapon might be a servicable weapon, although it does not seem to have age dating to 1730, may be that it could have been a revival type weapon intended for actual use in sort of a 'mens club' type atmosphere.
There were many of these underground exclusive type organizations, the secret society type with Freemasonry heading the fore. There was acute interest in cabbalism, numerology and many forms of occult practice. One such club that was notorious in England was known as the "hellfire club".

While this suggestion is admittedly 'wild speculation' on my part, and I would suggest that even during Victorian times, there was vivid revivalism that stirred romanticism along with the writing of Scott and others as well as the advent of the 'Gothic' form of novel. Perhaps this interesting piece was one of the type of weapons that became in demand, as illustrated by the work of Ernst Schmidt, even if it is not one of his actual pieces.

We may recall that the German practice of 'duelling' with 'schlagers' with the express intent of receiving battle scars was quite the rage well into the 20th century, in fact I am uncertain but may still be practiced.

Just some food for thought

All the best,
Jim

Andrew · 27th November 2006, 07:47 PM

Hi Jim:

I thought that, if this piece was generally consistant with cup hilts of the early 18th century, the stamp could simply be a catalogue mark. This would support your theory of a costume piece. Logic would dictate that a good costumer would want to keep weapons and costumes period-correct and.

Best,
Andrew

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2006, 06:29 AM

Hi Andrew,
Excellent observations! I honestly don't know much about reproductions or these Victorian or theatrical pieces, just that they play havoc with collectors as they have become antiques in thier own right, and they are often hard to tell from actual pieces. One weapon that was actually authentic was dismissed as a fake for many years by suspicious and outright paranoid authorities who had burned too many times by these. It was amazing to see this very converse situation!
Actually Schmidt, and probably others who entered this cottage industry, did not intend to deceive or defraud buyers..it was later owners who tried to pass these off as authentic. What you say seems very possible, that such markings might have alluded to the sword or type the interpretation was taken from, but this sword does not correspond to examples I am aware of, especially not as late as 1730. I think this item was fashioned with a degree of artistic license, as might have been the case in Victorian times as noted.
I am trying to find an article in "Man at Arms" regarding Schmidts work, but digging through almost 25 years of these is true archaeology!!! Andrew Mowbray, the original editor of the magazine, edited a book on Schmidts work back in 1967 (before the magazine began) and did run at least one article that corresponded. It seems quite a few of Schmidts pieces ended up in the J Woodman Higgins museum in Massachusetts, so maybe they might have some data as well.

Its good to hear from you my friend!!!

All the best,
Jim

katana · 5th December 2006, 05:42 PM

Well Gentleman....the sword has arrived...and provided more questions than answers........

The Rapier sits well in 'the hand', it weighs 2.5 lbs. There is no welding or braising evident anywhere on the sword. The cup hilt has a worn leather disc inside. The arrangement of cross guard and cup hilt 'invites' your index finger to curl around the crossguard behind the 'cup'. This hand position provides greater control of the blade. The balance point is situated approx. 10'' (26cms) from the end of the pommel. Interestingly the exact point at which the doubled false edges start....the blade finishes in a very sharp point. The tang is peened over the pommel. The hilt is slightly 'offset' from the blade and the blade itself is angled (approx. 10 degrees) from the 'centre line'. The overall impression of the construction is that it is a 'solid', no frills, 'useable' piece

Also at the 'ricasso' (?) there are crude markings ....3 dots (in a line)...then a symbol ( two 'C' 's back to back and joined at the curve. similar to the 'Chanel' logo)..and then another three dots in a line. (see diagram below)

I'm beginning to think that this was a practical piece.......perhaps a practice rapier of the Victorian era?

Comments gratefully received .......

23rd November 2006, 10:16 PM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	1730 Rapier or a Victorian 'Copy' .........any ideas? Not an Ethnographic weapon.....but I know there are those on the Forum with exceptional knowledge of early European blades. I have taken a chance on this....it is 44'' long overall, cup hilt with s- shaped cross guard. Inscribed 'anno 1730' (obviously could have been engraved recently)...certainly has age....the 'acorn' shaped pommel seems to have the tang 'peened' over.....not the usual 'screwed on' type typical of 'Victoriana' wall hangers. The sword weighs nearly 2 kgs , approx. 4.4 lbs, no scabbard.........The handle is leather covered wood. So Gentlemen......please tell me....what have I got? Attached Images

5th December 2006, 05:42 PM	#16
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Well Gentleman....the sword has arrived...and provided more questions than answers........ The Rapier sits well in 'the hand', it weighs 2.5 lbs. There is no welding or braising evident anywhere on the sword. The cup hilt has a worn leather disc inside. The arrangement of cross guard and cup hilt 'invites' your index finger to curl around the crossguard behind the 'cup'. This hand position provides greater control of the blade. The balance point is situated approx. 10'' (26cms) from the end of the pommel. Interestingly the exact point at which the doubled false edges start....the blade finishes in a very sharp point. The tang is peened over the pommel. The hilt is slightly 'offset' from the blade and the blade itself is angled (approx. 10 degrees) from the 'centre line'. The overall impression of the construction is that it is a 'solid', no frills, 'useable' piece Also at the 'ricasso' (?) there are crude markings ....3 dots (in a line)...then a symbol ( two 'C' 's back to back and joined at the curve. similar to the 'Chanel' logo)..and then another three dots in a line. (see diagram below) I'm beginning to think that this was a practical piece.......perhaps a practice rapier of the Victorian era? Comments gratefully received ....... Attached Images

23rd November 2006, 10:48 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Hi David. What is the pad in the cup made of? I am not sure about the engraving the style is quite modern looking to my eye. It is certainly a very heavy version of an epee like weapon. The picture are not that good. Could you take better pics?

24th November 2006, 12:05 AM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Tim, not in possession of the sword ...yet. It'll be on its way soon. I believe the pad is leather....but not certain. I agree the lettering seems suspect...but I have seen, on the net, examples of engraved lettering from around that period (early 18c) and it could be authentic .....but then again a good forger would ensure it was similar.... I also agree about the weight......seems business like, have you any further thoughts on it?

24th November 2006, 10:48 AM	#4
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	With the usual disclaimer about how cautious one has to be doing evaluations through photographs... I would say it's a "Victorian Copy", meaning it's a piece made for decoration, probably quite some time ago, but not that much as 1730. It's an attempt to a cup-hilt rapier, but it's only intended to look kind of well in a wall. Not even the blade seems original, also, but I would need better pics to really say that. Just some hints, as I don't like to just drop statements without some reasoning behind: the quillions are wrong, in shape and section, the construction of the hilt is wrong, the different elements don't harmonize together, and the blade, as I said, for what little I've seen is wrong, too. And, if the weight is correct, then it's too heavy, also. I apologize for not being more precise, but I'm a bit shorto fo time, right now. I'm sorry.

24th November 2006, 12:25 PM	#5
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Nearly 4 1/2 pounds in weight! So No chance its a real fighting rapier, so then i would say it must be a wallhanger. Spiral

24th November 2006, 05:00 PM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,203	The date inscription is definitely later than 1730. If applied at the time of the manufacture of the blade, this one is a fake. Ian.

24th November 2006, 09:55 PM	#9
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Throw a few cornish hens on that puppy and give them a good roasting Looks like a wall hanger to me. Lew

24th November 2006, 10:48 PM	#11
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Please Gentlemen .....be easy on me......else I won't invite you round for to my BBQ ...with my new novelty 'spit roast' turner

27th November 2006, 03:48 AM	#12
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Is the original sword basically consistent with cup-hilt rapiers dated to 1730?

27th November 2006, 07:02 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Hi Andrew, Actually the cuphilt rapier had essentially given way to the smallsword in most of Europe and England by 1730, however the Spaniards, who remained formidable and extremely tradition swordsmen, still clung to thier cuphilts through the 18th century and even into the 19th. While this example clearly is not of true cuphilt form, it is an interpretation of one. One thing I would note at this point (no pun intended is that the 18th century was a period of neoclassicism, revivalism and fashion obsession. There was the traditional mens obsession with dueling, and most certainly various schools of fence were wrought with members of the gentry honing thier skills for the fashionable possibility of the duel. I think the single hope that this weapon might be a servicable weapon, although it does not seem to have age dating to 1730, may be that it could have been a revival type weapon intended for actual use in sort of a 'mens club' type atmosphere. There were many of these underground exclusive type organizations, the secret society type with Freemasonry heading the fore. There was acute interest in cabbalism, numerology and many forms of occult practice. One such club that was notorious in England was known as the "hellfire club". While this suggestion is admittedly 'wild speculation' on my part, and I would suggest that even during Victorian times, there was vivid revivalism that stirred romanticism along with the writing of Scott and others as well as the advent of the 'Gothic' form of novel. Perhaps this interesting piece was one of the type of weapons that became in demand, as illustrated by the work of Ernst Schmidt, even if it is not one of his actual pieces. We may recall that the German practice of 'duelling' with 'schlagers' with the express intent of receiving battle scars was quite the rage well into the 20th century, in fact I am uncertain but may still be practiced. Just some food for thought All the best, Jim

27th November 2006, 07:47 PM	#14
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Hi Jim: I thought that, if this piece was generally consistant with cup hilts of the early 18th century, the stamp could simply be a catalogue mark. This would support your theory of a costume piece. Logic would dictate that a good costumer would want to keep weapons and costumes period-correct and. Best, Andrew

28th November 2006, 06:29 AM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Hi Andrew, Excellent observations! I honestly don't know much about reproductions or these Victorian or theatrical pieces, just that they play havoc with collectors as they have become antiques in thier own right, and they are often hard to tell from actual pieces. One weapon that was actually authentic was dismissed as a fake for many years by suspicious and outright paranoid authorities who had burned too many times by these. It was amazing to see this very converse situation! Actually Schmidt, and probably others who entered this cottage industry, did not intend to deceive or defraud buyers..it was later owners who tried to pass these off as authentic. What you say seems very possible, that such markings might have alluded to the sword or type the interpretation was taken from, but this sword does not correspond to examples I am aware of, especially not as late as 1730. I think this item was fashioned with a degree of artistic license, as might have been the case in Victorian times as noted. I am trying to find an article in "Man at Arms" regarding Schmidts work, but digging through almost 25 years of these is true archaeology!!! Andrew Mowbray, the original editor of the magazine, edited a book on Schmidts work back in 1967 (before the magazine began) and did run at least one article that corresponded. It seems quite a few of Schmidts pieces ended up in the J Woodman Higgins museum in Massachusetts, so maybe they might have some data as well. Its good to hear from you my friend!!! All the best, Jim