Sinclair Sabre Type 2

Cathey · 15th August 2022, 03:54 AM

Hi Guys

I am trying to settle on general file descriptions for swords in my collection and a couple could probably be improved. So I thought I would post the ones I am currently reviewing. As I post them I will state what I have called them up to now, but I am open to suggestions that might be more accurate given current thinking.

First example, I called this sword a Sinclair Sabre Type 2 as that is how OAKESHOTT, Ewart European Weapons and Armour Pp 172, Plate 14, Figure 78 described it.

Sword description
Flat renaissance pommel, wide up-and-down quillons and forward ring-guard. The large ring-guard is filled with a plate, decorated, and with a corresponding thumb-guard at the back. The Guard and pommel engraved with floral decoration. Grip has both Turks heads but no wire, only the wood remains. The blade is slightly curved backsword which pre-dates the hilt bare a sword mark in use from circa 1580-1620.

References consulted
BOCCIA L.G., COELHO E.T., EDITRICE B. Armi Bianche Italiane Pp 342, 150 & 151, 346, 347, 387, 394
FORRER R European Sword Pommels pp 18, 155 plate LIII (4)
OAKESHOTT, Ewart European Weapons and Armour Pp 172, Plate 14, Figure 78.
SACH, Jan & KRAUS,Valtr Illustriertes Lexikon der Hieb- und Stichwaffen Pp 104
SEITZ Heribert - Blankwaffen 2 P

I would be interested in an alternative view, if possible, please provide references.

Regards Cathey

cornelistromp · 15th August 2022, 11:11 AM

herewith my "alternative" view

it is not a sinclair sabre but a cavalry fighting sword ( reitersabel) of the Dutch-Swedish type. 1630-1660

cf the visser collection part 3 JP Puype Cat 547, schwerter und Dolche / Wegeli nr 287, SeitzII p40

Jim McDougall · 15th August 2022, 07:32 PM

While more of a superficial observation, Im inclined to agree on the cavalry sword classification simply from my personal view of so called 'sinclair saber' category being shorter with stout heavy blades. While cavalry swords of the 17th century seemed to have predominant straight blades, the evolving 'light cavalry' of course were inclined to use saber blades.
The hilt style seems a 'sinclair' saber criteria, with Oakesott adding a secondary option with open hilt and lighter blade.

It seems to be a matter of personal view, while many in discussing arms choose to use Oakshott classifications for standardization in discussion.
I think I'd call it as Jasper has, to me Sinclairs are heavier with basket hilts and more in the dusagge group.

Cathey · 16th August 2022, 01:34 AM

Hi Cornelistromp & Jim

Can you tell me the exact Volume of the Visser Collection: Arms of the Netherlands you are referring to. I have looked at buying these before but am only interested in the one that deals with swords. Can you tell me which volume this would be, and I might try and add that to my library.

Jim, I agree that many people use Oakeshott’s classifications, and I have always relied on this previously. Now I am re-thinking my approach and might move to Cavalry, infantry etc then Country of Manufacture and/or use then Circa year. The next group I will post are the misnamed Walloons I have, the Walloons that aren’t technically Walloons at all.

Thankyou you both, this is helpful.

Cheers Cathey

cornelistromp · 16th August 2022, 05:16 PM

re: visser collection
it is part 3 but not really a swords book, focused on dutch 17th and 18th century weapons such as smallswords, hunting hangers, walloon swords etc.

re: Oakeshott
I think Oakeshoot meant the same, a Dutch Swedish broadsword from around 1650 but probably by some similarity in the form of the quillons , naming the type sinclair 2.0

Jim McDougall · 16th August 2022, 09:08 PM

Cathey, I have to say that I have always admired the format and detail you use in describing the swords in your collection, which is important as you and Rex are among the most discerning collectors I have known in the lifetime I've done this. That said, your examples are outstanding exemplars of their forms both in type as well as historic connections.
If you guys ever publish this, I will be first in line!!!

With classification and typology, authors such as Oakeshott and Mazansky who have provided scheduled typology charts which serve well as basic denominators in discussing them and describing them. However as we know, the variations and exceptions are what add dimension to the type as a whole. I think that use of the numbered form from these charts as a basis, with qualification added is best.

It is a matter of preference, but with the established form noted in these well known references, even though not hard line match, it shows the scope of the form in known variation, in my opinion.

The Visser volume I think is outstanding, and while not a 'sword' reference per se', the examples of the types shown, markings as noted and other details often offer clues which may apply to identification of other examples by association. The Netherlands were a key entrepot for arms in these times, and influences in many forms of many countries filtered through there.

15th August 2022, 03:54 AM	#1
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	Sinclair Sabre Type 2 Hi Guys I am trying to settle on general file descriptions for swords in my collection and a couple could probably be improved. So I thought I would post the ones I am currently reviewing. As I post them I will state what I have called them up to now, but I am open to suggestions that might be more accurate given current thinking. First example, I called this sword a Sinclair Sabre Type 2 as that is how OAKESHOTT, Ewart European Weapons and Armour Pp 172, Plate 14, Figure 78 described it. Sword description Flat renaissance pommel, wide up-and-down quillons and forward ring-guard. The large ring-guard is filled with a plate, decorated, and with a corresponding thumb-guard at the back. The Guard and pommel engraved with floral decoration. Grip has both Turks heads but no wire, only the wood remains. The blade is slightly curved backsword which pre-dates the hilt bare a sword mark in use from circa 1580-1620. References consulted BOCCIA L.G., COELHO E.T., EDITRICE B. Armi Bianche Italiane Pp 342, 150 & 151, 346, 347, 387, 394 FORRER R European Sword Pommels pp 18, 155 plate LIII (4) OAKESHOTT, Ewart European Weapons and Armour Pp 172, Plate 14, Figure 78. SACH, Jan & KRAUS,Valtr Illustriertes Lexikon der Hieb- und Stichwaffen Pp 104 SEITZ Heribert - Blankwaffen 2 P I would be interested in an alternative view, if possible, please provide references. Regards Cathey Attached Images

15th August 2022, 11:11 AM	#2
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058	herewith my "alternative" view it is not a sinclair sabre but a cavalry fighting sword ( reitersabel) of the Dutch-Swedish type. 1630-1660 cf the visser collection part 3 JP Puype Cat 547, schwerter und Dolche / Wegeli nr 287, SeitzII p40 Attached Images Last edited by cornelistromp; 15th August 2022 at 11:51 AM.

15th August 2022, 07:32 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	While more of a superficial observation, Im inclined to agree on the cavalry sword classification simply from my personal view of so called 'sinclair saber' category being shorter with stout heavy blades. While cavalry swords of the 17th century seemed to have predominant straight blades, the evolving 'light cavalry' of course were inclined to use saber blades. The hilt style seems a 'sinclair' saber criteria, with Oakesott adding a secondary option with open hilt and lighter blade. It seems to be a matter of personal view, while many in discussing arms choose to use Oakshott classifications for standardization in discussion. I think I'd call it as Jasper has, to me Sinclairs are heavier with basket hilts and more in the dusagge group. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 16th August 2022 at 02:57 AM.

16th August 2022, 01:34 AM	#4
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	Sword Classification Options Hi Cornelistromp & Jim Can you tell me the exact Volume of the Visser Collection: Arms of the Netherlands you are referring to. I have looked at buying these before but am only interested in the one that deals with swords. Can you tell me which volume this would be, and I might try and add that to my library. Jim, I agree that many people use Oakeshott’s classifications, and I have always relied on this previously. Now I am re-thinking my approach and might move to Cavalry, infantry etc then Country of Manufacture and/or use then Circa year. The next group I will post are the misnamed Walloons I have, the Walloons that aren’t technically Walloons at all. Thankyou you both, this is helpful. Cheers Cathey

16th August 2022, 05:16 PM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058	re: visser collection it is part 3 but not really a swords book, focused on dutch 17th and 18th century weapons such as smallswords, hunting hangers, walloon swords etc. re: Oakeshott I think Oakeshoot meant the same, a Dutch Swedish broadsword from around 1650 but probably by some similarity in the form of the quillons , naming the type sinclair 2.0

16th August 2022, 09:08 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Cathey, I have to say that I have always admired the format and detail you use in describing the swords in your collection, which is important as you and Rex are among the most discerning collectors I have known in the lifetime I've done this. That said, your examples are outstanding exemplars of their forms both in type as well as historic connections. If you guys ever publish this, I will be first in line!!! With classification and typology, authors such as Oakeshott and Mazansky who have provided scheduled typology charts which serve well as basic denominators in discussing them and describing them. However as we know, the variations and exceptions are what add dimension to the type as a whole. I think that use of the numbered form from these charts as a basis, with qualification added is best. It is a matter of preference, but with the established form noted in these well known references, even though not hard line match, it shows the scope of the form in known variation, in my opinion. The Visser volume I think is outstanding, and while not a 'sword' reference per se', the examples of the types shown, markings as noted and other details often offer clues which may apply to identification of other examples by association. The Netherlands were a key entrepot for arms in these times, and influences in many forms of many countries filtered through there.