Bicol sword for comment

[Sajen]

Some time ago I have acquired this sword. I think it is a Bicol sword although the tang don't go through the handle but all other features let me think that it is from there. What you think?
The sword is still in the States because the seller want to use this weird "Global Shipping Program". Will post other pictures when I have received it.

[Battara]

I was thinking near WWII Visayan by the look of the hilt and scabbard.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Battara

I was thinking near WWII Visayan by the look of the hilt and scabbard.

Hi Jose,

I really don't think that it is Visayan, the blade isn't chiseled and the scabbard reminds me for example to this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol

Also the handle look like the inaso handles from Bicol. But of course I could be wrong.

Regards,
Detlef

[Ian]

I agree with Battara on the dating. Hard to say whether S. Luzon or Visayan in origin.

The cut out finger grip is something I have only seen from 1946 and later on Philippine swords and knives. Presumably this was introduced as a result of GI involvement in the Visayas during late WWII. The earliest example I have is dated 1946 on one of those aluminum-handled small knives that came from Cebu City. These were obviously made for sale to US servicemen at the time and later to tourists. Nonetheless they are well made and have decent blades. I've picked up a few over the years.

I don't have a picture of the 1946 dated one, but attached are pictures of a similar one with the origin--CEBU CITY--clearly shown. This knife is not chisel-ground.

So another possibility for your sword might be Cebu.

[Sajen]

Thank you Ian! Agree by the age estimation; around WWII seems nearby. But still see by the scabbard and hilt (inaso) Bicol influence.

Regards,
Detlef

[VVV]

Please delete...

[Sajen]

Just have purchased this sword (see pictures) and I think that this is a Bicol sword as well. And now compare the both handles, you will see that the inaso (dog head) handle is very similar in style. So when I am correct with the origin of the second sword you will know why I am thinking that the first shown sword is a Bicol sword.

[Sajen]

Here two pictures of the handles side by side for better viewing.

[Robert]

Maybe this will help. Who can resist a smile like these.

[Ian]

Robert:

I'm really not seeing much similarity here except for the toothy grin. These are very different swords and likely from different regions IMHO.

The sword you posted has an octagonal horn hilt and iron ferrule, versus a rectangular wooden hilt and no ferrule. The hilt on yours is full tang versus partial tang in the original example. The figural carvings on the pommels look like two different entities (apart from the "grin"). Your example has a carved handle versus no carving on the other one.

The shape of the blades is quite different. And the scabbards are totally different--yours is leather in the Central or Northern Luzon style, and the original example is wooden and perhaps more like a Visayan piece (as noted by Battara) or Southern Luzon.

I would say your example is more likely from Batangas or thereabouts.

Ian.

[Robert]

Ian, unfortunately neither sword are mine. I just straightened and posted Detlefs photos side by side to make it easier to compare them.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Robert

Maybe this will help. Who can resist a smile like these.

Thank you very much Robert! BTW, like you see I wasn't able to resist!

Regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Ian

Robert:

I'm really not seeing much similarity here except for the toothy grin. These are very different swords and likely from different regions IMHO.

The sword you posted has an octagonal horn hilt and iron ferrule, versus a rectangular wooden hilt and no ferrule. The hilt on yours is full tang versus partial tang in the original example. The figural carvings on the pommels look like two different entities (apart from the "grin"). Your example has a carved handle versus no carving on the other one.

The shape of the blades is quite different. And the scabbards are totally different--yours is leather in the Central or Northern Luzon style, and the original example is wooden and perhaps more like a Visayan piece (as noted by Battara) or Southern Luzon.

I would say your example is more likely from Batangas or thereabouts.

Ian.

Hello Ian,

thank you very much for comment and your thoughts about this both swords.

Let me explain my own thoughts. All what I know I've learned at this place, sadly is not much written about South Luzon and Visayan swords. Robert has posted in this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=inaso an interesting sword with a handle which has some similar features (not peened through tang, no ferrule) and our ex-(?)member Bangkaya has written: "It does resemble the inaso (aso=dog) hilt of Bicol, but if it was from Bicol the tang would normally be peened at the end. Bikolano swords also almost always has a ferrule made of metal." and furthermore: "Figural hilts are common with faces of dogs, monkeys, people, etc. and even the dragon hilt varieties found on some modern sansibars. The blade itself is unique, but any sort of blade shape can be made to order by any panday for the original owner". This would explain (when it is a Waray sword) that the blade isn't chiseled ground, a feature normally found by Visayan swords. On the other hand, not all Bicol swords has a peened through tang, look for example here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol , a other interesting sword from Robert which seemed to be from Bicol also. Regarding the not existent ferrule: so maybe really a Waray sword or a later Bicol sword?
The second sword seems to my eyes indeed a Bicol sword, the inaso handle is in my eyes typical as well as the blade profile.

Would be very interesting to read also the thoughts of other members which are familiar with swords from Luzon and the Visayans.

Regards,
Detlef

[Battara]

I agree with Ian. One difference is that in Bicolano pieces the tang goes all the way through the hilt like typical Luzon pieces do. In Visayan pieces I've noticed that the tang does not protrude through the hilt.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Battara

I agree with Ian. One difference is that in Bicolano pieces the tang goes all the way through the hilt like typical Luzon pieces do. In Visayan pieces I've noticed that the tang does not protrude through the hilt.

Hi Jose, thank you as well for your thoughts. So what you think the first one coming from? The blade isn't chiseled which is a typical feature of Visayan blades. Waray maybe? But have a look to the this sword from Robert: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol which seems to be a Bicol sword where the tang also don't go through the hilt. Second sword from Bikol?

Regards,
Detlef

[Battara]

Yes I would say the second one is Bicolano as far as I understand.

The minisbad in the link that belonged to VVV is also Biconalo as well.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Battara

Yes I would say the second one is Bicolano as far as I understand.

Thank you Jose! And what you think is the first sword from?

Regards,
Detlef

[Battara]

For now I'd say the first sword is Visayan.....

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Battara

For now I'd say the first sword is Visayan.....

Hello Jose,

have a look to post #16 in this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol

The shown sword has a very similar blade shape and the tang isn't peened through the hilt. And look also to the scabbard. When the first sword would orginate from the Visayas wouldn't be the blade chiseled at the edge?

Regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Today I received a third Bicol sword and now it become maybe more clear why I am so confident that the first shown sword is from Bicol as well.

This sword has the same blade shape like the first shown sword and the handle shows clearly the same style (in up the head) like the first sword. The scabbard remains only as fragment. The first shown sword is complete from wood, the second seems complete leather and this one is wood covered with leather.
Maybe Robert will be so kind to show all three handles side by side again.

[Sajen]

Have received the two first shown swords and I am very pleased with them. Now I am very confident that all three swords from Bicol and also that the first shown sword is pre WWII when I "read" the patina of this sword correct. First I will show all three swords side by side. The first and third sword have a nearly identical blade shape and both swords have a nearly similar thick blade near at the handle (1,2 cm). This seems to be a not uncommon blade shape for some Bicol swords, see the picture taken from this thread, post #16: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol. Also the scabbard shown in this thread is very similar to the first sword shown here. Please excuse me that I am dogged in this matter but I think there is very little known about Bicol swords and this thread could be a first step to learn more about the swords from this region.

[Sajen]

Here again the first shown sword with scabbard in comparison with in the previous post mentioned sword and an other Bicol sword which was shown here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=bicol
Please note the similarities of all three scabbards and also again of the blade shape of my sword and the first other sword. Please note also that the first other shown sword also don't have a peened through tang.
Again, please excuse that I am persistent in this matter!

[Battara]

I must admit that those scabbards are Bicolano for sure. One of those hilts has a tang through the hilt.

You are also right - not much out there on Bicolano pieces.

[Sajen]

Hello Jose,

yup, so I can be glad to get three in short time! Actually goes the tang through the hilt by two of my swords.

Would be great to see other Bicolano blades from other members for further research.

Regards,
Detlef

[Battara]

Sajen, just do a search on this forum for Bicol pieces and you will see other examples.

You are right - there is not much out there on Bicolano pieces, unfortunately.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Battara

Sajen, just do a search on this forum for Bicol pieces and you will see other examples.

You are right - there is not much out there on Bicolano pieces, unfortunately.

Jose, I think that I've read all threads regarding Bicol blades on the forum!

Regards,
Detlef

[Battara]

Oh........well............um............in that case...............

[Sajen]

Purchased another Bicol sword recently, at least I think it is one. The blade form is the same as from two others I own and the handle is a stylized inaso.

Here some pictures.

[Bob A]

A photo showing the thickness of the blade at the hilt would be useful for reference/comparison purposes.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Bob A

A photo showing the thickness of the blade at the hilt would be useful for reference/comparison purposes.

Hello Bob,

I am not able to take a picture since I don't have the sword not yet in my hands but here is one where you can see that the blade has a similar thickness as the both others with the general same blade shape.

Regards,
Detlef