A cup hilt rapier for id.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Maybe, but why?

Well, more than a fashion, the owner must have viewed it as a useful thing, to ensure a good handling control. Better than not having it, anyway .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Well, more than a fashion, the owner must have viewed it as a useful thing, to ensure a good handling control. Better than not having it, anyway .

That does seem pragmatically possible, and considering the fact that this might be a dramatically important factor for that very reason, even more so. I had thought of the German thumb ring, but those are at rear of grip and perpendicular to quillons or guard contrary to this example.

I often forget that swords in these times were intended for use in life threatening circumstances (looking more at historical factors) and that not only were they kept serviceable, but such custom features, blade shortening and sharpening etc. were regular requirements.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I had thought of the German thumb ring, but those are at rear of grip and perpendicular to quillons or guard contrary to this example...

Maybe the difference resides in that there are thumb rings and finger rings and their distinct approach ... what do i know .
Still in Jean-Luc's example you manage to fold your forefinger around the ricasso behind the cup, a traditional position, and your thumb locking in that 'extra' ring. Can you hold dreaming ?


.

[Jim McDougall]

Exactly! Who can forget the many discussions trying to figure out the mysteries of the small tulwar grip sizes on Indian swords and the so called 'Indian ricasso' on the blade near hilt. It seems it was finally noted about the European swordsmanship manner of wrapping finger around quillon.
Just as with the tulwars, it does seem the grip area on these rapiers were often quite small relative to the hand size, so these kinds of adjustments were understandable, unless ya had real small hands.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... it does seem the grip area on these rapiers were often quite small relative to the hand size, so these kinds of adjustments were understandable, unless ya had real small hands.

But while short grips in Indian swords were a (sort of) standard situation, i believe the majority of cup hilt swords grips had normal lengths, notwithstanding relatively short ones were so because as, the manner to hold the sword with finger/s wraping the front section, would not need them to be made larger. Still you have extreme situations, where pondering on such fashion results in examples like the one attached, where only three fingers could hold the actual grip. The civilian that owned this sword was certainly a short fellow, its blade only measuring 83 cms.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

But while short grips in Indian swords were a (sort of) standard situation, i believe the majority of cup hilt swords grips had normal lengths, notwithstanding relatively short ones were so because as, the manner to hold the sword with finger/s wraping the front section, would not need them to be made larger. Still you have extreme situations, where pondering on such fashion results in examples like the one attached, where only three fingers could hold the actual grip. The civilian that owned this sword was certainly a short fellow, its blade only measuring 83 cms.

.

Well observed, and good insight toward these situational matters in cuphilts. As you say, the Indian situation was far more 'standardized' as clearly the general size of Indian hands was of course smaller as a rule. This was indeed so much so that even British production of swords for native forces had 'Indian' pattern regulation swords with smaller hilts .

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... as clearly the general size of Indian hands was of course smaller as a rule ...

Or just slender (say slim), that not necessarily smaller; something also (or more) plausible .

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

But while short grips in Indian swords were a (sort of) standard situation, i believe the majority of cup hilt swords grips had normal lengths, notwithstanding relatively short ones were so because as, the manner to hold the sword with finger/s wraping the front section, would not need them to be made larger.

.

Fernando, you have an interesting sword here... blade ground to a "flamberge" profile, and the unusually short grip. Note that the knucklebow extends further back at its finial than the length of the grip would warrant -- it seems to be of "normal" size which makes me wonder if this was a rapier assembled by a cutler specifically for a customer of very short stature, using everything of standard size but cutting the tang down accordingly, or else it was a sword that started out typical but which was modified after-the-fact, some time later in its working life. Either way, it's an intriguing example for study.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Philip

Fernando, you have an interesting sword here...

Pity this one is not mine; actualy it belonged in a collection from which i have bought a couple examples ... but not this one.

Originally Posted by Philip

... Note that the knucklebow extends further back at its finial than the length of the grip would warrant -- it seems to be of "normal" size

A detail i confess i have overlooked .

Originally Posted by Philip

which makes me wonder if this was a rapier assembled by a cutler specifically for a customer of very short stature, using everything of standard size but cutting the tang down accordingly, or else it was a sword that started out typical but which was modified after-the-fact, some time later in its working life.

But then, one may wonder why, having to shorten the grip, at whatever stage, why not adjusting the knucklebow accordingly ?

Originally Posted by Philip

Either way, it's an intriguing example for study...

Indeed.