A sword 'three in one' for ID and coments

[fernando]

I consider this one a chalenge to our polyvalent members .
Well, i call it 'three in one' because first, i don't know how to propperly call it and, secondly, for the following considerations:
The grip, with those deer and dogs, would call for a hunting sword, right?
The (strictly one sided) guard is so objectively naval that i can not associate it to the hunting atmosphere; more a cutlass or a hanger mounting ?
The blade ah, the blade. With its narrow and wide fullers (is there a name for this?) was once shortened, so it appears; maybe not a large portion, but still! It has now 75 cms (29 1/2"). Its profile is straight, single edged, fairly strong looking, still some flexible; must have once belonged to a very serious sword; i wonder if any of the members can associate it to some sword model.
I wsouldn't be surprised if this set dates back to the 18th century, namely the blade.
Thank you so much for you guy's coments.
Fernando

.

[kisak]

The guard appears a bit unusual in that the detailing on the ship is only on the side towards the grip. Seems to me that for one-sided decorations, the details are generally on the blade side, so perhaps the guard here was intended for a ceremonial/dress sword, one which wasn't going to leave the scabbard. I guess grabbing an old sword blade of impressive dimensions might make sense for such a sword.

As for the mismatch in decoration between grip and guard, could they perhaps be from two different swords originally? The knuckle bow doesn't seem to fit the slot in the grip all that well.

[katana]

Hi Fernando ,
I think this is a combination of 3 sword parts (or possibly 2....ie the hilt/blade of one sword and, a replacement guard). The blade to guard seems ill fitting. The 'patina' (darkened area) on the inside of the guard that buts up against the hilt, suggests that the original hilt was a larger diameter. The blade looks to have been shortened .... the fullers seem too close to the 'point' (perhaps due to the original tip being damaged or perhaps to adjust the 'balance' of the sword after receiving its 'new' furniture ). Looks as if this 'composite' was made some time ago, how does it 'feel' in hand ?

All the best
David

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Fernando,
I don't think much of the blade is missing, only enough to complete the tip by following the line of the edges. Many 18th Cent blades had the main fuller ground to within a few cms or less from the point therefore I reckon the blade is almost full size and second half of the 18thC. The hilt is definitely of the Hunting Hanger shape and along with the associated decor I would think that there is little doubt of its origin. The guard has me stumped. I can see the other two elements working together although the blade is rather, although not impossibly, long for a hunting sword but the naval iconography along with the "seemingly reversed" guard is rather odd. As pointed out the ill fitting D of the guard at the pommel could indicate a marriage, maybe of necessity, that may have taken place some time ago. Regardless of lineage it is a nice and interesting sword.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Another intriguing mystery Fernando!
The backsword blade is indeed of 18th century form into the early 19th, and I believe is of cross section termed 'montmorency', typically seen on cavalry sabres and the straight cavalry blades as this appears to be.

The hilt is truly a paradox, intended as neo classic but the motif seems to be combining the elements of hunting weapons and traditional nautical theme, more recalling a traditional event rather than as a naval symbol. Perhaps these crudely cast details recall that naval officers often carried hunting type hangers in earlier times. While the combination of these components has a degree of age to the assembly, it is certainly not nearly to the age of the blade, and no idea what was intended with the hilt. The flat, uncast side of the guard is a bit disconcerting, and this hilt seems intended to resemble the guards seen on the spadroon type straight sabres of c.1780's to c.1810.

If I can recall, it seems I once saw an East India Company sabre with hilt with cast motif, in the theme style counterguard, but with EIC lion rather than the galleon or whatever the ship is here.

Best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Thank you all guys for your input .

Originally Posted by kisak

... I guess grabbing an old sword blade of impressive dimensions might make sense for such a sword... As for the mismatch in decoration between grip and guard, could they perhaps be from two different swords originally? The knuckle bow doesn't seem to fit the slot in the grip all that well...

Well, that's why i started calling it a 'three in one' specimen.

Originally Posted by katana

...The blade to guard seems ill fitting..

There is indeed some looseness both in the blade to the guard as in the knuckle bow to the pommel.
However that could also/only be due to timely mishandling and consequent damaging of soft brass against hard steel.

Originally Posted by katana

...The 'patina' (darkened area) on the inside of the guard that buts up against the hilt, suggests that the original hilt was a larger diameter...

Loking at sight, i don't really see such coherent signs ... independentely from that having being possible.

Originally Posted by katana

...how does it 'feel' in hand ?

Sturdy, giving handling confidence for a successfull blow ... strike or thrust; point of balance 15 cms from the guard. If, like kisak sugests, this was only a ceremonial/dress sword, its owner wouldn't guess this was a pritty operational weapon. It looks like its blade didn't loose its properties with the re-hilting.

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

...I don't think much of the blade is missing, only enough to complete the tip by following the line of the edges. Many 18th Cent blades had the main fuller ground to within a few cms or less from the point therefore I reckon the blade is almost full size and second half of the 18thC....

Thanks for your reasoning on the blade length (almost) integrity, Norman; i was thinking the same, but had no grounds to ensure myself.

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

...a marriage, maybe of necessity, that may have taken place some time ago...

Certainly some significant time ago, i would say. As for the type of marriage, a few versions could have taken place; from the well intended setup of the mountings with the blade, to preserve the late for utility or for honour or sentimental reasons to, as you suggest, the replacement of one or the two elements for necessity, due to damage or other reason.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The backsword blade is indeed of 18th century form into the early 19th, and I believe is of cross section termed 'montmorency', typically seen on cavalry sabres and the straight cavalry blades as this appears to be.....

Thanks for your indication, Jim ... pedia .
Montmorency, that's it .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The hilt is truly a paradox, intended as neo classic but the motif seems to be combining the elements of hunting weapons and traditional nautical theme, more recalling a traditional event rather than as a naval symbol......

A traditional event ... why not? We can see a tower with flags in each side.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Perhaps these crudely cast details recall that naval officers often carried hunting type hangers in earlier times.....

I follow your reasonning and, save my fantasy, while on the grip right side we can easily discern a deer over the dogs, on the left side, the animal could be a stylised whale .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The flat, uncast side of the guard is a bit disconcerting, ....

Can't we find it plausible that, while having the sword inside the scabbard, it served its guard decoration pourpose and, whilst in action, had no necessity to show off its trimmings?

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... the galleon or whatever the ship is here...

Maybe more like a frigate? certainly a war ship, even though stylized, judging by the artillery portholes.


Much obliged to you all and ... come again
Fernando

.