Shotley Bridge swordmakers

[Radboud]

On the artistic licence, I think a lot will depend on the wealth of the customer. The less wealthy the more generic the clothes and accessories will be.

One needs to consider that most of the art work would have been completed without the subject present. There would have been a sitting to get the face and hands correct, but the rest would have been completed from props. So in the case of a wealthier subject the artist may have had a studio onsite and had direct access to their clothes and accruments.

For a less wealthy subject, they may have needed to taken drawings and notes on site and then completed the work in their own studio, or had a studio sitting for the basics then completed the rest from their own props.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you Radboud. Makes perfect sense.
I do, however, see hilts on aristocracy portraits here in England that are totally unknown to me, although I am new to this game.
Referring back to that portrait, it is difficult to establish - to my untrained eye - where the hilt starts and ends; can anyone define it for me please?

[urbanspaceman]

Here is the portrait in question, save anyone chasing the link (thank-you by the way Peter).

[Jim McDougall]

With regard to artistic license, this is a very valid consideration with respect to the viability of classifying and identifying swords from portraits and artwork.
Radboud has brought up most salient points, and while in many cases, the swords represented in portraits may indeed be reliable. However reading through the late Nick Norman's introduction to "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820"(1980), he notes the caveats involved in using these sources as final categorization and dating of forms.

The intention of art is not only to carry out an accurate representation of a subject, but to convey other aspects that promote more subjective reactions.

This painting of Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Stratford, was painted by the famed Sir Anthony van Dyck, who was the painter for Charles I in 1632.
Van Dyck, was well known not only for his art, but popularization of his recognizable beard style, which became de riguer among English cavaliers and indeed Charles I himself. Interestingly we see likenesses of these in figures on many swords of the period, including the familiar 'mortuary hilts'.

As far as I can find in Norman there is no direct match to the hilt of the sword seen in this painting, however p.129 (fig. 27) there is an Italian rapier of mid 16th c. with a somewhat similar pommel. Here I would note that Van Dyck had been studying in Genoa for some time before returning to England in 1632.

This rapier depicted has the similar high relief oblong pommel seen on earlier rapier hilts, as mentioned many Italian, as well as the long quillon arms of these rapiers. Here the similarity ends as there is no knuckleguard, nor the other guard bars typically seen on the more developed hilt systems.
Thus, while seemingly this appears to be an Italian style rapier, as yet not positively identified, it seems likely the image was based on those forms.
Whether or not an actual sword was worn and drawn from, we cannot know for sure.

What is interesting though is that Charles I, a Stuart, had strong ties to Italy
of course, and Italian influences important. While at this time of the painting (1633) the dish hilt and lighter transitional rapiers were in vogue, this form of more traditional 16th century rapier, mostly Italian, would well represent the profound inclinations to those swords would have presumed a stately presence to the figure.

While these details are in of course different light from the discussion in post #330, they are still relevant to the context of the swords and climate of the English court in the 1630s, and Hounslow period.

[urbanspaceman]

We went down the wrong road:
the portrait is of 1st Earl of Strafford (a supporter of Charles 1st) who was executed at Tower Hill in 1641.
His son, the 2nd Earl (died 1695) was a good friend of James 2nd and he owned the Shotley Bridge sword which passed to his nephew Thomas Watson (1693 - 1750) who had the caskets made.
There is a better image of the 1st earl portrait which looks like the original; the portrait inserted earlier in this thread has been over-painted adding a dog and moving the helmet; see attached.
The sword now looks like a Pappenheimer to me but I am uncertain. Nice tournament armour.

[Jim McDougall]

Well noted Keith, now that I see the shells it does look like a Pappenheimer.
Norman speaks to the often practiced 'overpainting', not to mention later 'restorations'. It really does set the mind to wondering just how much license did come into play.