Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th August 2024, 05:09 PM   #1
werecow
Member
 
werecow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Leiden, NL
Posts: 500
Default Your thoughts on this cup hilt rapier or broadsword?

I would love your thoughts on this rather worn but in my opinion still quite pretty cup hilt sword. It was sold from Portugal as a 17th century Iberian cup hilt rapier, as found in the wars fought by the Spanish against the Portuguese and the Dutch. The broadsword blade reads Gio Knegt / In Solingen and has no other marks on the ricasso. The grip is either bone or antler. The cross is welded to the cup. The pommel is rounded octagonal in shape.

I am specifically wondering whether this particular style of hilt, with the little curl on the side branch connecting to the cross, can be traced to a particular place of manufacture and/or period.

Also, I would like to learn as much as I can from this sword, so please let me know if you agree with the following assessment:

I suspect it is an old composite piece. Either that, or the grip or at least the ferrules have been replaced at some point; the ferrules look rather clean compared to the rest of the sword and the ricasso is relatively crisp whereas both the cup and sharp blade section are rather pitted.

The disparity between the wear on the ricasso and the blade near the shoulders is not huge so I am not entirely sure about whether this is a meaningful disparity, but let's assume that it is going forward. I am curious what would cause the blade to wear so much more than the ricasso (and cup). If the blade rusted inside a scabbard while mounted on a different hilt, then the patina would make some sense. That would suggest that someone put the already pitted blade together with an already pitted cup and pommel, which would only make sense if the intent was to deceive the buyer. However the peen also looks lightly pitted, the grip looks to have some age, and while they are not as worn as the rest of the sword there is also some patina on the ferrules, so I suspect it was not put together all that recently.

In spite of it being a potential composite, I quite like this sword. The blade is pretty thin (and springy) so it feels very light for the size and width. It's still pretty sharp and the construction feels solid.

Some stats:
Weight: 933 grams
Length: 102 cm
Grip length including ferrules but not the pommel: 8 cm
Depth of the cup measured up to but not including the cross: 5.5 cm
Cup width: 13 x 13.7 cm
Width of the cross: 28.5 cm
Blade length from the cup: 85 cm
Blade width at the shoulder: 4 cm
Blade thickness at the shoulder: 6 mm
Blade thickness 1 cm before the tip: 1 mm
POB: 6.5 cm from the cup
Attached Images
            

Last edited by werecow; 17th August 2024 at 05:31 PM.
werecow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2024, 05:15 PM   #2
werecow
Member
 
werecow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Leiden, NL
Posts: 500
Default

Some more pictures.
Attached Images
            

Last edited by werecow; 17th August 2024 at 05:20 PM. Reason: More pictures
werecow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2024, 05:44 PM   #3
werecow
Member
 
werecow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Leiden, NL
Posts: 500
Default

Some threads featuring similar swords, hilt or blade:

A cup hilt rapier for id
Another cup hilt rapier for id
Dissimilar shells rapier... Portuguese?
A sword for comments
Spanish rapier

External links:

ESPADA DE TAZA - (tetralobulada) - siglo XVII
ESPADA DE TAZA - PUGNO PRO PATRIA -siglo XVII
werecow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2024, 11:06 PM   #4
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,957
Default

This is wonderful! not just this very exciting example of espada de taza!! but great images as well as the listing of threads pertinent to researching this example! This brings to the fore the fact that for some reason, too many resist using the SEARCH feature here, which has some of the most comprehensive material on most arms topics in the great discussions we have had over the past 25 years.

Im glad you have done that work already by linking some of the most salient of these discussions!! Actually this is FUN! Its like being in a class where the professor literally provides the direct detail for answers!!! yay!

I know you are well seasoned collector, so I appreciate you withholding your own observations, which adds to the suspense, again truly fun and masterful.

Actually this sword fits well into a topic I have researched many years, and involves subject matter of a paper I am presently writing, so even more exciting for me.

This is clearly of Spanish cuphilt of 17th c. form, and of course with all the nuanced variation experienced in these as they were produced by many artisans in locations in Spain, Portugal, and quite possibly many even in the Spanish Netherlands (1556-1714). This example has the character of either colonial or more rural manufacture and seems of latter 17th c.

What brings it more into the colonial realm is that the blade appears to be KNECHT of Solingen. (Wallace Collection, J. Mann, 1962, p.268; p.325, A520, A641).

Johann Peter Knecht was a Solingen trader in blades, not a maker, from 18th c. 1770, his son Peter Knecht was b. 1796 . It is unclear whether he carried forward.
Knecht purveyed the blades carrying the famed 'Spanish motto' which were provided for the Spanish colonies in the Americas from dates unclear in the 18th c., but the 1770s period he is known in business these were well in circulation.
Toledo had been all but defunct for blade making from late 17th c until new production began c.1780s so Solingen had been filling in the gaps.

This is of course an 'arming blade' rather than rapier blade, so more of a sword for a military officer.

As noted in previous discussions, some of which are in the thread bibliography noted, the rapier had largely given way to the small sword in Europe and primarily the French school of fence. However Spain held true to its tradition of the cuphilt form, well into and through the 18th century, even somewhat longer in the colonies of New Spain.

As often seen in the Wallace collection, there are often older hilts mounted with newer blades, and this convention was not exclusive to Spain, but other countries of course as well, typically with officers and those of high station.
This seems the case with this wonderful example of Spanish cuphilt.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2024, 12:49 AM   #5
werecow
Member
 
werecow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Leiden, NL
Posts: 500
Default

Thanks Jim! I know you like the patinated ones so I figured you would appreciate this one.

Regarding Knegt/Knecht, does this line start in the late 18th century? The blade markings strike me as slightly older than that (maybe early 18th?). But then I am still very much a novice in pre-19th century blades, and I know Gio Knegt blades are sometimes found on 1728 pattern Bilbao swords, so maybe the worn look on this one is just fooling me... The one on this thread admittedly looks more recent even though it is the same blade. Hmm, maybe I've just talked myself out of the idea that it is earlier.
werecow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2024, 06:02 PM   #6
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,957
Default

Thank you Jelle! you are absolutely right, its the historian in me!
This example corresponds well with many of those shown in the threads you linked with great discussions which include salient and important details.

As noted, this example seems to have a hilt somewhat earlier than the blade, but the assembly seem to have been done long ago, probably in the latter 18th century commensurate with the KNECHT blade (c. 1770s). The hilt seems to follow Spanish convention of mid to latter 17th century; the oblate pommel, fluted bone or ivory grip, the cup (taza) resembling the later 'marguerida'(sic) types, no guardopolvo (inner cup plate) of colonial style.

It does not seem unusual for these kinds of assembly as though the small sword via the French was rapidly replacing the rapier, as well as the fencing style. The Spaniards, while in Spain following Bourbon influence, followed suit however in the colonies, tradition prevailed and the beloved cuphilt and its accompanying swordplay, the mysterious destreza remained in place.

In the mid to latter 18th century, many blades were of course provided to Spains colonies from Solingen, most notably the Spanish motto blades I mentioned previously. As KNECHT was a marketer of blades c. 1770 (quite likely earlier) it seems reasonable that he may have provided blades which did not bear the Spanish motto, as these were likely for other markets.
It is tempting to consider this might be a blade issued prior to the 1770 date or perhaps simply to other markets as noted.

Another possibility is that this blade may have gone into the Low Countries as Spain was nominally in rule in Netherlands until 1714, but this would push the date back further than the terminus post quem for Knecht in Solingen.

It seems most references note Peter Knecht of Solingen as working (as a merchant not maker) in 1770, however obviously this is only the matter of record. It seems likely he must have been active prior but hard to say. I made a comment (17 Jan. 21) that the KNEGT family had origins in the Netherlands as early as 1620 (?) later going to Solingen.......also that there was a family member at Shotley Bridge in England (as a grinder) c.1687.
Apparently this was some passim online reference, as I have not found any viable substantiation for those suggestions through authorities and references at hand.

The example of one of these style hilts...most notably with a THUMB RING, suggests this may be a hilt fashioned in the Low Countries by local artisans following the Spanish cup hilt style, and with a KNECHT blade as noted.
I think it quite possible that this blade may be earlier 18th c. and corresponding to the early type hilt, which could be from late 17th c. remounted with the more current blade first half 18th.

Thats just my opinion, forensically, and again, a fascinating example!
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.