Transitional, Victorian, Other?
 

Curiosity got the better of me with this one. I can't quite make out some facets of how this hilt was put together but I am somehow thinking it is of around 1700, or perhaps a little earlier. Then again, I may be way, way off. Either I did well, or paid a premium for a modernistic take on this form. A military smallsword, or ?????

Cheers
GC

I am not sure but at least one mark is very similar to marks used by Spanish sword cuttlers of Toledo.

Thank you. I am pretty sure the other mark references the Kingdom of Castile. I am having a hard time putting the hilt in the 16th century though. The acute point to the blade makes for it being a serious item, vs a decorator.

Cheers
GC

Your hilt, handle, pommel and guard appear to be a casting rather than individual components from what I can see in the photos. What construction detail were you trying to figure out?

I don't believe the ferrules are cast to the grip, nor the plates and annelets part of the grip casting, with the pommel and peen blocks separate as well.

At any rate, such castings coming in by the mid 17th century.

I don't have a "twin" to compare it to, hence my being unconvinced of just about anything right now. Once in hand, I can be more sure of how many pieces comprise the hilt.

Cheers
GC

Glen, you know i am not a connoisseur at all but, i dare say that, the emblem for Castile in its single form dates far back in time, later replaced by the 'composite' Leon y Castela coat of arms, more consonant in period with what should appear in this sword. Also i doubt that the Toledo smith mark suggested by Udo is the one in your blade.
So, without questioning the authenticity of your sword, i seem to question the originality of its marks ... unless they were a personalized feature.
But then again, don't pay much notice to my mumbo jumbo.

The mark is neither punched, nor engraved but crudely acid etched.

This makes me believe it is a 19th or even 20th century replica.

My two cents. :shrug:

An approach to the smith's mark would perhaps be this one; Switz ... but from the 12th century !


.

Thanks guys.

Yes, even a very modern replica is certainly a possibility. As to an acid mark, I would say that is not too uncommon at the earlier timeline. The size/scale of the hilt could perhaps explain a decorative purpose but then again, the acute point not what one would expect for such.

A 20th century piece would be more likely to be a threaded union but once in hand I might see more clues. It could be all pot metal and cast iron :) .

Cheers
GC

Yes Fernando, but what about the crown, and is this blade not a bit early for this kind of sword?

I know Jens. I am just suggesting that the Switz symbol might (might) be the basis for a later smith's imagination.

Some great observations here, and great catch by Udo on that majuscule A, as seen in the early Toledo markings. That marking on this sword of the OP looked almost like an oriental chop to me, and I didn't notice the A at first.

In my opinion, this sword is a pastiche recalling various elements of earlier classics, and in my thinking perhaps a Victorian accoutrement possibly worn in atavistic sense. The cast hilt is of course in the manner of small swords of the previous century, the screw in guard to the pommel in the manner of English swords in the 17th.
The bilobate guard is of pierced metal in the manner of 17th c. 'Pappenheimer' type rapier guards.
The blade is more 19th c. and the reduction to sharp point atypical of any small sword blade.

The markings I could not tell how applied, I thought etched but Marius sees acid etch, but either case very crude and approximating much earlier classic marks and arms. The crown over these devices alludes to earlier marking convention, but not correctly done.

It seems however an interesting item which may have had some interesting intent in its production and use.

Just my interpretation and opinions, certainly not anything conclusive.
Glen is a well seasoned collector and scholar so he surely sees more in this piece, and he will likely say more once he has it in hand.

Jim, Udo will certainly appreciate your cheering his catch; however and as i have already observed, i am afraid i may not concur with such assessment ... for reasons relating either with the association of this mark to Toledo smiths and for it being a majuscule A, which i find more like a symbol than an alphabetic letter. We are aware of the somehow enigmatic habit of Toledan espaderos, to often using initials other than those of their (known) names in their personal marks, a criteria that, in this specific case, appear in a few examples. Go figure why they use a A, or what looks like a A, in their punzones. But in any case so far distant from the mark in Glen's blade,


.

The marks on this blade present other questions if a modern take on a period blade reconstruction. Disregarding the castle for a moment, if a modern mark meant to emulate a famous maker, wouldn't they choose something immediately familiar?

A second, for Jim. If it is a re-purposed 19th century blade, what might that origin be?

I will endeavor to shoot some clearer photos of the hilt construct itself and dialog a bit more about the blade cross section, etc.

Cheers
GC

Oh, re the guard screw. It is not so much the screw attachment as the type of screw, Also that the peen block may indeed be a nut but that alone would not dismiss a 17th century sword.

I guess I see other things as well that give me pause. The quillion block itself is shaped for use, rather than just display. The perforations of the plates appear cast but were they cast with the guard or soldered in. More stuff I hope to determine once in hand. Some oil and probing in scraping any possible joins.

Cheers
GC

Finally for now, an image I forgot to save that might absolutely label it a decorator. The way the marks read would be hilt up vs what we generally read with the design and marks to read blade up. A better look at the cast plates as well.

Cheers
GC

You'd wish this were the only odd thing in it. Could always be that the markings were made by or for a later owner without such preoccupation; not impossible ... and encouraging :cool:.

It seems well known that alphabetic characters are in themselves symbols, and it is often known that they are so well recognized that it is easily presumed that a symbol represents a given 'letter'. It would seem obvious that the association Udo drew to SOME of the marks used by Toledo smiths (as seen in the names paired with the SYMBOLS noted which RESEMBLE letter A). intended to show the SIMILARITY (as he specified) to these marks.
That the Toledo smiths did not always use their own initials as punzone marks has seemed pretty well known to those of us who have studied markings for some time.

My comment to Udo was in appreciation of his observant catch in recognizing these marks, and using the Toledo examples as illustration. I had seen the mark on the sword we are discussing, crudely executed and almost resembling an oriental 'chop'. My analogy is meant only visually, and I am not suggesting this represents a Chinese marking. It was intended much as Udo's entry, an analogy.

The majuscule LETTER A in medieval and later alphabets often is seen in a kind of labarum structure with the cross bar atop , and the central bar having a V appearing drop down as seen on these 'Toledo' marks. Various references show these letters A in different contexts in European markings, and in some cases, the 'A' was thought to indicate Augsburg.

As seen in the image of the well flourished 'A' the structure is similar to those used in Toledo, and curiously there is a fluer de lis, which I would point out was NOT exclusively French, but known in Spain and Italy as well as even Germany. Therefore this 'A' cannot be construed as 'French' alone

As for the position of the markings on Glen's blade, as he has aptly observed, these are not placed in the proper upright position typically seen in placement of such devices on blades.

The blade seems 19th c. to me, but I emphasize 'seems' as in perhaps some officers swords. The dramatic point does not seem in character.
I do not personally consider this a 'decorator' but perhaps a court or dress type accoutrement which may be viable as a weapon, but that remains to be seen.

I had thought of the pierced bilobate guard only in the more elaborate
Pappenheimer' hilts of the 17th c., however these type pierced guards were also in small sword epees as seen in the image.


Jury's still out :)

In passing, Juan Perez writes "nice sword" and of seeing nothing particularly Spanish about it, and suggests the ducal crowns might point to Germany or Austria.

All of a sudden I'm going in six directions that briefly take me to the 1662 copper riots in Moscow. It was not the Russian marriage to a duke I was looking for though and found a castle in that Bavarian duchy coat of arms. Winding up perhaps not so strangely looking at schloss Hirschberg of Eichstätt. The castle burned in a lightning storm in 1632, only (from a German wiki) "Only 1670 to 1729, the castle was partly rebuilt, partly renewed." and what I'd like to see is this "A votive picture of the caretaker Lorenz von Helmstadt, which today hangs on the second floor of the staircase, conveys a picture of the destroyed structure."

Could it have been a sword of homage done at some point? I have come across such period swords relating the passing of a general (the name escapes me, Hanoverian iirc) in the 18th century.

I'll hold on more thought until it arrives.

Cheers
GC

Dang, I did not save the pictures, it was a sword made in homage for (etched to) Friedrich II Landgraf of Hesse-Kassel a dandy slotted hilt but I digress

Here was another blade etched to him. Again a sidebar.

The upper quillon seems to be twisted sideways which must be a clue to its origins? The legs don’t seem to meet at the top bar in the majescule A.

Checking on the meaning of symbol ...
 

Dearest Jim, i will act as if you didn't drop my knowledge to even lower than what it really is. Definitely this is not your 'symbolic' style, nor are we too old to have start losing our discernment ;).
I will not digest possibilities based on esoterica, but do not avoid flying on plausible imagination.
What i figure to have a sense in Toledan smith marks within the discussed context, are those relative to the Toledo (guild) name, namely the upper bar for T for TOLEDO upon the 'said to be' letter A and the appendix L for TOLEDO on the lower right side.



.

I have no idea what this means, but to get to the point I was making, which was that Udo drew a relatively free association comparison of some of the Toledo makers marks ( in Palomares) with the crude device on the OP blade here. In that perspective, there is a marked similarity between the two.

It seems that these crowned devices on either sides of the blade are meant to allude to either earlier makers marks or heraldic devices or both, but as they are added to a sword which does not as yet have supported context, it is hard to determine what they represent .

Since the comparison was made to suggest similarity to Toledo type markings, whether the Toledo mark noted was a letter or interpretation of another device, symbol or image is not necessarily important . It was meant only as an illustration to show similarity. It is however interesting in the notation that Toledo smiths used letters apparently in symbolism outside their normal alphabetic scope. Therefore, though some makers used letters matching their name, many did not so the letters had other meaning......I believe this is what we are both saying.

I agree, the esoterica involved in discussing those circumstances are far out of the scope of this discussion.

As Glen has well pointed out, these crudely applied markings on the OP blade appear to have been added to add character to the sword, and would appear to be artistic interpretations of classical heraldic or possibly makers symbols, or both.
As we cannot know what the artist was intending in these apparently contrived markings, we cannot say what they in fact represent, and suggestions are speculative. Still it is interesting to try to estimate what may be at hand, and discussion is good.

To be precise, if i dare, this would be, not a ducal coronet (crowns are different) but, one of a less ranked noble. Also the construction facade depicted could be that of a palace and not of a castle ... in theory.
It could be that the reason for all these features, 'strange' mark and all, is one of significant meaning. Why all those are pointing towards the 'wrong' side of the blade; client's imposition ... or the engraver not being professionally sword orientated :shrug:.

Pick one :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_(heraldry)

https://www.idtg.org/archive/784-cre...s-in-heraldry/

If someone has a better list, please share.

Cheers
GC

THIS IS the one i previously consulted ;) :

.

Thanks Fernando

As it lacks any indication of jewels, should we should be looking at a loyalist crown/coronet?

The building could certainly be linked to a location. My trail to Bavaria is probably presumptuous but was an interesting bit of reading yesterday.

Could the A really be an M?

Cheers
GC

I am afraid i don't know that much, Glen. In any case, precise rank will depend on which country, i would say.

Strong possibility alright.

Or even no letter at all ?

Excellent observation Jim and I would infuse https://www.bing.com/search?q=THE+MA...ESR4N&pc=EUPP_ into the general mix here in terms of decorative style in the motif...noting that the Majescule A does not carry the horizontal line under the V shaped crossbar thus may not be Swiss ...Augsberg is a strong contender but so is reproduction in Gothic style as a sword of the 19th Century. After all what was the question at #1 ?

TRANSITIONAL VICTORIAN OR OTHER ?

Thank you for the notes Ibrahiim, , and the majuscule A is primarily a point of reference for what this curiously applied marking is TAKEN from. This sword appears to be a soundly intended sword, but made in representation of earlier forms in a 'historismus' sense (in my opinion).
The markings seem to be a mélange of heraldic devices which are added to add a classic character, but in a manner outside the conventions of typical blade decoration.

As the sword has not yet arrived with Glen, this is based only on photos and hypothetical supposition, and the markings are essentially anybody's guess as they do not (as far as known) have context to properly evaluate them.
As the sword itself is a 'representation' it is hard to imagine the exact models or inspirations for its elements, and of course 'markings'.

As I mentioned earlier, Glen is known for his keen eye in observing weapons, and it will be interesting to have his physical examination of the sword itself at hand. His 'curiosity' (as he describes) is seldom without plausible purpose.

So, some first impressions with the sword in hand. No way I would suspect it to be a Victorian or later attempt. The hilt is comprised (as I suspected) as several individual pieces, joined and peened. The castings of the writhen elements actually quite delicate, with the grip sounding as not too hollow a shell. Speaking only to the hilt, the annelets are large enough to treat as a rapier grip. The grip by itself between the ferrules is 3". Photos in hand to follow.

Now some nitty gritty.

The weight is considerable at 2.5 pounds (spring fish De-liar scale) eek, right? Well, hold on here, mixed dimensions

Blade length is at 33" as shown.
Width at the guard 27 mm
Thickness at the guard 7 mm
A very linear forte distal
Thickness at the pob still 6mm a fighting distance from the guard pob at roughly 4"
The blade (in my mind) shortened from a blade that was likely about 40" long at its original use
Thickness at the point 2.5 mm
The blade has the feel of varnish and the clank of a sword with good spring. Perfectly ovoid lenticular.

Sorry, no spreadsheet. I judge swords as fencible or not. At a pound more than a light magic spadroon, it is still at the range of what a longer rapier might tip 3 lbs or more. Instantly appraised before I opened the USPS priority box, I was under no allusion it would be a box of air, as felt with an epee. I feel it was a marriage sometime before 1700 but folk are welcome to disagree. For me, as with so many, the questions of its history will always be there. My take is someone wanted a weapon, not a decoration.

Pictures and more thoughts to come

Cheers
GC