A Good Musketeer's Rapier, Probably Saxony, ca. 1600
 

Sold Bonhams, July 25, 2012.

The iron parts preserved in perfect original yellowish olive oil patina, the wire binding missing from the leather-covered wooden grip except for a Turk's head. The ricasso retaining its leather covering.

Best,
Michael

Very beautiful sword!! :)

A VERY NICE OLD SWORD, AND ITS GOOD TO SEE A PICTURE OF THE FULLY EQUIPED MUSKETEER ALONG WITH IT. THAT SHOWS HOW MUCH EQUIPMENT WAS CARRIED AS WELL AS THE SKILL AND PRACTICE REQUIRED TO USE IT ALL EFFECTIVELY.

Absolutely, Barry,


And it would most probably have doubled its price just a couple of years ago ...

Items like that preserved in virtually untouched condition for hundreds of years are logically getting fewer and fewer each day due to crude overcleaning - SO PLEASE DO LEAVE YOUR ARMS THE WAY THEY ARE!

Remember:
you can always take something off old surfaces but you can never add a patina 'both convincing and real' ... at least for an experienced eye, that is.
I guess I repeated that many times on the forum anyway ...


Best,
Michael

Considering illustrative sources of period artwork, the very same type of rapier featuring a plum-shaped pommel and recurved quillons was part of a caliverman's equipment of c. 1600 as well - a colored engraving from Jacob de Gheyn's Wapenhandelinghe (1608) attached.

For more information on characteristic caliverman's equipment of ca. 1600 to early-17th c. please see
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rman%27s+flask

m

Considering illustrative sources of period artwork, the very same type of rapier featuring a plum-shaped pommel was part of the equipment of a caliverman of c. 1600 as well - a colored engraving from Jacob de Gheyn's Wapenhandelinghe (1608) attached.

For more information on characteristic caliverman's equipment of ca. 1600 to early-17th c. please see
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rman%27s+flask

m

Thank you Michael! Great pics and information.
Totally with you on your well placed note on 'leaving the patination alone!'!!!
So many wonderful weapons have been historically euthanized by such unfortunate zeal of arms gatherers (not collectors) who have no sense of historical importance and simply use them to impress or to sell.
The patina is actually history incarnate, and was preciously earned in the aging of the weapon.
It is interesting to know more on the use of the rapier in a military sense as well, since it is commonly misperceived that these were only civilian weapons.

What makes it a musketeer's rapier, as opposed to a non-musketeer's rapier?

Jim,


This is a can of worms, but a lot of confusion arises out of calling rapiers any sword with a complex hilt. A lot of renaissance era military swords with heavy curt&thrust blades and completely unsuited to fencing were fitted with complex hilts and in paintings are easily confused with the much more slender bladed and elegant rapier. The much later Spanish 1796 pattern sword, fitted with a cup hilt is probably one of the best examples of this - The English, during the Napoleonic era confused them with rapiers, yet it was a cavalry weapon!

Just what exactly is a rapier is very contentious, but I for one, subscribe to the English Elizabethan use of the word, as on the continent the term had other connotations, that of a sword used in the Spanish/Italian style of fencing with the point and either unable to dispense cuts, or poorly suited for this purpose.

No doubt, a few made it to the battlefields, but generally it was unsuited to warfare, as biliously asserted by that old grump, Geroge Silver.

Cheers
Chris

At 96 cm ( a fraction over 3 feet ) the blade isn't particularlly long as many rapiers tended to be, some of them extremely so. Its too bad there are no width dimensions listed as this would give a better impression of whether it was more of a rapier ( long and thin with a hard diamond cross section ) or more of a backsword/military sidesword with a broader blade of more flattened diamond cross section better suited to both cutting and thrusting more usefull on the battlefield. The " sword/rapier " in the listing gives me the impression that it may have more of a cut and thrust blade as i've heard the term used before to describe military sideswords.

A non qualified opinion
 

The term rapier sounds nice and romantic, which contributes for the ambiguity of its correct attribution ... if in fact one was ever 'homologated'.
Nevertheless, i would typify the example in the picture as a (non rapier) sword ... judging by the proportional width of its blade, for one.

Hi Jim,

Thank you for underlining my opinion on leaving patina alone! :)

Best,
Michael

Hi Dmitry,

The only differentiation I know is that the shorter rapiers belonged to foot soldiers (calivermen and musketeers) while the longer ones were employed by calvarymen.

Best,
Michael

Hi, Michael.
I'm still not convinced that this was a martial sword as opposed to a civilian's personal weapon.
As far as the blade lengths go, in England at least, in the late 1500s-early 1600s the length was regulated to be no more than a yard or so, and swords were randomly measured by government officials in the streets, and blades that were too long were broken short or taken away. I remember reading a period account regarding the French ambassador who got into trouble because his was way too long.

Fernando,

I am inclined to think that "rapier" will sell better than "sword".

For a definition, I think, we can take a cue from Castle, who wrote:

... Abrahm Darcie who recounts how "Roland Yorke, a desperado who betrayed Devanter to the Spaniards in 1587, was the first who brought into England that wicked and pernicious fashion to fight with a Rapier called a Tucke, only fit for the thrust."

"Rapier"was the name given at that time to the Spanish weapon. A Frenchman called his arm, "espee; an Englishman "sword". Both when they talked of the Spaniard's weapon called it a rapier.

In France the word "Rapiere" soon became a contemptuous term, signifying a sword of disproportionate length - in fact the weapon of a bully.

Not so however, in England, where the word has always meant, since its introduction into the language, a sword especially convenient for thrusting and adorned with a more or less elaborate guard.

With the present resurgence of interest in historical sword play, there have been numerous attempts to define what a rapier is, but am not aware of anything proposed that has met everybody's satisfaction.

Etymology aside, part of the problem, I think is that the era in question spanned some 150 odd years, the weapon evolved and during this time there were quite a number of variations on the primacy of the point over the edge coupled to all kinds of attempts, some regressive, to retain the cut, at least to some extent. This presents us now, as collectors, with some hybrid weapons that do not clearly fall into one group or another (cut or thrust), and we have not even touched on the transition rapier and its derivatives.

Cheers
Chris

Perhaps one should distinguish civilian swords from munitions swords.
The philosopy applied to their respective blade lengths followed different criteria. Whereas street swords had contextual lengths, military swords had uniformized dimensions and followed the logic of longer for the horseman and shorter for the foot soldier.

Rapiers for ever
 

Amazing how even specialists are influenced by the charismatic term.
The following is a video link posted by cannonmm in this recent thread .
Despite the background noise, we can clearly hear Mr. Hoover telling the little girl that, the sword he picked up to show her, a typical wide fuelered double edged cuphilt sword is: a Spanish or Italian rapier !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo8TRPNTvLM


.

Fernando,

I think that it is axiomatic that a sword's type/name is determined by its function rather than its appearance.

In this respect rapiers are rather tricky, because their function is generally poorly understood, yet their appearance overlaps with that of many other swords on account of the elaborate hilt and thrust predisposed blade. So I fear that the practice of calling any sword fitted with a complex hilt or a slim thrusting blade a rapier will be with us for a long time to come.

In any event, there is little logical consistency in how swords types are named, so why do we expect the public at large to adhere to an inadequately defined convention? I mean, "swords" is a class/set that includes all hand held cut&thrust weapons, longer than knives, yet we call what in reality is a short rapier a "small sword" - Now, how irrational is that?

Cheers
Chris

Oh, i have never put it that way. On an instant basis i think of (several)otherwise situations ... if i understand what you mean :o .

I am with you Chris but, if you are (also) referring to my post 17#, let me emphasize that the narrator in the video is not properly 'public at large' and the sword he shows has no elaborate hilt but simply and purely a bowl and straight quillons :o

Hi Fernando,

Well, he went by appearances and was completely ignorant of the function of rapiers.

As far as cup hilts go, we have another difficulty: Are they complex hilts? I suppose they are more complex than simple cross quillons, but then what are we to make of the Gothic hilt on a sabre? OK then, maybe a cup alone is not complex enough, but when it is found in combination with quillons, and even a knuckle bow? I don't know, but can see a large degree of arbitrariness.

Probably what we need is some authority to lay down a comprehensive convention and then the rest of us will be forced to adhere to it, or else risk looking like ignoramuses :p

Cheers
Chris

Oh, i like the term :cool: .
It reminds me of an academic friend i had, who fancied using a similar term: ignaro.
God save the Latin :eek:

Fernando,

I was going to write ignorami instead of ignoramuses, but decided not to, just in case someone would write in and inquire if it was an esoteric Japanese paper folding craft! :D

Cheers
Chris