Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dana_w
Is there a definitive list of characteristic which separate Colonial Cup Hilts from those made in Europe. Sometimes it seems to be a “I know it when I see it” situation
Peterson's "Arms and Armour in Colonial America. 1526-1783" is not much help, and I don’t own a copy of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, …. yet.
|
That is a very reasonably placed question Dana, and of course as far as I know, there are no definitive or categorized descriptions which would comprise a guide on cuphilts. The Continental European forms are well described in a number of references, probably one of the best would be book by A.V.B.Norman "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" (1980).While these are typically expensive there is I believe a reprint and interlibrary loan is another option.
The colonial examples are far less defined as they are typically roughly fashioned and rather than being the elegant, pierced steel examples or even the simpler forms on the Continent, they are often workmanlike and rugged arming swords. Instead of the thin, swift rapier blades they carry heavier arming broadsword blades.
The Continental examples will usually have a 'rompepuntas' (a folded over ridge around the rim of the cup), worked or writhen quillons and more artistically fashioned elements than the simple cups and guards of the colonials. Also inside the cup a fixture known as the 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly =dust guard) is at the aperture for the blade and surrounding it...these are not on colonial examples. The Colonial forms usually had the heavier broadsword blades, however it is known that shipments of the narrow rapier blades made in Solingen with Spanish makers names and marks did go to New Spain in some degree in the 18th century. It would seem that the traditional Spaniard gentry may have still kept the older form swords there, but I have never seen examples of them with these blades.
Keep in mind that the cuphilt form came into use at some time in the first half of the 17th century in Italy, Spain and in some degree in Germany. Often these are referred to broadly as 'Spanish cuphilts' but many, especially the piercework types, were Brescian or northern Italian. I believe much of the confusion was because many of these areas in Italy were actually Spanish provincial.
By the end of the 17th century, the cuphilt was essentially obsolete everywhere except in deeply traditional Spain . While it gradually went out of fashion even there into the 18th century, these were still favored in New Spain and there they continued to fashion the cup guards for heavy arming blades through the 18th and into the early 19th.
I think the examples shown here by Fernando and Mark are excellent in illustrating the somewhat rough, but superbly charming work seen in these remotely fashioned versions of these revered and traditional swords.
I hope this might be of some help, and to better follow the peculiarities of these colonial swords, Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain is essential.
As it has been some time since researching these, and I am relying on memory in writing this, I hope others might also add more reliable input.