Brothers from a different bladesmith - Two quite similar small swords

[Rapier's Delight]

Hello everyone,

after years of lurking and passively learning from you all, I figured it would not be a bad idea to become a more productive member of this society (or that's the hope, at least).

So for my first post I just wanted to share two small swords I own, which share a lot of characteristics, in terms of measurements and feel, though not necessarily in style. The handling similarity is so striking, I now tend to think about them as a pair, though they most definitely are not, and were not even bought together.

Anyway this is my introduction post. Happy to be here, and happy to hear your thoughts on these two pieces.

Here they are in full.
The bivalve guard one is 107 cm long and weighs 505 grams
The one with the disc guard is 106,5 cm long and weighs 496 grams



The hilts are very similar in size, thought there are obvious differences, with the bivalve one being more stocky and with shorter quillons, while the other one has more thin quillins that protrude further.

Both have usable finger rings, althou there are slight differences here too. The ones on the bivalve hook onto the top of the guard, helping secure it in place, while the rings on the disc guard sword do not make contact with the guard.



Another difference is in the shape of the quillon blocks. One is more blocky and angular, the other more rounded.




As mentioned the guards are different in both shape and decoration (or lack thereof)

Pommels are both round-ish, with one being pierced to match the decorations on the guard shells, and the other being solid, but decorated









But the owner of the disc hilted one was not a total minimalist, and did seem to enjoy some basic decoration on the other side of the guard.



As for the blades they are both decently flexible and nimble, and have a median ridge that runs along the length of the blade almost to the tip. However, while the blade of the bivalve sword seems to have more of a flat diamond section, the faces on the disc hilt one are hollow-ground, so the similarities are more superficial than the photos may show.




So, hopefully my test at formatting posts is successful, and you enjoy these two swords!

[werecow]

Nice to spot a new but familiar "face" on these boards!

Interesting that these don't have the typical hollow ground triangular cross section.

I'm curious as to how that translates into handling characteristics. My guess is the triangular hollow ground blades will be stiffer and maybe lighter.

The one I have (which you've handled; see attached) is 326 grams and balances at 7.5 cm from the guard, 9.5 cm from the cross. But then again it is also considerably shorter at 96.5 cm.

[TVV]

I know nothing about smallswords, but glad to see you here as well!

Teodor

[werecow]

I also have only very limited knowledge of these but let me add my guesswork. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

The relatively wide globular pommel style and wide pas d'ânes on both of these look to me like a 17th century style, and that matches the blade cross section and relatively long blade length, and while I'm not sure, most of the smallswords I've seen without a knuckle guard are also 17th c... But the disk guard looks more like 18th century (specifically it reminds me of some cut steel ones, see attached: not mine, ca 1780 - though that may just be a superficial resemblance), and of course clearly the wire has been replaced and the pas d'âne rings don't quite reach the guard. Could that disc be an old replacement?

[Rapier's Delight]

Thank you for the warm welcome Jelle and Teodor, happy to have joined, and I do miss the vibe of old-school forums, so it's nice to experience it once again.

Jelle, your considerations match what I have been thinking almost perfectly. As far as I can tell, most of the characteristics on these two point to 17th century early small swords, but the disk guard is certainly a bit puzzling.

The peen does seem to be less patinated than the rest of the pommel, so it's definitely possible there was a re-hilting at some point whether to change the blade or simply to change the guard I do not know.

As for the guard, It has been cleaned together with the rest of the hilt, so any consistency between parts is possibly misleading.
I get what you mean by its resemblance to cut steel, but the decorative buttons on this one are not faceted, or very crudely, if so. Also, they are not "riveted" in place through the baseplate as most of the cut steel studs I am aware of.

For this one I am leaning towards a generally 17th century piece with a guard that was substituted at some point between the appearance of disk guards and the rise of the cut steel trend, so maybe mid 18th century?
Of course it could very well be a "poor man's" attempt at cut steel, as far as I can speculate.

As for the timing of the rework, I have the feeling it is of the time, as the sword feels consistent and usable, and is strikingly similar to the other, more age appropriate one. This makes me think that the change was not done to simply assemble random pieces for display, but rather as an "upgrade" to a sword that kept usability and overall ergonomics and geometry in mind.

Happy to hear what anyone else thinks!

[Triarii]

I'd agree on the features, especially the bivalve one, being C17th. The work on the quillon block on the bivalve one is quite crude though, in form and finish. Replacement?

[urbanspaceman]

I acquired an interesting variation on this theme some years ago (picture forthcoming) and was led to believe it was a Dutch ambidextrous dueling sword.
There is a series of Xs on each side of the blade at the forte.
It was dated, by the vendor, to the end of the 1600s.
It was considered a transitional rapier - which seems questionable.
I have subsequently seen one more with a completely different blade (see final pic) and now yet another two.
I think the hilt is the defining identity and look for confirmation as to its origin.