A cup hilt sword for coments.

fernando · 1st May 2014, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

......you're a super sleuth when it comes to provenance and studying developed history on these arms!!...

Ah ... sleuth, a term i would never dreamed of

.
Nothing like being here to improve one's english ... like stalwart and so

.
But ... let's hear what the Capitão has to say about my fantasies

Jim McDougall · 1st May 2014, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Ah ... sleuth, a term i would never dreamed of

.
Nothing like being here to improve one's english ... like stalwart and so

.
But ... let's hear what the Capitão has to say about my fantasies

kinky!!!

M ELEY · 2nd May 2014, 10:46 AM

Fernando- I see your point, my friend, and certainly don't deny that a piece with provenance or a well-documented artifact always wins out. My point was simply that today's questioned piece, that might be either overlooked or even scoffed at by purists, might very well prove to be tomorrow's treasures! The story lies in the details, no doubt, and that is also where the excitement (or eternal frustration!) lies. Ultimately, one will either like the piece for what it is or not. Purists might shy away from anything but the classic Spanish/Portuguese/Italian cuphilt. Others may revel in the fascination with colonial pieces, such as the Caribbean cup-hilts. I tend to judge pieces these days based on whether I like them or not. If they don't feel right, I part with them-

Anyway, still fascinated with both swords and their possible connection.

Jim, you have peaked my interests again in baskethilts. I've always wanted one for my collection, but could never justify such a piece in a naval collection. Your lead (which I hope to follow up on, once I get a day off!!) gives me hope again! I think Annis mentions at least one basket in his book with an association with the sea. Got to look over my notes again!

Jim McDougall · 2nd May 2014, 07:31 PM

Absolutely Mark....collectors or any kind of enthusiasts on history and weapons will have their preferences and chosen fields of study, often very selective and 'purist' , but I think the most fascinating are the anomalies and variations . There's where the real historical detection come in!

As we know on the baskethilts, the instance with the Highlander who killed Blackbeard in 1715 using his broadsword in the melee on the decks of the pirate's vessel, he was probably one of the regular troops locally who joined Maynard's naval group in this ambush.
I have found however, a couple of instances where Highland basket hilts were included among noted arms used on pirate vessels. The National Maritime Museum could not specify nor confirm such use of these on ships, but if I recall such instances could not be categorically excluded . I think you're right, Annis might have mentioned one, now Im fired up too!!

Off to the notes.

All the best
Jim

M ELEY · 4th May 2014, 01:25 AM

Hi, Jim! Here's what I found. In Annis' monumental work on sea swords (think 'officer's sword' mostly, as the National Maritime Museum was what he was referencing mostly), he mentions several broadswords with nautical connections. Only two of them from the Greenwich collection were of the Scottish/English baskethilt pattern. They were-

James Robertson-Walker's (entered naval service 1801, died 1858). His was a steel baskethilt broadsword double edged (not a backsword), with flattened bars, heart shapes, hemispherical pommel, fishskin grip. The blade marked with the Passau running wolf and orb/cross marking. The attribution wasn't rock-solid, but better than most.

The second was a doozy! Again, the attribution wasn't definite, but I'm told other works possibily support its nature. It was a baskethilt worn by John Scott, Lord Nelson's Secretary on the Victory when it sailed at Trafalgar! It was also a steel basket, larger and more ornate than the previous example, with steel bars, heart shapes, cross-shaped designs in the bars, leather-bound grip with wire, conical pommel. This sword bore the Arms of Mechlenberg, marking '165' and an unidentified cutler's proof. Annis goes on to say that this sword is 'meagerly supported' to be Scott's sea sword.

The author goes on to say the obvious. In rare circumstances, these sword types and quite a few others went to sea based on the taste, whims and style of the officers that carried them. Prior to true naval patterning, with no rules came eclectic tastes. Such swords would be 'one-off' affairs, as their general practicality could be questioned (steel baskets rusted easily, their titanic blades made them of limited use on crowded ships, etc). Annis does bring up the important point, however, of troop trnasports. Soldiers (read 'armies!') on board a ship probably carried such. It was just such an epiphany that I had when struggling over the whole 'were Span/Portuguese cuphilt swords really worn by sailors', as depicted in so many movies and books? The answer, surprisingly, was 'yes'. The Treasure Fleets had contingents of soldiers aboard every ship, thus, they wore bilbos and cuthilts. Such an argument could be used to say that any military branch riding aboard a naval transport would have been so armed. Even in the British Navy, post 1790, we see branches of the Royal Marines on the ship for disciplinary purposes, discouragement of mutiny, land raids, etc. That branch of the military carried their own swords, guns, etc.

Finally (!), we must never forget the privateers, merchant class and pirates (

), whose fleets dwarfed even the British fleet. The men of these typle vessels carried just about anything they d#mned well pleased! So, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Scottish baskethilts at sea, it's a 'maybe yes or maybe no', but proving that a sword wasn't naval is just as hard as proving that it was!

M ELEY · 6th May 2014, 10:23 PM

Deleted...

Sorry, tried to post pic.

dana_w · 5th June 2014, 03:56 PM

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.

2nd May 2014, 10:46 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Fernando- I see your point, my friend, and certainly don't deny that a piece with provenance or a well-documented artifact always wins out. My point was simply that today's questioned piece, that might be either overlooked or even scoffed at by purists, might very well prove to be tomorrow's treasures! The story lies in the details, no doubt, and that is also where the excitement (or eternal frustration!) lies. Ultimately, one will either like the piece for what it is or not. Purists might shy away from anything but the classic Spanish/Portuguese/Italian cuphilt. Others may revel in the fascination with colonial pieces, such as the Caribbean cup-hilts. I tend to judge pieces these days based on whether I like them or not. If they don't feel right, I part with them- Anyway, still fascinated with both swords and their possible connection. Jim, you have peaked my interests again in baskethilts. I've always wanted one for my collection, but could never justify such a piece in a naval collection. Your lead (which I hope to follow up on, once I get a day off!!) gives me hope again! I think Annis mentions at least one basket in his book with an association with the sea. Got to look over my notes again!

2nd May 2014, 07:31 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Absolutely Mark....collectors or any kind of enthusiasts on history and weapons will have their preferences and chosen fields of study, often very selective and 'purist' , but I think the most fascinating are the anomalies and variations . There's where the real historical detection come in! As we know on the baskethilts, the instance with the Highlander who killed Blackbeard in 1715 using his broadsword in the melee on the decks of the pirate's vessel, he was probably one of the regular troops locally who joined Maynard's naval group in this ambush. I have found however, a couple of instances where Highland basket hilts were included among noted arms used on pirate vessels. The National Maritime Museum could not specify nor confirm such use of these on ships, but if I recall such instances could not be categorically excluded . I think you're right, Annis might have mentioned one, now Im fired up too!! Off to the notes. All the best Jim

4th May 2014, 01:25 AM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Hi, Jim! Here's what I found. In Annis' monumental work on sea swords (think 'officer's sword' mostly, as the National Maritime Museum was what he was referencing mostly), he mentions several broadswords with nautical connections. Only two of them from the Greenwich collection were of the Scottish/English baskethilt pattern. They were- James Robertson-Walker's (entered naval service 1801, died 1858). His was a steel baskethilt broadsword double edged (not a backsword), with flattened bars, heart shapes, hemispherical pommel, fishskin grip. The blade marked with the Passau running wolf and orb/cross marking. The attribution wasn't rock-solid, but better than most. The second was a doozy! Again, the attribution wasn't definite, but I'm told other works possibily support its nature. It was a baskethilt worn by John Scott, Lord Nelson's Secretary on the Victory when it sailed at Trafalgar! It was also a steel basket, larger and more ornate than the previous example, with steel bars, heart shapes, cross-shaped designs in the bars, leather-bound grip with wire, conical pommel. This sword bore the Arms of Mechlenberg, marking '165' and an unidentified cutler's proof. Annis goes on to say that this sword is 'meagerly supported' to be Scott's sea sword. The author goes on to say the obvious. In rare circumstances, these sword types and quite a few others went to sea based on the taste, whims and style of the officers that carried them. Prior to true naval patterning, with no rules came eclectic tastes. Such swords would be 'one-off' affairs, as their general practicality could be questioned (steel baskets rusted easily, their titanic blades made them of limited use on crowded ships, etc). Annis does bring up the important point, however, of troop trnasports. Soldiers (read 'armies!') on board a ship probably carried such. It was just such an epiphany that I had when struggling over the whole 'were Span/Portuguese cuphilt swords really worn by sailors', as depicted in so many movies and books? The answer, surprisingly, was 'yes'. The Treasure Fleets had contingents of soldiers aboard every ship, thus, they wore bilbos and cuthilts. Such an argument could be used to say that any military branch riding aboard a naval transport would have been so armed. Even in the British Navy, post 1790, we see branches of the Royal Marines on the ship for disciplinary purposes, discouragement of mutiny, land raids, etc. That branch of the military carried their own swords, guns, etc. Finally (!), we must never forget the privateers, merchant class and pirates ( ), whose fleets dwarfed even the British fleet. The men of these typle vessels carried just about anything they d#mned well pleased! So, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Scottish baskethilts at sea, it's a 'maybe yes or maybe no', but proving that a sword wasn't naval is just as hard as proving that it was!

6th May 2014, 10:23 PM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Deleted... Sorry, tried to post pic.

5th June 2014, 03:56 PM	#7
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 436	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.