A cup hilt sword for coments.

[M ELEY]

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]

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]

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]

Deleted...

Sorry, tried to post pic.

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[dana_w]

A friend who read my recent post offered to give/loan me a copy of of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”. WOW, Thanks "Anonymous"!

***

To summarize Jim's comments, Colonial Cup Hilts (cuphilts) are:

(A) "Typically" more roughly made & less decorative
(B) "Usually" more rugged arming swords rather than slender rapiers

You've mention elsewhere that Colonial Cup Hilts are

(C) "Normally" missing the arms in the hilt which hold the cup.

I'm off to find a copy of "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820".