![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
C'mon Fernando, it was more my 'interpretation' than your description. I already had in mind the examples I had seen which did often closely respond to those you described, at least in my mind.
Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it varies from the standards of the Continental examples of the form. As I explained then, the 'skin' used on the grip I believe to be 'galuchat', a faux rayskin developed by a leather worker in the court of Louis XV around 1760s. This was seeds embedded in untreated horse skin to give the hide appearance of the rayskin, and dyed accordingly. In kind, I do hope the rest of my missive was somewhat decipherable in describing my views on this subject. Interesting that while my descriptions of Caribbean/colonial cuphilts lent toward dramatic austerity, this one is nicely done with the grip material as well as turned quillon terminals. On your example the terminals are simply bulbous, but unworked. This observation is just that, and not meant to classify or categorize yours or any other cuphilt example. For me, the entire genre is fascinating regardless of these factors! ![]() I took the liberty of extracting a photo from the thread you linked and cuphilt described for the benefit of readers for visual comparison to what we are referring to. The box is of the galuchat material, again for comparison. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 1st June 2020 at 05:10 PM. Reason: asdd pictures |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
![]() PS Too late i saw that you have added a couple more paragraphs to your previous entry ![]() . Last edited by fernando; 1st June 2020 at 05:27 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
'well there ya go' , as they say in these parts
![]() Exactly, but of course we are often on different frequencies saying basically the same thing. In my comments toward colonial 'styling' or lack thereof, I used the words 'simplicity OFTEN associated with colonial weapons'. It does seem that words so often can carry so many meanings beyond what was intended, which is why my entries are 'often' so complex, as I try to qualify and explain my comments. While it does seem we are deviating from the OP, actually, these observations are key to properly classifying these swords (or reliably attempting to). There are no 'cut and dry' solutions, as 'colonial' weapons may have been put together in rural or remote locations without the supply, artisans and materials available to makers in Continental or Peninsular cities. By the same token, many swords may have been put together in locations equally remote on the Continent etc. as well. Again, it is important to remember that while officers and gentry would privately commission appropriately high end swords, the 'munitions' or 'issue' weapons would have been produced in accord with skills of the maker as well as the costs involved. Many units, especially cavalry, were elite, and deemed extensions of the officers themselves so well appointed, while many units were simply 'field forces' whose weapons need by sturdy but not necessarily stylish. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,156
|
![]()
Excellent arguments, gentlemen. All very important points either way. It really doesn't matter, though, as this piece is hardly a put-together or blacksmith rendition. The 'could be' might never be fully answered, but this sword is so magnificent, who cares at this point! I have never looked down on colonial pieces (NOT saying this is one) as they are an important and integral part of the big historical picture.
Going back to the screw-tang, did we ever determine when this practice was started? Obviously, screws have been around since the Middle Ages and many components of armor possess said attachments. I know Scottish basket hilts with 'screw' pommels started appearing in the last quarter of the 18th century. Many of the Dutch pieces circa 1700 had the off-set screw/nut attachment for the knucklebow. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 937
|
![]() Quote:
I will present a British sword dated to within a few decades of 1600 that employs a threaded tang in these forums soon - once pictures are prepared. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,156
|
![]()
Thank you, Lee. I'd love to see pictures of this early example of a threaded tang for reference. Didn't know for sure how long the practice of threading was going on for-
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|