Please help me identify the age and markings on this Rapier.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, definitely i am not such a connoisseur; once things are not explicit, i am completely lost .
To say this example does not fall (to me) within the regular range. I would not know how to explain the atypicaly (curve) tapering shape (certainly not due to over sharpening) and that array of digits.vBoth these and what appears to be a mark (?) deserve better pictures, for a possible better diagnosis attempt. Maybe ASPaulding can do that for us ?
The 'knob' with which the knuckle guard joins the pommel, may we call it atypical ?
I have never heard of a detail such as faux rompepuntas; could this just be an 'exuberant' rim ?

Fernando, you are always too modest, I know you too well over these many years, and know how many of these you have handled. I know you typically step aside to allow more free flowing observation from members to facilitate discussion.
Conversely I usually blast in, but pretty much expect much of my observation or theory to be corrected or elucidated, as actually I hope for. It is how I (we) learn .
For example, the more I look at this, I think my training blade idea is not right, but the numbering at the forte is certainly known on Solingen trade blades of 19th c. This is not something normally seen on any sort of rapier or other blade of the period intended for this rapier. The marking(s) or simply too defaced for any accurate assessment.
Such defacement has many causes/reasons mostly to obliterate the identification of a mark or sometimes some symbolic removal, the numbers are irrelevant in that regard as they are simply administrative or inventory.

The 'knob' or widening at end of knuckle guard is correct for rapiers, and the shape concurs with the quillon terminals, another plus.

While the pommel seems latter 18th c. I cannot say it might not be earlier.

On the 'rim'.....the exuberance was all mine , and the 'rompepuntas' (folded over lip on cup of this form) was open, not solid on period examples of 17th c.
Things began changing of course as this cuphilt style began becoming an arming type sword (which this is) in the 18th century, perhaps even earlier in less metropolitan settings, and cup element became solid cast. In many colonial types it is absent altogether.

It seems this blade has been as observed, shortened as this dramatic reduction to sharp point is unusual on these lenticular type blades IMO.

With the grip, obviously restoration work, but perhaps cast? with usual turks heads absent. Rust removal simply WD40, as always just stabilizing and cleaning minimally as required.