Seeking Help with Excavated 1728 Pattern Bilbo Sword

toaster5sqn · 26th February 2023, 11:44 PM

There appears to be the remains of a pean at the end of the tang suggesting that the tang is complete. This suggests that the guard is not original to the blade since the shell mount doesn't fit over the ricasso and the remaining tang behind the quillons is far to short.

Robert

Radboud · 27th February 2023, 12:39 AM

I agree with Robert; the blade doesn't belong to this guard. In the examples, I've seen the ricasso (in the correct meaning of the term) is straight-sided and there is a secondary shoulder where the tang goes into the grip:

G. Mansfield · 28th February 2023, 07:48 PM

Thank you for your thoughts. The tang in total is about 5" where 2" is riccaso and the remaining 3" of grip/pommel. This does seem short, too small for me use but somebody with smaller hands possibly. What about the other irregularity with the location of the screw holes? Could this be a French/ Dutch replicated guard in the pattern 1728?

Geoffrey

toaster5sqn · 28th February 2023, 08:05 PM

That's not a riccaso, it's just all tang. Remember there should be approx 1 1/2" of pommel on the end (the same length as is thinned down to round cross section at the end of the tang). If you replace the guard with a simple cross you will find the grip length is about perfect.

Also the slot in the guard should match the cross section of the blade at whichever step it ends but it's way to big for the tang and not big enough to go over the blade.

Robert

Radboud · 1st March 2023, 04:37 AM

I'm sorry, but that blade and guard do not belong together. If you look closely at the 1728s I posted, their ricassos are clearly defined and properly finished.

The entire tang of your blade has a raw finish as if it was never intended to be seen.

fernando · 1st March 2023, 09:43 AM

As firstly suspectd that hilt and blade had different origins (2#) and now well established, we might speculate that, the person that digged both items would have found them in the same location but separated one from the other; could then infer that they would be originally set together (or not) and join them as if they so were.
Notably the blade would (also) deserve some ID; it sure is a peculiar and genuine early item... wouldn't you guys agree ?

Jim McDougall · 1st March 2023, 05:44 PM

Fernando, that is a perfectly stated forensics perspective , and of course entirely plausible. I agree that this blade is a most unusual example of these early arming sword blades, and would warrant a look into other examples to compare. The decoration of course has nothing to do with makers marks but is filling aesthetic as often seen on colonial weapons.

It would seem there might be a reason for the apparent incongruity of these two contemporary sword components, which seem of comparable age and circumstantial consistency. In the colonies, weapons were constantly being reworked to maintain serviceability, and it is well known that large numbers of blades alone were part of the commerce aboard trade vessels. I know of numbers of wrecks in these areas in which boxes of blades were found, and of the period suggested for this sword (or paired components as it were). This is of course c. 1690s into years of 18th century.

I had thought that possibly the blade and guard component were perhaps in the process of being assembled at the time they were deposited into location perhaps during the volatile weather events known in these Caribbean regions. The thing is that the blade is clearly not one which would be in such process as it is broken and has marks of very rough existence already, not a pristine blade being used in remounting .

This suggests the blade was already mounted at the time it was broken, and perhaps the disassembly here was work in progress? The open screw holes seem to suggest that, typically there would be some residue of at least one instead of cleanly empty holes.

The fact that the aperture in the guard plate reveals disparity in the two components goes to the fact that it was necessary to use whatever was available, not necessarily exact matches in these colonial settings.
I have a sword from Mexico fashioned from components of three entirely different swords, and congruent fit was hardly a concern.

Possibly whatever components that once were with the sword were fabricated in this manner, and now gone, there is no way to know what the assembled sword looked like.Often these kinds of 'assembled' swords have been dismissed by purist collectors as put together by innovative sellers etc. But it would seem that such 'fabricated' efforts would at least try to approximate the sword as in original state.

It is certainly a mystery, which is in my view, the joy of studying items like this which come from such colorful periods in history. Though the 'story' of course is always in question, this one seems perfectly plausible as in the 1950s many of these Caribbean islands were relatively quiet and not heavily traveled.

It is well known that the dynamic storm activity in the Caribbean has often brought items up from wrecks on the sea bed, notably coins etc. and deposited them on beaches. In the same manner, items on beachfront can be moved about, and remarkably these two pieces remained in proximity. If the man who found them looked further, possibly the shell guard and pommel might have been found, perhaps not.

This sword (or components of it) in my view should be deemed as together with reason, not exception, and more research on the most complete item, the blade, should be carried further. While these blades with this section were present through the 18th century as 'dragoon' blades, notably on the so called M1728, later M1769 Spanish arming swords (called bilbo by the English)....these hilts and blades existed some time earlier, and likely into 17th c.
The hilt style itself evolved from North European 'pappenheimer' rapier hilts which evolved into heavier bladed swords like this deemed arming swords.

27th February 2023, 12:39 AM	#2
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 247	I agree with Robert; the blade doesn't belong to this guard. In the examples, I've seen the ricasso (in the correct meaning of the term) is straight-sided and there is a secondary shoulder where the tang goes into the grip: Attached Images

28th February 2023, 07:48 PM	#3
G. Mansfield Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Posts: 78	Thank you for your thoughts. The tang in total is about 5" where 2" is riccaso and the remaining 3" of grip/pommel. This does seem short, too small for me use but somebody with smaller hands possibly. What about the other irregularity with the location of the screw holes? Could this be a French/ Dutch replicated guard in the pattern 1728? Geoffrey Attached Images

26th February 2023, 11:44 PM	#1
toaster5sqn Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 69	There appears to be the remains of a pean at the end of the tang suggesting that the tang is complete. This suggests that the guard is not original to the blade since the shell mount doesn't fit over the ricasso and the remaining tang behind the quillons is far to short. Robert

28th February 2023, 08:05 PM	#4
toaster5sqn Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 69	That's not a riccaso, it's just all tang. Remember there should be approx 1 1/2" of pommel on the end (the same length as is thinned down to round cross section at the end of the tang). If you replace the guard with a simple cross you will find the grip length is about perfect. Also the slot in the guard should match the cross section of the blade at whichever step it ends but it's way to big for the tang and not big enough to go over the blade. Robert

1st March 2023, 04:37 AM	#5
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 247	I'm sorry, but that blade and guard do not belong together. If you look closely at the 1728s I posted, their ricassos are clearly defined and properly finished. The entire tang of your blade has a raw finish as if it was never intended to be seen.

1st March 2023, 09:43 AM	#6
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,676	As firstly suspectd that hilt and blade had different origins (2#) and now well established, we might speculate that, the person that digged both items would have found them in the same location but separated one from the other; could then infer that they would be originally set together (or not) and join them as if they so were. Notably the blade would (also) deserve some ID; it sure is a peculiar and genuine early item... wouldn't you guys agree ?

1st March 2023, 05:44 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,836	Fernando, that is a perfectly stated forensics perspective , and of course entirely plausible. I agree that this blade is a most unusual example of these early arming sword blades, and would warrant a look into other examples to compare. The decoration of course has nothing to do with makers marks but is filling aesthetic as often seen on colonial weapons. It would seem there might be a reason for the apparent incongruity of these two contemporary sword components, which seem of comparable age and circumstantial consistency. In the colonies, weapons were constantly being reworked to maintain serviceability, and it is well known that large numbers of blades alone were part of the commerce aboard trade vessels. I know of numbers of wrecks in these areas in which boxes of blades were found, and of the period suggested for this sword (or paired components as it were). This is of course c. 1690s into years of 18th century. I had thought that possibly the blade and guard component were perhaps in the process of being assembled at the time they were deposited into location perhaps during the volatile weather events known in these Caribbean regions. The thing is that the blade is clearly not one which would be in such process as it is broken and has marks of very rough existence already, not a pristine blade being used in remounting . This suggests the blade was already mounted at the time it was broken, and perhaps the disassembly here was work in progress? The open screw holes seem to suggest that, typically there would be some residue of at least one instead of cleanly empty holes. The fact that the aperture in the guard plate reveals disparity in the two components goes to the fact that it was necessary to use whatever was available, not necessarily exact matches in these colonial settings. I have a sword from Mexico fashioned from components of three entirely different swords, and congruent fit was hardly a concern. Possibly whatever components that once were with the sword were fabricated in this manner, and now gone, there is no way to know what the assembled sword looked like.Often these kinds of 'assembled' swords have been dismissed by purist collectors as put together by innovative sellers etc. But it would seem that such 'fabricated' efforts would at least try to approximate the sword as in original state. It is certainly a mystery, which is in my view, the joy of studying items like this which come from such colorful periods in history. Though the 'story' of course is always in question, this one seems perfectly plausible as in the 1950s many of these Caribbean islands were relatively quiet and not heavily traveled. It is well known that the dynamic storm activity in the Caribbean has often brought items up from wrecks on the sea bed, notably coins etc. and deposited them on beaches. In the same manner, items on beachfront can be moved about, and remarkably these two pieces remained in proximity. If the man who found them looked further, possibly the shell guard and pommel might have been found, perhaps not. This sword (or components of it) in my view should be deemed as together with reason, not exception, and more research on the most complete item, the blade, should be carried further. While these blades with this section were present through the 18th century as 'dragoon' blades, notably on the so called M1728, later M1769 Spanish arming swords (called bilbo by the English)....these hilts and blades existed some time earlier, and likely into 17th c. The hilt style itself evolved from North European 'pappenheimer' rapier hilts which evolved into heavier bladed swords like this deemed arming swords.