Portuguese rapier blades

[Radboud]

What makes you suspect that these are re-hilted rapier blades?

Your first one retains the shoulders of the blade, so if it was originally a rapier it would have need to have lost a good portion of it’s tip. Is the blade unusually thick at the tip? If not, it will be a purpose built smallsword blade since the effort in re-profiling a blade from the base will be more work than making a new one.

As an aside, I’m always cautious when mixing Rapier and Smallsword (like so called transitional rapiers). Because rapiers command a premium over smallswords, I find some dealers are quick to find links between the two to add value.

I appreciate that transitional rapiers are a thing, they’re just not as common as some make out to be in my view.

[fernando]

Keith, i am the last person to advise you on this issue. My knowledge is extemely superficial. Besides, on what concerns Portuguese blades, i realize they are often hardly Portuguese, with eventual national inscriptions being done after import.
All i dare say is that the term rapier for these blades is hardly the correct one. Also i concur with Radboud in that the blades you show are naturally the ones that came with those swords.
If an example i have in my books is a reasonable approach for the case in discussion, here is a 'Espadim' used in civil (and eventualy military) gala uniform in a date span between 1792-1816. The hilt is in silver, and the blade measures with a 81 cms. length and 15 m/m width. It has an inscription of the Queen and his would be King son in either blade side in its slender blade. In the last three quarters the blade is what the autor calls 'estoque' type, to its four face cross section. It all points to this blade having being initially belonged to the hilt.


.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you Gentleman.
This may well explain why I am puzzled.
The reason I considered re-hilts was because of the length of the brass hilted version which has a 40" blade; obviously well beyond the common smallsword parameters.
The silver hilt, however, is 31" and as such is within said parameters but has an identical blade profile to the 40" one, so I assumed there was a category of sword of which I was unfamiliar.
Again, however... that brass hilt is actually very, very big, so it may well have been commissioned for a big fellow wanting a proportionate length to his weapon.
The other reason was the dating issue:
they are very late 1700s hilts are they not? If so, I was puzzled as to why they were fitted to blade styles I thought (and here you must pardon my inexperience and ignorance) had long since gone out of fashion after the arrival of the 'hollow' blades.
I look forward to corrections and augments.

[Radboud]

Going by their style, I would agree that both these hilts are very late 18th Cent. or early 19th Cent. The brass one with the turned over guard especially, since by this stage the sword was worn almost entirely for dress or ceremonial reasons. That the blade is 40” is an outlier and I agree that it makes it much more likely to be a re-hilt with an earlier blade. Especially on a sword only worn for dress.

You’d need to examine the blade profile and taper to determine if it was cut down though.

Something to keep in mind, the style of smallsword fighting in the Iberian and Mediterranean region was different from that taught in France. This style retained some cuts and they used longer blades meaning they still ‘fingered the guard’ to retain point control. But 40” is long; by comparison, my largest smallsword is Spanish, and it has a 88cm blade with another 3cm between the guard and and the quillons.

To your other comment, while the trefoil blade was the most popular form for smallswords in Northern Europe and the UK, other profiles persisted and didn’t completely disappear.

[urbanspaceman]

The ricasso on the silver hilt sword shows the maker mark in the squared ricasso cut in half (see attached).
The 40" one doesn't and the blade disappears into the hilt (again, see attached).
I find it hard to imagine that either sword has not been modified or chopped down at their ricassos.
There is definitely no indication of blade thinning on either sword.

[Jim McDougall]

These thin rapier blades were of course prevalent through the 17th century into the 18th. While they seem to have been contemporary to heavier arming blades through the 17th, the rapier and dueling swords were apparently maintained in the court and gentlemans swords. The so called transitional rapiers (a most nebulous area) seem to have been with these slender rapier blades in the small sword and court sword hilts in the 18th.

Attached is a Spanish rapier blade (though probably German made) which is believed from the Spanish nao Encarnacion which sank in storms off Panama Dec.3,1681. It had left Cartagena enroute to Porto Bello Panama, and among cargo had crates of sword blades.

This type of blade was of course known earlier in 17th c. As Toledo was in dire straits in the 17th century, Germany stepped in and produced blades as they were long well established as the key blade producers and continued as such well through the 19th c.

[urbanspaceman]

So: I am reminded Jim, of that Dutch duelling rapier/smallsword of the late 1600s... the one you have your eye on (see attached.
I don't know why I didn't hop over to that conclusion.
Here is a virtually identical blade inasmuch as it is thing and sharp and reasonably long.
This must have been before the 'First Blood' rules appeared.
But, I am convinced that brass hilted sword of mine with the 40" blade was longer before it was hilted thusly so my obvious next question is "What sort of hilts did these blades have back closer to the end of the 1600s".
Has anybody seen a long narrow rapier blade hilted as per the end of the 17thC?
It is beginning to appear that the transition to smaller swords began earlier than I had imagined if the English civil war Cavalier rapiers are anything to go by.
Am I missing something here?