1730 Rapier or a Victorian 'Copy' .........any ideas?

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2006, 05:29 AM

Hi Andrew,
Excellent observations! I honestly don't know much about reproductions or these Victorian or theatrical pieces, just that they play havoc with collectors as they have become antiques in thier own right, and they are often hard to tell from actual pieces. One weapon that was actually authentic was dismissed as a fake for many years by suspicious and outright paranoid authorities who had burned too many times by these. It was amazing to see this very converse situation!
Actually Schmidt, and probably others who entered this cottage industry, did not intend to deceive or defraud buyers..it was later owners who tried to pass these off as authentic. What you say seems very possible, that such markings might have alluded to the sword or type the interpretation was taken from, but this sword does not correspond to examples I am aware of, especially not as late as 1730. I think this item was fashioned with a degree of artistic license, as might have been the case in Victorian times as noted.
I am trying to find an article in "Man at Arms" regarding Schmidts work, but digging through almost 25 years of these is true archaeology!!! Andrew Mowbray, the original editor of the magazine, edited a book on Schmidts work back in 1967 (before the magazine began) and did run at least one article that corresponded. It seems quite a few of Schmidts pieces ended up in the J Woodman Higgins museum in Massachusetts, so maybe they might have some data as well.

Its good to hear from you my friend!!!

All the best,
Jim

28th November 2006, 05:29 AM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,899	Hi Andrew, Excellent observations! I honestly don't know much about reproductions or these Victorian or theatrical pieces, just that they play havoc with collectors as they have become antiques in thier own right, and they are often hard to tell from actual pieces. One weapon that was actually authentic was dismissed as a fake for many years by suspicious and outright paranoid authorities who had burned too many times by these. It was amazing to see this very converse situation! Actually Schmidt, and probably others who entered this cottage industry, did not intend to deceive or defraud buyers..it was later owners who tried to pass these off as authentic. What you say seems very possible, that such markings might have alluded to the sword or type the interpretation was taken from, but this sword does not correspond to examples I am aware of, especially not as late as 1730. I think this item was fashioned with a degree of artistic license, as might have been the case in Victorian times as noted. I am trying to find an article in "Man at Arms" regarding Schmidts work, but digging through almost 25 years of these is true archaeology!!! Andrew Mowbray, the original editor of the magazine, edited a book on Schmidts work back in 1967 (before the magazine began) and did run at least one article that corresponded. It seems quite a few of Schmidts pieces ended up in the J Woodman Higgins museum in Massachusetts, so maybe they might have some data as well. Its good to hear from you my friend!!! All the best, Jim