A cup hilted sword rapier for coments

[Gonzalo G]

Caribbean?

[M ELEY]

Hello Gonzalo,
Yes, I think you are right. The plain wood/horn grips, plain construction and -shaped pommel point at a Caribbean origin. I've always like these just because of their 'colorful' background associations with piracy (I know most of these were not naval, but some undoubtedly made it to sea on privateers).

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding discussion gentlemen on the development of fencing schools, and the term 'rapier', which clearly has been, and will likely remain, a point of contention. It really is great to see such well informed exchange, and carried out in such constructive manner, thank you guys!!!

Mark, I'm sorry you missed that rapier, which I agree has that Caribbean feel to it, and without more research, I am thinking this might be Brazilian. The ribbed vertical edges on the grip, the crescents (reminiscent of the so called sickle marks on blades) which we have indeed often discussed, as well as what appears to be one of the 18th century 'dragoon' blades. The pirate association as we have also discussed, deals with the continued preying on ships through the 18th century on the "Spanish Main" between South America and New Spains other colonial regions.

Returning to another point of discussion:

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

With this, and as Mr. Norman's brilliant study uses works of art in establishing the typology and development of varied types of hilts, it can be presumed that through the 17th century, the cuphilt was primarily a civilian weapon.It is known however that this rule of thumb may not apply in provincial regions and in the colonies of New Spain, and the distanced and developing ad hoc officials from military ranks may well have adopted these rapiers as uniform accoutrements.
We know that the military broadswords with cuphilts were used well into the 18th century, and perhaps concurrently with the more developed hilt military swords termed 'bilbo'. It does seem however that even the very thin rapier blades of the late 17th century were shipped to the colonies to be hilted, much as the broadsword blades which were sent in such volume later in the 18th century into the 19th. I have seen such rapier blades found in the wreck of a Spanish ship in the Panama region some years ago. There were about 30 or 40 of these rapier blades and the wreck must have been from end of the 17th to early part of 18th century.

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Jim,

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands ...

I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance .

End of catharsis
Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Jim,



I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance .

End of catharsis
Fernando

Hi Fernando,
This appears to be one of those times when it would have been preferable to paraphrase rather than quote, and as the late Mr. Norman was a truly great scholar whom I respected deeply, I doubt any oversight in his comments concerning the cuphilt was intentional. I think it is an altogether unfortunate case where his thoughts were likely focused on geographic situation, and perhaps in terms that the link between Spain and Portugal were presumed known by the reader.
Thanks to you I have learned to be very cautious in qualifying such comments and have, as I have often mentioned, learned how extremely important Portugal has been in exploration,colonization and trade, completely independant of Spain. As a very thorough scholar, as I knew him to be, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to correct this unfortunately worded sentence.
Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Mark, Jim, thank you very much for your valuable inputs. Very interesting points.
My best regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used ...

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy .
Fernando

[M ELEY]

Thanks, Jim, for confirming my suspicions on that piece possibly being Brazilian. Just had to include this one because it reminds us of the other provinces as well. Maybe someday, that crescent patterning seen on New Spain swords will become more positively identified.

Sorry to have barged in on this thread! Didn't mean to interrupt the conversation concerning civilian vs military dress. I am greatly appreciating this topic and will read on with interest!

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

I must agree with Fernando. This was a case of Norman not choosing his words carefully enough - Perhaps he should have said something like "the widespread use of the CH in Spanish influenced...". In fact, the cup hilt found its way to many parts of Europe that was not under Spanish influence, England for one. Swordplay was in a constant state of evolution and the CH addressed the emergent need for a more comprehensive protection of the hand in response to the ever `tighter' style of fencing. All I can say is that his otherwise excellent work must be read in conjunction with works like that of Castle to get around such minor slip-ups.

Additionally, looking at portraits is only a hint, because unless the scabbard is very narrow, we can't say what kind of blade the hilt is attached to. In other words, a cup, or any other complex hilt, a rapier does not make.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

OK Fernando but as Chris has further noted the quote I used, it seems even more clear that it would have been better paraphrased ....and the content of the wording affected you from the omission of Portugal, while Chris notes possibilities of other areas where cuphilts might have appeared in limited instance. I believe I have even heard of an example or two in Germany, though I cannot support that with examples, but would not be surprised as they often produced swords intended for other countries.

Regardless, Mr. Norman was in my opinion addressing the widely held perspective on the regions typically associated with these cuphilt forms in general, and truly did not propose an in depth study of the type nor related fencing theory. His focus was on hilts alone, and his wording seems to lean toward keeping more to that, with brevity probably leading to the questionable wording. Had he been writing with other focus than simply identifying the hilts, perhaps his statement would have been more qualified.

The cuphilt seems to be essentially a deeper and more protective version of the shallow saucer or dish type guards on earlier similar type swords (intentionally avoiding the term rapier), but in identification the term cuphilt basically refers to the type hilt pictured here in the thread.

Mr. Norman's work was most innovative in using the classical art and portraiture for identifying hilt forms, which is why there is virtually no discussion of blades whatsoever in the book (actually offhand I cannot recall a single reference to blades).

In the study of weapons, I could not agree with Chris more, one should always cross check with any resource avaliable on the subject. I do not think however, that the type of blade was an issue with Norman's work, as the focus of his typology was on hilts identified to period through contemporary art, and had nothing to do with development of fencing theory or style.


Excellent points Chris and Fernando, and I dont mean to be too defensive of Mr. Norman, but his work remains to me an outstanding work of scholarship and I believe did what he set out to do. He had some difficulty with it at the time with publishing etc as I recall, and it really was well received when it was finally complete.

Mark, ya old scalawag!! I'm glad you barged in!!! You know we cant resist those beauties from the Spanish Main!!!


All very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris

Chris, what an absolutely fantastic summary on the development of these hilts as associated with fencing style!!! and thank you for the gentle correction on that part of Mr. Norman's book, which I had completely overlooked. Indeed, his approach was curatorial and as mentioned, in 1978 his tremendous work encountered difficulty in publishing, at the time he was Master of the Armouries in London. The book was finally published in 1980.

In my studying on weapons some time ago, he always patiently and faithfully responded to my queries and openly shared his perspective in the most kind and friendly manner. In 1998, he informed me he would be coming to Dallas and suggested we meet, and you can imagine my excitement. A short time later he became ill, and I received his regrets of not being able to make the trip from his family. He passed several weeks later. Inserted in the pages of my copy of his book, which I treasure, are still the letters from this kind man, who was indeed an inspiration to me, and actually, still is.

With all very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Allow me to say that it is always a pleasure to read your posts, which reflect great scholarship and a gentlemanly approach.

I envy your good fortune in having corresponded with the late Mr Norman. IMHO, his wonderful work and that of Castle pretty much covers the evolution of the rapier to the small sword. I only wished that Castle would have dealt with some of the developments of the 19th century such as that of the Italian fencing sabre and the French dueling epee.

I feel that neither of these works will be improved upon in the foreseeable future, as they both covered all that could be within reason and little else will go beyond being mere commentaries, footnotes and minor corrections to these two foundational works.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Just for the record. I believe the rapier was some sort of "universal" weapon in west Europe, though I never checked how many countries have rapiers with cup hilts and crossguards. Unless proved the contrary, there are rapiers with cup hilts from the german states, not made for the external market. Some, very beautiful. Please see this examples:

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7408

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7413

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7395

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7255

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7248

among others. They belong to what among the spanish scholars is known as the "German School". It dreserves a mention that the germans were very affectionated to duelling in their civil life, maybe for centuries. An interestig comparative study could be made of the hilts and guards. The cup hilt has obvious advantages in the rapier style of fencing, and there were rapiers all over west Europe. Even probably the development of a more refinated style of fencing in the late 18th Century, can explain the bigger cup hilts seen on some rapiers of the period. This is an hypothesis expressed by some spanish erudites and swordsman as Juan José Pérez.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,

Great links, thank you.

I wonder what distinguished those of the German school from other cup hilted rapiers - I wan under the impression that the Germans used the edge more, but these samples look very thrust oriented.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Opps! Had a senior moment.

German hilts had often a thumb ring to augment control. The Mediterranean grip consisted of wraping the firest and second fingers around the ricasso under the quillon. The Germans liked to hook the thumb into a ring/loop on the LHS of the quillons on a RHS hilt.

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

As long as it isn't

Olha se tens saúdade


BTW, my own take on the subject is that, evidently as every galego knows, Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.

They just didn't know it.

: )


Now seriously: Unknown origin CH/bilobate sword, possibly north european.







Best

Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by fernando

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy .
Fernando

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Originally Posted by celtan

...... Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.....

An interesting world-view. Ever considered a career in international relations?

Nice swords to have in any collection. Any chance of posting their principal dimensions, including weight and point of balance?

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

Thanks, and yep, I did. I even had a motto: All bow to me.

Didn't pan out, however, My PR people said it was because the motto was too honest...
: )

Data, as requested:

Wt: 2.1 lb.
Total L: 42.5"
Blade L: 34.5"
W: 1"
CG: 32" from tip, 2.5" from guard.

Toots!

M

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi,



An interesting world-view. Ever considered a career in international relations?

Nice swords to have in any collection. Any chance of posting their principal dimensions, including weight and point of balance?

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Greatly appreciated.

Sorry to trouble you again, but how far is the guard fom the cross?

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

German hilts had often a thumb ring to augment control. The Mediterranean grip consisted of wraping the firest and second fingers around the ricasso under the quillon. The Germans liked to hook the thumb into a ring/loop on the LHS of the quillons on a RHS hilt.

Furthermore, according to Germán Dueñaz Beraiz, in his article "Estudio Tipológico de las Espadas Españolas" (A Typologycal Study on the Spansih Swords), published on Gladius, Vol. XXIV - 2004, some authors distinguish the spanish hilts and guards of the rapiers made on Spain, by the following elements supposedly not found in other countries of origin:

* A shorter hilt, derved of the fact that the spanish grip used only three fingers to grasp the hilt, as the others went over the quillons.

* The spanish cup guards were less deep and with less diameter

* The pommels were more flattened and smaller.

* On the inner side and centered in the cup, the presence of an element called "dust keeper", a small plaque which reinforces structurally the cup and the union of this elements with the pas d´ane, the circular rings over the recasso.

* The presence of a point breaker on the cup.

Altough Dueñas Beraiz does not deny or accept this specific dictinctions, he says that is difficult to determine the place of origin of a swords only based on the hilt and guard elements, as the styles were a subject of constant intercouse among different countries.

There is another important element to be taken on account. Many rapier blades made on Spain were actually mounted in other countries, so there is no relation among blade and mounts (hilts and guards). So, those rapiers are not representative of the spanish ones, no matter they carry on the blade a stamp from a Toledo swordmaker.

Another intersting mention, this time to dissagraviate Fernando, is that there are references to a production of bilobate or shell guards and the mounting of hilts and guards in Portugal, though I still do not find references to rapiers or another kind of swords made entirely there in this period.

To the benefit of the statements of Jim, the german states were also under the dominion of Spain and in it´s area of influence on the first half of the 16th Century. I don´t know if this fact is related with the production of cup hilted rapiers there, but this point must be researched. Apparently, the production of swords was the result of an international cooperation in Europe during certain period of time. First, many sword blades were made on Toledo, and mounted on Italy, the german states (Germany did not exist as a single state until 1871) and the nordic countries. Latter, as a result of the more industrialized production of Solingen, their more cheap (but not necessarily better) blades, were used to be mounted in other countries.

I do not know of a comparative study of the blades from Toledo and Solingen, in relation with their pretended uses, as absolute parameters as hardness, thoughtness, impact resistance, etc., cannot be valid, and they instead must be related with the specific use of a specific type of sword. But it seems that I´m going out of thread subject.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

* A shorter hilt, derved of the fact that the spanish grip used only three fingers to grasp the hilt, as the others went over the quillons.

* The spanish cup guards were less deep and with less diameter

* The pommels were more flattened and smaller.

* On the inner side and centered in the cup, the presence of an element called "dust keeper", a small plaque which reinforces structurally the cup and the union of this elements with the pas d´ane, the circular rings over the recasso

Altough Dueñas Beraiz does not deny or accept this specific dictinctions, he says that is difficult to determine the place of origin of a swords only based on the hilt and guard elements, as the styles were a subject of constant intercouse among different countries.

Many thanks for all those valid observations.

That work of Beraiz is very good, as he makes quite a number of points not encountered elsewhere. Someone ought to translate it into English.

On the matter of smaller hilts, Castle tells us that towards the end of the 16th century hilts were short so as to rest against the palm of the hand. My take on this, is that to achieve such a grip, a small pommel was a requisite - And I often speculated on how this influenced the balance of the long rapier, shifting the POB towards the point. It would be nice if curators could be persuaded to compile the important attributes of swords in their collections as then we could gain a much better understanding as to their inherent traits and how they were used.

There is another important element to be taken on account. Many rapier blades made on Spain were actually mounted in other countries, so there is no relation among blade and mounts (hilts and guards). So, those rapiers are not representative of the Spanish ones, no matter they carry on the blade a stamp from a Toledo swordmaker.

Yes, sword production was then a truly a multi-regional industry and to make things worse, many blades were at a later date retro-fiited with hilts that differed from the originals. And to add more confusion, makers names and origins were widely falsified.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Yes Chris. Specially the civil swords, as the rapier, being part of the indumentary, and it´s hilt the most visible portion, it was rehilted according to the changing tastes and fashions, among other reasons.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Definitely, i lack the necessary profile to interpreter all opinions gathered, as well as the written material i can get hold of, to discern the differences between Spanish and Portuguese swords, in this case cup hilted ones, namely the (my) example posted here in the first place … as sell as others.
That is to admit that, to my view, specimens shown here and there, in confrontation to what i read about these swords typology, make the exception larger than the rule.
Again i say that it must be my limited focusing capacity, for lack of experience and or my inability to read the data provided with the necessary skill.
In addition to the comments posted by Marc, Chris, Gonzalo, Jim and Manolo, let me here transcribe the (translated) comments from the Spanish seller ( which i ‘promised’ to post but never did ), as well as the comments of Juan J. Perez, a well known connoisseur.

(From Lluc Sala)
Concerning your cuphilt sword, the details that make think it is a possible Spanish production, are the cup shallow profile and the short length of the grip (between the two ferrules). Such are details that usually occur in Spanish pieces. Nevertheless, old weapons are not an exact science and it is of common knowledge that between Spain and Portugal there were several similarities of styles and construction, some of them being almost identical.

(From Juan J. Perez)
Yes, there are differences. Some of them are subtle, while others aren't. For swords dating from 1670 upward, I think the most relevant (and evident!) difference is that Portuguese hilts usually lack their arms. I mean, the cup is soldered right to the quillons, there being no additional arms emerging from the quillon block, in order to secure the cup. This is specially true regarding military swords.
However, this particular feature may also be found on Spanish colonial pieces, but in my opinion it has a Portuguese origin.
The seller of this sword thought that the hilt may be Spanish, being the blade obviously Portuguese or made for the Portuguese market. It may well be.

I must say i am not that much short sighted (not too much sex ) as not to see a few remarks consistent in the typology quoted by the various sources. However and as i said, i seem to find as many exceptions around … be it cup bowl depth and diameter, quillons fixation, grip length, pommel shape and so on.
Indeed the “Peninsular” connotation suits better this Portuguese/Spanish (or Spanish/Portuguese) duality, on what touches hilt typology.
Blades appear to be a thematic with a different approach. German (and Italian) production was significantly poured into the Peninsula, to fulfil the immense demand, certainly aggravated by massive detachment to the colonies. Also here and with the due difference in either (Peninsular) country dimensions, also Portugal consumed some of this production; Solingen blades are found all over, be them real or fake … a phenomenon similar to Toledo specimens. I also realize that when a cup hilt sword has a German shape, including hilt, it would quicker be an example to be used in the Peninsula, than to be used in its country of origin. Maybe this is the reason why those few are found in the Madrid Museum, for one.

I will post here two interesting examples of cup hilt variations; one with a(often quoted) short grip, those where you could only fit three fingers; and another with a (also mentioned) dust keeper (guarda polvo). The first one, from the XVII century, with a short 83 cms waving blade and wide quillons, is quoted as civilian. The author considers that the legend IN SOLINGEN in the blade, could well be an original as well as an imitation. No origin (Spain/Portugal) precised. The second one, besides also placed in the XVII century, is stressed by the author as being from after 1640, and so tagged as Portuguese, once the legend in the blade reads VIVA PORTUGAL, an expression contextually used after or in course of liberation from the Spanish domination. In the perspective of this author, this is the (only ?) symptom that differentiates (Peninsular) cup hilt swords from being Spanish or Portuguese.
By this point of view, i would conclude that my specific sword is Portuguese; i don’t see a Portuguese client go order from a Spanish smith a sword with such a controversial nationalist motto. But that is only a theory … or not even so. On the other hand, we must not forget that this sword was at sale in Spain … mind you, after three hundred years; a theory not better than the first one.

Interesting also to note is that the first specimen has its quillons welded to the cup bowl, whereas the second one uses the screw method … but, important thing, the author quotes this variation as less common.

Enough of this nonsense talk.

Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

I tend to agree with Lluc, identifying these swords is not an exact science, not even remotely so, and the best we can do is to go with the most plausible account on the strength of what we know - And am inclined to think that his guess is as good as anybody's.

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

My Christmas self gift has arrived,
I will attach here some more pictures of it, as well as some specifications, as advised by Chris, to help figure out the original purpose of this sword.


Total weight:1130 grs.
Length of blade as from the cross: 104 cms.
Overall length: 114 cms.
Point of balance as from the cross: 14 cms.
Length of quillons: 32 cms.
Cup bowl width:16 cms.
Blade width at forte: 20 mm.
Blade thickness at forte: 8,13 mm.
No aparent evidence of blade dents, repairs or sharpening.
Blade cross section of six tables, the last third practicaly lenticular.
Sharp (not acute) in both sides through all length.

I hope i've done it right ... Chris ?

I seem to notice that the grip copper wire wraping is quite old, probably from the period, which is a pleasant and major detail.
The pommel fixation looks fine too.
But you guys know a lot more than me about these things; tell me what you think ... please

Also i would like to know if anyone here recognizes those marks on the recazo, which certainly belong to the sword (blade) smith.

Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

Many thanks for having taken and posted the critical dimensions of your rapier - They are typical of fully evolved exemplars of the genre. That long blade must have a very good sectional density to obtain that balance with such a modest sized pommel.

It is a very nice weapon and look upon it with no little envy.

Cheers
Chris
Season's Greetings and a happy New Year to all

[Gonzalo G]

Fer, thank you very much for this numerical data. I think it is indispensable for the understanding of the edged weapons, as it gives much basic information about the making and use of them. It´s a pity many people only gives relevance to their visual appearance in photographs, because photographs have several limitations. A professional aproach to this subject always should be based in this data.
Un saludo

Gonzalo