Rapier with flaberge blade (Victorian?)

[shayde78]

Hi everyone!

It has been awhile since I have posted anything, but I'm hoping you can indulge my idle curiosity.

The item pictured below just closed at auction. It looks identical to an item that has for years been listed as "sold" on the Fagan Arms site.

I have this item's twin in my collection, but mine is missing the very unique guard. On the Fagan site, the photos made the guard look like cheap sheet metal and purely theatrical. However, these recent auction photos make the guard look like a much more substantive piece of iron that has been skillfully wrought.

I still feel the uniformity of the quillion and pommel suggest Victorian, but wanted to get everyone's opinion.

As always, thank you for sharing your knowledge

[shayde78]

And, for comparison, here is the piece in my collection. I bought this as a Victorian replica, and have wondered what the missing guard would look like. I'm still leaning towards that time frame, but wouldn't be disappointed if it were older

[midelburgo]

At the Madrid Royal Armoury there is dish hilt rapier with a flamberge blade that belonged ro Felipe IV. Toledo Factory made replicas in the last third of XIXth century of this and other rapiers and these can be quite deceiving and not always marked. Page from c1910 catalogue. They were produced for so long that variations are common. I have seen later wall hangers modeled on the factory copy, too, without the dish in the example at the bottom.

[Jim McDougall]

This is an interesting topic and swords, and while I cant add much to these shown (I try to avoid comment on Fagan), the sword replica shown (not the suggested Fagan example) is interesting in its own merits as often these Victorian examples are remarkably well done. Indeed those, especially by Schmitt of Munich were so much so that many resided in museum such as the Higgins for many years thought to be original. For purposes of arms history, these of course defeat the inherent purpose of study. However for those who have deep interest in style and form, more artistically oriented, they serve that purpose. .

I wanted to note the term 'flamberge' has an interesting history/etymology of its own. Actually the reference to these undulating blades is correctly 'flammard' in the European sense, from what I have understood.

The term flamberge seems to come into arms vernacular from Egerton Castle ("Schools and Masters of Fence" 1885) most likely from Moliniere, and the use of the phrase 'mettre flamberge au vent' in the disdainful reference in France toward flamboyant (another term for undulating blades) swords.
This had to do with someone drawing a small sword with great flourish as if it were a 'great sword' of the paladins in the Chanson de Geste, medieval narratives.

I always had the impression the undulating blades were allegorically the Biblical flaming swords much as in many traditional legends in many cultures. I think mostly comes to mind with these kinds of blades were the zweihanders of the landsknechts of Germany and Switzerland. There is no particular advantage pragmatically for this type of blade, but certainly they carried this kind of allegorical character.

The term flamberge according to Oakeshott is more familiarly applied to dish hilt rapiers and light transitional types of rapier to distinguish from the more orthodox forms ("European Weapons and Armpr", 1980, p.165).

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This is an interesting topic and swords, and while I cant add much to these shown (I try to avoid comment on Fagan), the sword replica shown (not the suggested Fagan example) is interesting in its own merits as often these Victorian examples are remarkably well done.

The merit of making 'good' replicas constitutes the particularity to confuse them with genuine examples, hence increasing the facility with which the best intentioned collector, even institution, inadvertently buy 'cat for hare', aka 'pig in a poke'.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... those, especially by Schmitt of Munich were so much so that many resided in museum such as the Higgins for many years thought to be original.

Indeed ... and i dare say that, prestigious museums like the Higgins, as you mention, even the Met, as some say, feel deeply defrauded when they are confronted with reality.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... For purposes of arms history, these of course defeat the inherent purpose of study. However for those who have deep interest in style and form, more artistically oriented, they serve that purpose.

Yes, those who are aware they acquire replicas, as they fit into their field of interest, either for price reasons or and are contented with what they represent.


Needless to say that we humbly respect everyone's preferences, although in this forum we are commited to only discuss genuine antique weapons .

[Jim McDougall]

Actually I wanted to share the true story of the Schmidt items in the Higgins and Metropolitan Museum of Art. There was a reason the replica armors were there, and while primary focus was on armor, other weapons were in degree included.

From "Arms and Armor: From the Atelier of Ernst Schmidt. Munich"
This is (ironically) a facsmile of the original book published c.1910. presented to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1934 by the widow of Bashford Dean (who was the first curator of the Met).
The copy I have was printed in 1967 by the late Andrew Mowbray.

Dean had acquired examples of Schmidt's work through a number of important collections and actually exhibited these alongside originals as educational items.

This was also the case with the Higgins Armory which opened in 1931. Authentic armor was scarce and costly and the Schmidt examples they had served well until Hearst and MacKay collections were sold in 1939, when Schmidt examples were withdrawn , though one example was again held for educational purposes.

In my original notes I was not fully aware of the circumstances of the display at these prestigious museums, and clearly far from being hoodwinked by them, they were of such quality that they were displayed as educational examples. While primarily referring to 'harness' (suits of armor) other arms were also present.

In Sir Guy Lakings venerable "Record of European Arms and Armor" there was an instance of an important armor with which an additional view was needed in photographs and a Schmidt example was illustrated adjacent to the original harness.

Hence, in the earlier days of collecting, these 'replicas' were made in good faith and served well as representative examples to educate prospective collectors.

[fernando]

Comes to mind the (double) interpretation of educational; to enlighten viewers of how such imitations may be deceiving or to show them in good faith the idea of how originals would be. I wonder how these things were textually tagged.
I visited both the Higgins and the Met in 2014. I assume such specimens were not there by then.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Comes to mind the (double) interpretation of educational; to enlighten viewers of how such imitations may be deceiving or to show them in good faith the idea of how originals would be. I wonder how these things were textually tagged.
I visited both the Higgins and the Met in 2014. I assume such specimens were not there by then.

It is a matter of period. In the time of Schmidt et al (1870s +) the interest in armor collecting (again focus was on suits of armor 'harness') was limited to those with considerable means. The early scholars who promoted the study of arms and armor were well aware of reproductions, and as authentic armor was not only not readily available, but terribly expensive.

The objective as I previously noted, was educational, so it seems that the examples of replicas were apparently placed noted as such, and where possible alongside originals. Bashford Dean, the first curator of the Met, was keenly interested not only in collecting, but educating on arms. This is why this original catalog of Schmidt was in facsimile presented to him in 1934.

John Higgins, who opened his museum in 1931 followed in much the same manner, with examples of replicas available at more reasonable prices in kind, to educate, so I would presume these were labeled accordingly. As noted, when the Hearst collection became available and many items were added which were original, most replicas were withdrawn aside from one or more select examples.

It appears that the Met withdrew many examples as well as authentic examples were acquired. As far as I have determined, these replicas, skillfully produced, served as examples to educate, not deceive, and were likely labeled accordingly.

As also noted, replicas shown alongside originals were intended to educate those with these interests to illustrate how to determine replica from authentic, so they would have to have been labeled as what they were.

The exception seems to have been the case with Laking, who included a photo of a replica of a famed harness, from a different angle adjacent to the original armor, again simply an educational situation, but did not label such photo as replica.

Given the museum situations in modern times, the numbers of exhibits of arms have dwindled, much of their holdings doomed into storage. I recall some years back researching a sword pictured in Stone (1934) buy they could not offer much information, noting the the photo in Stone was the last time it was handled and photographed, in 1911!

[fernando]

... and as we say in my neck of the woods: "He who doesn't have a dog, hunts with a cat" .

[shayde78]

Thank you midelburgo, jim, and fernando!

This partly why I had never posted this item before, but the recent auction made me question (hope?) my original assessment was wrong

As always, thank you for the honest feedback.

-Rob