Hi Mark,
I missed your response, thank you so much for the kind words as always. I do recall those espadas we identified as Brazilian, and were of course probably much wider used throughout the 'Spanish Main' of the 19th c.
That was really quite a breakthrough as we had little knowledge on Spanish colonial edged weapons outside those in Mexico and the Southwest.

Interesting on these cuphilts and reading some discussion on another forum, how incredibly little these are known at large. Aside from one writer based in Spain and a brilliant arms scholar, other notes were pretty void .

I like the fact that here we are able to stay with a topic and pursue more data and examples with the goal of actually learning the history of these arms. It seems others just want a label, or wording to sell things.

I always hope more will come in on these, I really do believe these were of the same location and perhaps even workshop.

Absolutely agree to generic labeling of pieces these days, Jim. The importance of pinpointing not only adds to our knowledge, but for those that enjoy the fine details, helps us appreciate the history behind it. I have found this fact particularly with naval weapons. Many weapons that went to sea were not documented and must be labeled 'associated'. That being said, some collectors shy away from anything but weapons with absolute exacting proof of such (anchor designs, rack numbers, axe patterns used by naval) while ignoring other pieces that very likely were nautical examples, but need more research to pin them down. Sorry to divert from the sword at hand, but I think the point is this form of sword differs from its cousins for a reason and hopefully, we'll crack its code someday!

Touché Capitão ... naval or not naval. Within such concept you have 'restricted' or 'vague' labels, like a sword of the Peninsular War or a spontoon of the American Revolution.
But you will have to recognize that a weapon full of marks and dates scores a better position in the rank of preferences; not including those which are so undoubtedly identifiable that one looks 'instead' for their perservation condition.
These two swords bear symptoms of having being in the same location (colony) and potentialy made (read hilted or even rehilted) by the same guild or even the same artisan. Their life path may (read must) have however been a different one.
My sword was in Spain when i acquired it; Dana's example was in Great Britain.
My sword has a traditional Spaniosh blade with the inscription; Dana's example is a plain rapier type one.
With these ingredients, missing precise data and giving wings to imagination,
one could design here two rather different stories.
My sword could have gone from Spain to the Colonies, be rehilted by a local smith as an added (or souvenir) value to its (Spanish) owner and return to the main land, later ending in the hands of a familiar who later sold it or gave it way.
Danas's example could have been hilted or re-hilted in the same spot but remained there, as a local field/ornament weapon, later brought to Britain for whatever reason, including commercial purposes.
Now ... how's that for an approach ? :cool:
Let me tell you guys that, nobody in the world is more zealous enthusiast of a piece's precise provenance than me ... for one :o

Nando, I should have more carefully worded my comment to note 'we' meaning most of us here on these forums, it sounded like I meant just Mark and myself :) oops! Quite true.......you're a super sleuth when it comes to provenance and studying developed history on these arms!!
I know...you and I have been at it for how many years now!!! ???

It is true, an item that has established pedigree in provenance, or that is well marked and referenced certainly does excel in historic value .

Thank you for reiterating the comparative differences between these two examples, which clearly were taken on different courses after leaving their original point of fabrication. Nicely summarized!!

Mark, you're spot on with your notes on the variations and undocumented instances of arms 'probably' used in maritime circumstances. We well know that to be the case on 'pirate' vessels, and do you recall our push to discover how likely it was that Scottish (and other) basket hilts were used at sea? I believe years ago Dr. Mazansky did an x-ray study on a basket hilt of late 16th century from an English shipwreck off Bermuda (part of the source material for Shakespeare's "The Tempest" if I recall) .

All the best,
Jim

Ah ... sleuth, a term i would never dreamed of :o .
Nothing like being here to improve one's english ... like stalwart and so ;).
But ... let's hear what the Capitão has to say about my fantasies :cool:

kinky!!! :)

Fernando- I see your point, my friend, and certainly don't deny that a piece with provenance or a well-documented artifact always wins out. My point was simply that today's questioned piece, that might be either overlooked or even scoffed at by purists, might very well prove to be tomorrow's treasures! The story lies in the details, no doubt, and that is also where the excitement (or eternal frustration!) lies. Ultimately, one will either like the piece for what it is or not. Purists might shy away from anything but the classic Spanish/Portuguese/Italian cuphilt. Others may revel in the fascination with colonial pieces, such as the Caribbean cup-hilts. I tend to judge pieces these days based on whether I like them or not. If they don't feel right, I part with them- :shrug:
Anyway, still fascinated with both swords and their possible connection.

Jim, you have peaked my interests again in baskethilts. I've always wanted one for my collection, but could never justify such a piece in a naval collection. Your lead (which I hope to follow up on, once I get a day off!!) gives me hope again! I think Annis mentions at least one basket in his book with an association with the sea. Got to look over my notes again!

Absolutely Mark....collectors or any kind of enthusiasts on history and weapons will have their preferences and chosen fields of study, often very selective and 'purist' , but I think the most fascinating are the anomalies and variations . There's where the real historical detection come in!

As we know on the baskethilts, the instance with the Highlander who killed Blackbeard in 1715 using his broadsword in the melee on the decks of the pirate's vessel, he was probably one of the regular troops locally who joined Maynard's naval group in this ambush.
I have found however, a couple of instances where Highland basket hilts were included among noted arms used on pirate vessels. The National Maritime Museum could not specify nor confirm such use of these on ships, but if I recall such instances could not be categorically excluded . I think you're right, Annis might have mentioned one, now Im fired up too!! :)
Off to the notes.

All the best
Jim

Hi, Jim! Here's what I found. In Annis' monumental work on sea swords (think 'officer's sword' mostly, as the National Maritime Museum was what he was referencing mostly), he mentions several broadswords with nautical connections. Only two of them from the Greenwich collection were of the Scottish/English baskethilt pattern. They were-

James Robertson-Walker's (entered naval service 1801, died 1858). His was a steel baskethilt broadsword double edged (not a backsword), with flattened bars, heart shapes, hemispherical pommel, fishskin grip. The blade marked with the Passau running wolf and orb/cross marking. The attribution wasn't rock-solid, but better than most.

The second was a doozy! Again, the attribution wasn't definite, but I'm told other works possibily support its nature. It was a baskethilt worn by John Scott, Lord Nelson's Secretary on the Victory when it sailed at Trafalgar! It was also a steel basket, larger and more ornate than the previous example, with steel bars, heart shapes, cross-shaped designs in the bars, leather-bound grip with wire, conical pommel. This sword bore the Arms of Mechlenberg, marking '165' and an unidentified cutler's proof. Annis goes on to say that this sword is 'meagerly supported' to be Scott's sea sword.

The author goes on to say the obvious. In rare circumstances, these sword types and quite a few others went to sea based on the taste, whims and style of the officers that carried them. Prior to true naval patterning, with no rules came eclectic tastes. Such swords would be 'one-off' affairs, as their general practicality could be questioned (steel baskets rusted easily, their titanic blades made them of limited use on crowded ships, etc). Annis does bring up the important point, however, of troop trnasports. Soldiers (read 'armies!') on board a ship probably carried such. It was just such an epiphany that I had when struggling over the whole 'were Span/Portuguese cuphilt swords really worn by sailors', as depicted in so many movies and books? The answer, surprisingly, was 'yes'. The Treasure Fleets had contingents of soldiers aboard every ship, thus, they wore bilbos and cuthilts. Such an argument could be used to say that any military branch riding aboard a naval transport would have been so armed. Even in the British Navy, post 1790, we see branches of the Royal Marines on the ship for disciplinary purposes, discouragement of mutiny, land raids, etc. That branch of the military carried their own swords, guns, etc.

Finally (!), we must never forget the privateers, merchant class and pirates ( :eek: ), whose fleets dwarfed even the British fleet. The men of these typle vessels carried just about anything they d#mned well pleased! So, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Scottish baskethilts at sea, it's a 'maybe yes or maybe no', but proving that a sword wasn't naval is just as hard as proving that it was!

Deleted...

Sorry, tried to post pic.

Is there a definitive list of characteristic which separate Colonial Cup Hilts from those made in Europe. Sometimes it seems to be a “I know it when I see it” situation

Peterson's "Arms and Armour in Colonial America. 1526-1783" is not much help, and I don’t own a copy of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, …. yet.

That is a very reasonably placed question Dana, and of course as far as I know, there are no definitive or categorized descriptions which would comprise a guide on cuphilts. The Continental European forms are well described in a number of references, probably one of the best would be book by A.V.B.Norman "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" (1980).While these are typically expensive there is I believe a reprint and interlibrary loan is another option.

The colonial examples are far less defined as they are typically roughly fashioned and rather than being the elegant, pierced steel examples or even the simpler forms on the Continent, they are often workmanlike and rugged arming swords. Instead of the thin, swift rapier blades they carry heavier arming broadsword blades.

The Continental examples will usually have a 'rompepuntas' (a folded over ridge around the rim of the cup), worked or writhen quillons and more artistically fashioned elements than the simple cups and guards of the colonials. Also inside the cup a fixture known as the 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly =dust guard) is at the aperture for the blade and surrounding it...these are not on colonial examples. The Colonial forms usually had the heavier broadsword blades, however it is known that shipments of the narrow rapier blades made in Solingen with Spanish makers names and marks did go to New Spain in some degree in the 18th century. It would seem that the traditional Spaniard gentry may have still kept the older form swords there, but I have never seen examples of them with these blades.

Keep in mind that the cuphilt form came into use at some time in the first half of the 17th century in Italy, Spain and in some degree in Germany. Often these are referred to broadly as 'Spanish cuphilts' but many, especially the piercework types, were Brescian or northern Italian. I believe much of the confusion was because many of these areas in Italy were actually Spanish provincial.
By the end of the 17th century, the cuphilt was essentially obsolete everywhere except in deeply traditional Spain . While it gradually went out of fashion even there into the 18th century, these were still favored in New Spain and there they continued to fashion the cup guards for heavy arming blades through the 18th and into the early 19th.

I think the examples shown here by Fernando and Mark are excellent in illustrating the somewhat rough, but superbly charming work seen in these remotely fashioned versions of these revered and traditional swords.

I hope this might be of some help, and to better follow the peculiarities of these colonial swords, Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain is essential.
As it has been some time since researching these, and I am relying on memory in writing this, I hope others might also add more reliable input.

A friend who read my recent post offered to give/loan me a copy of of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”. WOW, Thanks "Anonymous"!

***

To summarize Jim's comments, Colonial Cup Hilts (cuphilts) are:

(A) "Typically" more roughly made & less decorative
(B) "Usually" more rugged arming swords rather than slender rapiers

You've mention elsewhere that Colonial Cup Hilts are

(C) "Normally" missing the arms in the hilt which hold the cup.

I'm off to find a copy of "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820".

That's fantastic Dana!!! It is an excellent reference, and effectively the only reference standing on Spanish colonial arms with other references quite esoteric and hard to find.
The guardopolvo is a plate at the base of the cup inside which surrounds the entry point of the blade and is ostensibly considered a 'dust cover', though that purpose seems tenuous and it seems more decorative. The quillons extend across the rim of the cup circumference the same as Continental types, but they are more rudimentary.
You have a PM .
Jim

Sorry, I should have attributed condition (C) to "Juan J. Perez at swordforum.com . This is an exact quote:

"This sort of swords differs mainly from the peninsular civilian cup-hilts not only for their cruder manufacture and broader blades, but in the absence of the arms of the hilt that hold the cup in the original form of this sword.

However, this is not only a feature of swords from the Spanish colonies in America, but from Portuguese ones, and even from Portugal mainland itself, where this sort of cup-hilt was made regulation for cavalry units. This is always an option that should not be discarded."

I hesitate to say anything about Portugal :o

So Jim, to the list, should I add:

(D) They seldom have 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly = dust guard)

Thanks Dana, I had forgotten Juan's remarkable studies on Spanish arms, and to be honest I did not recall the interim part of the crossguard across the inner part of the cup being absent (I need to find pics again :) but it seems the bar extends across in the ones I've seen. As far as I have known, the straight quillon guard essentially sits atop or in the top of the cup.

I do know that the continuation of the cuphilt phenomenon continued as noted into the 19th century in the colonial regions, and I have even seen 'court' type cuphilts with the traditional bowl and a vestigial crossguard across its base as a straight bar! obviously entirely redundant.

Excellent followup questions and answers. Just wanted to add the grip materials and shape can also be defining factors of the colonial types (I.e. Carribean or New World). In particular, horn grips with crisscross patterning is often seen, as are 'bulging' grips as seen on colonial espada and cuphilts.

Does anyone want to argue the 'mushroom-shaped' pommel styles as being colonial? Peterson used this one as a tip of the hat towards Spanish Main and I tend to believe him- :shrug:

This is the only Spanish Colonial Cup Hilt I own that has a horn grip. As you can see the line patterns on this one run in parallel. I guess this grip could also be described at "bulging".

I'll add a "mushroom-shaped" pommel style example when I have a chance to photograph one.

The photos that I have posted here are copyright (c) 2014 by Dana K. Williams. All Rights Are Reserved.

Absolutely right !!! One way to differentiate Portuguese from Spanish cuphilt swords when present, other than consider them genericaly Peninsular

Why not Portuguese ? :o

That is a good question Fernando. Maybe you could help me with a list that would exclude the possibility of a possible Colonial Cup Hilt being Portuguese.

I noticed that the cup on your has rivets, but not mounting hardware attached.

I don't have the luggage to list details to differentiate cuphilts from being Spanish, Portuguese or Colonial, Dana. I play a bit by ear. One thing i learned is that Portuguese and Spanish are often so alike that the name convenientely given by connoisseurs is Penisular ... which is not surprising, due to, during a large period in which these swords were in fashion, Portugal was under Spanish control; also neighbourhood cultural convergence and all that.
The only solid difference that i have learned is, when present, the weklding of the quillons to the bowl instead of the internal securing arms, normaly fixed by screws. Another alternative,also when present, is the mark of the smith or the language in which the eventual inscriptions in the blade are printed ... but even this is passive of failure, as swords could be made in one country (Spain) with inscriptions in the others language, either by clients demand or just for fashion.
Concerning Colonial variants, i guess they are often more 'folkloric', made and decorated in a non sophisticated or rustic manner. But as i say, i am playing by ear and basicaly depend on the seller's assumptions ... when they appear to make sense to me.
The silver rivets in mine are not for fixing the bowl but only for show off, like the trimmings in the grip.

I am waiting on “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821” before venturing to deeply into this topic, but here is what we have so far?

(A) More roughly made & less decorative
(B) More rugged arming swords rather than slender rapiers
(C) More likely to have natural grips made of horn or wood (crisscross patterning?, bulging?)
(D) More likely to have a "mushroom-shaped" pommel
(E) Typically the cup is welded to the quillons rather than mounted with internal securing arms, that are normally fixed by screws (This is also typical of Portuguese Cup Hilts)
(F) Typically missing the guardopolvo (dust guard?) where the blade penetrate through the cup

Attached are photos of a "Spanish Colonial" Cup Hilt with a "mushroom-shaped" pommel. Note that the cup is welded to the quillons via arms on the lip of the cup.

These photos are copyright (c) 2014 by Dana K. Williams. All Rights Are Reserved.

My Caribbean cuphilt
 

www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17232

Just wanted to post this to show the mushroom-style pommel, welded bars of the guard and horn checkered grips. Examples of the 4-sided checkering of grip material can be seen in Peterson's book as well as in Brinkerhoff's.

Thanks for pointing me at your legacy post. Nice Cup Hilt! And a good example of the grip you were talking about.

Yea! My copy of “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821” , has arrived.

I would like to publicly thank the person who sent me this wonderful book, my GOOD FRIEND Miqueleter, who I met here on the forum.

Miqueleter also included some other goodies, one of which I have posted here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...44&postcount=1

WOW! I want to be friends with Miqueleter!! I love shipwreck pieces, as they define a moment captured in time and usually under terrible (but historic) circumstances. Very nice piece!

BTW, anyone out there happen to have a copy of "Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America"? I have a xerox copy of that hard-to-find manual given me by an exceptional gentleman (thanks, Jim McD!!), but would like the book.

Now that I have had a chance to peruse “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, I still have a question or two. On page 72, the authors use the term “Colonial Rapier” to describe a cup hilt much like the one I posted here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...0&postcount=63

I wouldn’t have described this as a rapier. It seem more like a “broadsword”. The blade width at forte: 1 inch || 2.54 cm.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a rapier as “A thin, light, sharp-pointed sword used for thrusting”. The Dictionary goes on to say this about the origin of the word.

Early 16th century: from French rapière, from râpe 'rasp, grater' (because the perforated hilt resembles a rasp or grater).

Just how wide can a cup hilts blade be before it is no longer considered a rapier?

Hi Dana,
Again, there are typically no set specifications per se' for classification terminology (they are more 'guidelines' ), and one of the most frustrating issues is that semantics and parlance are often at play with descriptions . The term rapier is of course associated with the thin thrusting swords such as cuphilts and swept hits and thought of in fencing and dueling. The term broadened somewhat at the opening of the 18th century (much as the blades) when these typically civilian hilts became more prevalent in military circumstances. The hilts often remained much the same but the heavier blades were 'arming' swords so vernacular terms became entwined.

The term broadsword for example is typically regarded as meaning double edged, however in the 18th century the term was often universally used for both single and double edged swords. "By the Sword" by Cohen, and "Schools and Masters of Fence",by Egerton Castle, often touch on these curious terminology conundrums .

I prefer to classify using more descriptive terms rather than the general classifications which as can be seen, are not always properly used. For the colonial cuphilts I would use probably 'Spanish colonial cuphilt' and describe the blade. Classifications using strictly categorized terms are often better used with required descriptive qualification to define variation.

That is helpful Jim. Maybe I am trying too hard to find generally agreed upon classifications for something that has too many exceptions. The problem I run into is a cup hilt like the one shown below.

I would call this one a beautiful bowl cup hilt rapier ;)

Thanks fernando, I am glad you like it.

I have searched in vain for the term "bowl cup hilt" being used to describe a rapier. Is that a translation of some Portuguese description.

It is true that the cup hilt of this sword is more shallow and also offset to one side. It is obviously designed for a right handed user. The cup seems to be cast with floral decorations in high relief. The pommel is decorated with a with floral pattern too. The quillons are attached to small extensions on the lip of the cup. What do you think, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian? For some reason it looks almost French to me. Maybe from some place near the Pyrenees?

The blade would seem to be one of those German imports that Jim has often mentioned.

Blade length: 36 3/16 inches || 91.916 cm
Blade thickness at forte: 3/8 inch || 0.953 cm
Blade width at forte: 5/8 inch || 1.588 cm
Quillons extension: 2 3/16 inches from cup edge on the knuckle bow side || 5.556 cm
Cup width: 4 7/16 inches where Quillon meet the cup || 11.271 cm
Total length: 42 inches || 106.68 cm
Point of balance: about 4 inches from the bottom of the cup
Weight: 1 lb, 8 1/2 oz || 0.695 kg


Photos are copyright (c) 2014 by Dana K. Williams. All Rights Are Reserved.

Yes, this is the translation for 'copos de tigela' This way you can distinguish the 'basic' bowl (tigela) from other shapes of cups (copos), like the 'margarida' (daisy-flower) or 'conchas' (shells).

,

Certainly a German blade, possibly from the XVIII century. Can't you figure out the name between Iohannes and Solingen ?

On one side it reads MORSACH and on the other MORSBACH.

JOHANNES MORSBACH SOLINGEN