Originally Posted by Jim McDougall (Post 274783)

I was rather awaiting more detail on this from Fernando, as he is by far the authority on things Portuguese here, and my feel is this is most likely a Portuguese example of a munitions grade, ersatz weapon. The fact that this is a composite weapon does not detract from its viability, as rural posts in the Iberian peninsula as well of course colonial regions of both Portugal and Spain well used these kinds of arms.

While this has the overall feel of mid 18th c., the cup hilt remained in use throughout and in colonial settings even longer. The broad shoulder blade which tapers dramatically to point seems somewhat like earlier Portuguese types. However, without fullers and in this section, especially with the notable numbers and other possible proof or other stamps remind me of training type blades of later period. Clearly the training purpose with sharp point is contrary to that as these blades are typically rounded. The pommel appears of latter 18th c.
The quillon style, faux rompepuntas resemble some Portuguese examples in this period and classification.

The wire grip is unusual and of some concern, Is it cast and rusty or painted?

I look forward to comments toward my thoughts.

Originally Posted by ASPaulding (Post 274793)

The grip is very rusty. I would like to clean the surface rust but I heard you should never touch hilt. What is your suggestion?

Originally Posted by ASPaulding (Post 274792)

35 1/2" total length; 29" blade length.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall (Post 274783)

... I was rather awaiting more detail on this from Fernando, as he is by far the authority on things Portuguese here, and my feel is this is most likely a Portuguese example of a munitions grade, ersatz weapon...

Originally Posted by fernando (Post 274801)

Jim, definitely i am not such a connoisseur; once things are not explicit, i am completely lost :o.
To say this example does not fall (to me) within the regular range. I would not know how to explain the atypicaly (curve) tapering shape (certainly not due to over sharpening) and that array of digits.vBoth these and what appears to be a mark (?) deserve better pictures, for a possible better diagnosis attempt. Maybe ASPaulding can do that for us ?
The 'knob' with which the knuckle guard joins the pommel, may we call it atypical ?
I have never heard of a detail such as faux rompepuntas; could this just be an 'exuberant' rim ?

Originally Posted by fernando (Post 274806)

Better view of the blade base and knuckle guard. Still the grip wrapping not clear.
Hopefuly some member able to ID those numbers.

Originally Posted by fernando (Post 274801)

Jim, definitely i am not such a connoisseur; once things are not explicit, i am completely lost :o.
To say this example does not fall (to me) within the regular range. I would not know how to explain the atypicaly (curve) tapering shape (certainly not due to over sharpening) and that array of digits.vBoth these and what appears to be a mark (?) deserve better pictures, for a possible better diagnosis attempt. Maybe ASPaulding can do that for us ?
The 'knob' with which the knuckle guard joins the pommel, may we call it atypical ?
I have never heard of a detail such as faux rompepuntas; could this just be an 'exuberant' rim ?

Originally Posted by werecow (Post 274817)

Not a connoisseur either, so maybe I'm way off, but given the active rust on the grip wire and missing turks heads knots or spacers, the blade being shorter than is common, the military markings on the blade, and the fact that the shoulders of the blade don't quite align with the guard, I'm guessing a composite with a smallsword or spadroon blade (a bit chunky for a smallsword maybe), cup hilt rapier guard and pommel, and recent replacement grip wire? Or maybe the grip just got wet recently and that's why the rust looks newer.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall (Post 274818)

Fernando, you are always too modest, I know you too well over these many years, and know how many of these you have handled. I know you typically step aside to allow more free flowing observation from members to facilitate discussion.
Conversely I usually blast in, but pretty much expect much of my observation or theory to be corrected or elucidated, as actually I hope for. It is how I (we) learn .
For example, the more I look at this, I think my training blade idea is not right, but the numbering at the forte is certainly known on Solingen trade blades of 19th c. This is not something normally seen on any sort of rapier or other blade of the period intended for this rapier. The marking(s) or simply too defaced for any accurate assessment.
Such defacement has many causes/reasons mostly to obliterate the identification of a mark or sometimes some symbolic removal, the numbers are irrelevant in that regard as they are simply administrative or inventory.

The 'knob' or widening at end of knuckle guard is correct for rapiers, and the shape concurs with the quillon terminals, another plus.

While the pommel seems latter 18th c. I cannot say it might not be earlier.

On the 'rim'.....the exuberance was all mine :), and the 'rompepuntas' (folded over lip on cup of this form) was open, not solid on period examples of 17th c.
Things began changing of course as this cuphilt style began becoming an arming type sword (which this is) in the 18th century, perhaps even earlier in less metropolitan settings, and cup element became solid cast. In many colonial types it is absent altogether.

It seems this blade has been as observed, shortened as this dramatic reduction to sharp point is unusual on these lenticular type blades IMO.

With the grip, this is far too perfect of course for actual wire and this seems some sort of cast sheet, as usual turks heads absent. Rust removal simply WD40, as always just stabilizing and cleaning minimally as required.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall (Post 274825)

Please note I did amend my suggestion that this grip was some sort of cast sheet, it still seems cast but in simulated wire.
The term transition toward rapiers is extremely vague, but seems to apply mostly to hilt styles with rapiers vs small swords and the elements of these.
The blades on rapiers had been traditionally thin thrusting blades often of notable length, 32" to 40" or even longer in some cases.

The small sword blade which evolved toward end of 18th century has become known as the 'colichemarde' which tried to combine the more substantial forte (elongated to over a third of the blade for parrying) with the narrow thin thrusting rapier blade. In effect this blade might be a kind of hybrid with the direct descent from wide to narrow point without the immediate change in blade width part way down the blade.

Optimistically speaking, while possible, the elliptical section of the blade and the numbering at the forte is concerning in regard to a hybrid of this sort from 18th c. The suggestion is offered only as an analogy regarding the comparison of blades in 18th c.
As an arming sword, blades of 29" are not unreasonably unusual and in colonial environment long blades were an encumbrance not especially like by the men.

For my feel on this, it still seems an ersatz weapon of munitions grade for colonial or rurally posted units either Spanish or Portuguese but hard to say when alterations were made, late 18th into 19th. ?

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall (Post 274818)

Fernando, you are always too modest, I know you too well over these many years, and know how many of these you have handled. I know you typically step aside to allow more free flowing observation from members to facilitate discussion.
Conversely I usually blast in, but pretty much expect much of my observation or theory to be corrected or elucidated, as actually I hope for. It is how I (we) learn .
For example, the more I look at this, I think my training blade idea is not right, but the numbering at the forte is certainly known on Solingen trade blades of 19th c. This is not something normally seen on any sort of rapier or other blade of the period intended for this rapier. The marking(s) or simply too defaced for any accurate assessment.
Such defacement has many causes/reasons mostly to obliterate the identification of a mark or sometimes some symbolic removal, the numbers are irrelevant in that regard as they are simply administrative or inventory.

The 'knob' or widening at end of knuckle guard is correct for rapiers, and the shape concurs with the quillon terminals, another plus.

While the pommel seems latter 18th c. I cannot say it might not be earlier.

On the 'rim'.....the exuberance was all mine :), and the 'rompepuntas' (folded over lip on cup of this form) was open, not solid on period examples of 17th c.
Things began changing of course as this cuphilt style began becoming an arming type sword (which this is) in the 18th century, perhaps even earlier in less metropolitan settings, and cup element became solid cast. In many colonial types it is absent altogether.

It seems this blade has been as observed, shortened as this dramatic reduction to sharp point is unusual on these lenticular type blades IMO.

With the grip, obviously restoration work, but perhaps cast? with usual turks heads absent. Rust removal simply WD40, as always just stabilizing and cleaning minimally as required.