[Jim McDougall]

Hi Nando,
This is the beauty of discussion, and why it means so much, at least to me, to have questions asked regarding text in my posts. I learn by researching and posting what I have learned, and in many instances my wording can be unclear. Also, often I may make comment without rechecking original sources, which in this case, applies to the hilt style on this cuphilt.

I rechecked " Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821" (Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972) where one of these 'colonial' cuphilts appears (p.73, plate 130) and is indeed shown as c.1700. In the example shown, which was owned by Harold Peterson, the knucklebow is squared rather than curved, and there are minimal differences in the quillon terminals and pommel collar. These variations are so slight that they should be deemed inconsequential, and as with most colonial weapons, the 1700 date somewhat arbitrary.

Going to the grip material, I should clarify that the term 'shagreen' was originally used for rough untanned rawhide or leather often from a horses back. By the late 17th century and into the 18th the term had become applied to the use of sharkskin or rayskin, as had become known from Oriental weapons. While sharkskin is noted along with the rayskin, they are actually noticeably different and our focus is on the rayskin (probably the pearled ray, Hypolophus Sepheri) which has calcified papillae (look like pearls or domed pustules).

In rereading material, it seems that there was an earlier practice of creating faux rayskin by embedding plant seeds in the untreated horsehide while soft and trampling upon it, creating the papillaed effect. Presumably by 'earlier' this would suggest the end of the 17th century. By latter in the 18th century the use of rayskin and dying it from the back in green dye was popularized by Galuchat as previously noted.

The 'starburst' effect on these 'pearled' features on this grip, suggest that they have had force, such as crushing, effected upon them. The absence of the domes in some places suggest that possibly, if these were created by seeds, many had fallen away during the process. Since as mentioned, this process was an 'earlier' one, this may support the late 17th c. early 18th date we are seeking.

Also, regarding the 'Spanish motto' NO ME SAQUES SIN RAZON
NO ME ENVAYNES SIN HONOR
or its variations, this one listed in the Wallace Collection A641, and describing the blade as German late 17th-early 18th century. The author, Sir James Mann (1962) notes further in text that this motto occurs on blades c,1770 traded by P.Knecht in Solingen. This was a blade trading family, not makers, and presumably these were the 'dragoon' type blades I had noted earlier, and as described in Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain (op. cit.).

Since the blade is triangularly elongated, though also broadsword, it conforms more to earlier type blades, again supporting the earlier c.1700 date. It is my impression as well from the references in Wallace Collection, that the motto doublet appears in full with both lines on the blade face, rather than each line on opposite sides on the c.1770 dragoon blades.

I think these views will better support the earlier date and nature of this cuphilt which I consider a magnificent example of these outstanding and rugged examples of Spanish cuphilt from the New Spain frontiers.

Mark, as for the use of narwhal on the baskethilts, I would at this point consider such examples to be anomalies, but certainly well placed and desirable. Since this highly storied material was well known through the North Atlantic, especially with the Norse, I cannot see why it would not have been used for extremely high end examples of Scottish sword. The accompanying lore and myth associating these of course was maintained with that of the unicorn until very late times, which by that time had become more tradition than literal acceptance of myth. I'd really like to see examples of these Scottish swords with such hilts though!!!

All best regards,
Jim