![]()  | 
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#30 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Jul 2009 
				Location: Nipmuc USA 
				
				
					Posts: 535
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			So, some first impressions with the sword in hand.  No way I would suspect it to be a Victorian or later attempt.  The hilt is comprised (as I suspected) as several individual pieces, joined and peened.   The castings of the writhen elements actually quite delicate, with the grip sounding as not too hollow a shell.  Speaking only to the hilt, the annelets are large enough to treat as a rapier grip.  The grip by itself between the ferrules is 3".  Photos in hand to follow. 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	Now some nitty gritty. The weight is considerable at 2.5 pounds (spring fish De-liar scale) eek, right? Well, hold on here, mixed dimensions Blade length is at 33" as shown. Width at the guard 27 mm Thickness at the guard 7 mm A very linear forte distal Thickness at the pob still 6mm a fighting distance from the guard pob at roughly 4" The blade (in my mind) shortened from a blade that was likely about 40" long at its original use Thickness at the point 2.5 mm The blade has the feel of varnish and the clank of a sword with good spring. Perfectly ovoid lenticular. Sorry, no spreadsheet. I judge swords as fencible or not. At a pound more than a light magic spadroon, it is still at the range of what a longer rapier might tip 3 lbs or more. Instantly appraised before I opened the USPS priority box, I was under no allusion it would be a box of air, as felt with an epee. I feel it was a marriage sometime before 1700 but folk are welcome to disagree. For me, as with so many, the questions of its history will always be there. My take is someone wanted a weapon, not a decoration. Pictures and more thoughts to come Cheers GC  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
		
  | 
	
		
  |