1630s English basket hilts

[Jim McDougall]

Keith, we seem to be crossing posts! Good note on walloons, but they would not be termed basket hilts. Trying to find more on Stone and his 'enterprises'. As Fernando has observed, and we have found in earlier study, he was hardly a sword 'maker', but more an enterprising dealer. The note on brass is interesting and another reason he liked being outside the scope of the Cutlers Co.

[Jim McDougall]

In "British Military Swords" by Stuart Mowbray, 2013, p.42
"...Stone was a member of the Cutlers Co.who was already supplying large consignments of IMPORTED SWORDS to the ordnance".
Referring to the bringing in of German smiths from Holland in 1629. It is noted he became associated with Hounslow from then until the exodus of many of the smiths to Oxford in 1642 but it took some time to get things running.

This 'basket' , Dutch, c. 1560, seems to be of the general form of that period in Netherlands and in England (the commonality between Dutch and English swords seems well established) and likely for some time. It is interesting of course that when Charles I recruited German smiths in 1629, they came from Holland. In these times in England swords which were often German were termed 'Dutch', with 'duetsche' being the intended term.

the page from Blair, (1981, op.cit.).

[urbanspaceman]

I think the Mary Rose sword is the answer; I have to confess to complete ignorance regarding the Mary Rose but then I'm still very much climbing a steep learning curve in almost all aspects of arms and militaria.
Holland does keep appearing on the radar however.
Given our long standing (60 years) involvement in the Dutch/Portuguese war, it would not surprise me if those basket hilts (as posted) were exactly what Stone was supplying.
I suggested that after the other two wars recently ended that we may have needed serious re-arming, but perhaps Stone was re-furbishing arms returned home to rust.
The issue of the rapidity of supply by Stone is well taken: 3,500+ swords in two years staring from scratch seems rather unlikely.
There was a constant war going on between Stone and the Cutlers Company; it is probably impossible to establish the rights and wrongs of the issues, considering just how many issues there were in attendance at any given moment.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

I think the Mary Rose sword is the answer; I have to confess to complete ignorance regarding the Mary Rose but then I'm still very much climbing a steep learning curve in almost all aspects of arms and militaria.
Holland does keep appearing on the radar however.
Given our long standing (60 years) involvement in the Dutch/Portuguese war, it would not surprise me if those basket hilts (as posted) were exactly what Stone was supplying.
I suggested that after the other two wars recently ended that we may have needed serious re-arming, but perhaps Stone was re-furbishing arms returned home to rust.
The issue of the rapidity of supply by Stone is well taken: 3,500+ swords in two years staring from scratch seems rather unlikely.
There was a constant war going on between Stone and the Cutlers Company; it is probably impossible to establish the rights and wrongs of the issues, considering just how many issues there were in attendance at any given moment.

I have had to reread much of the detail on the Mary Rose as I cannot claim any particular knowledge on this most historic shipwreck. However in looking through details today, I was surprised to discover there was not just one of the basket type swords, but several (which did not survive physically but details in concretion revealed their shapes etc) so clearly they were in use in numbers.
Similar types of basket hilt had been known in England even earlier, with examples found in the Jamestown colony in America in 1607, and one found in the wreck of the "Sea Venture" off Bermuda in 1609 (the inspiration for Shakespeares "The Tempest"). Mazansky did a radiological study of this sword in several articles.

From what I have understood, while Stone had membership in the Cutlers Co. he operated outside the jurisdictional boundaries, and as the Hounslow operation had been sanctioned by Charles I, he sort of had that in his favor so was basically left alone. The entire circumstances involving imported blades, swords etc. were wrought with intrigues, and the entirety of these matters for generations is clouded with mystery and deception, much of which you have set straight in your research and book. Yet much remains unclear, and may never be revealed for certain.

All of this has revealed the extensive and often complex development of the basket hilt leading to that of the Highland basket hilt which was actually earlier than often realized and apparently evolved in English and European contexts prior to the Scottish adoption in the now familiar forms.

[Peter Hudson]

From; https://maryrose.org/meet-the-soldiers/

[urbanspaceman]

I came across the American Society of Arms Collectors website and an article by Jeffrey Ross on 'The Evolution of the basket hilted sword form from the 16th to the 18th centuries'.
I am sure this society is well known to you all.
The article is most informative and shows excellent examples of basket hilts.

Again, I am certain this is all old news to most of you but it is fascinating new territory to me and continues the input from you folks to establish what was almost certainly the Stone 'baskets' of 1631. See below.
The first from 1550 is described as either English or Scottish.
The second from 1590 is Scottish.
The final from 1625 is English and probably what Stone supplied.

The question that remains unanswered is: was Stone able to produce the numbers of 'new' swords he claimed. He invested heavily at the start (£8,000) and may well have been up and running rapidly enough to supply the "1,000 complete swords a month, of equivalent quality at a lower price than German imports"; the king certainly believed him.

What is especially interesting to me is that Birmingham blades were appearing at The Tower at that time (1630) and were universally declared as unacceptably inferior. A century later they had not improved much; it took the arrival of Shotley Bridge smiths to raise the standard.
The Oleys arrived there soon after:
the first indication I have found so far is William Olley (sic) in 1738. William was a second generation (born 1699) Shotley Bridge forger.
It has long been obvious to me that someone brought high quality forging techniques into Birmingham.
I am wondering if perhaps Olley established his own forge down there and supplied local swordsmiths... hence the appearance of the Oley symbol of the Bushy Tailed Fox.

I fear I have moved beyond my initial subject.

[Jim McDougall]

Peter, thank you for the image of the complete sword from the Mary Rose.
Your thread on this famous shipwreck is outstanding, and I wanted to chime in with focus on the weaponry, most notably of course this basket hilt. Here is the perfect alignment of that.
What I found amazing from some material I found is that there were apparently more of these types aboard as well, so clearly in use by one of the military contingents. This one appears to be the only one that survived intact.

Keith,
I think you are spot on with the form basket surmised to be the likely one Stone supplied. While he was 'tooling up' the Hounslow enterprise from 1629 it is noted he was 'importing' foreign swords (not just blades). It seems unlikely that the King cared where the swords were from. In this entire situation it seems apparent that the import of German blades to in effect 'salt' the production volume at Hounslow was in degree present through the scope of its presence. Stone was enterprising enough to 'broker' these kinds of deals...he was supplying swords...regardless of who made them, however the King wanted them produced in England ...Stone likely made it seem as though they were.

The Oley's and the fox has been a quandary for some time, and that connection seems to have solved the mystery of the 'running fox' (cf. running wolf of Passau) of Birmingham.

While some of these details may be perceived as outside the topic at hand in discussion, they are often inextricably pertinent in the overall understanding of the subject matter.