A cup hilt sword for coments.

dana_w · 9th June 2014, 04:01 PM

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.

M ELEY · 11th June 2014, 04:30 AM

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.

dana_w · 12th June 2014, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

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.

dana_w · 12th June 2014, 06:58 PM

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

M ELEY · 13th June 2014, 12:15 AM

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.

dana_w · 16th June 2014, 04:26 PM

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?

Jim McDougall · 16th June 2014, 10:09 PM

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.

9th June 2014, 04:01 PM	#1
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 436	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. Attached Images

11th June 2014, 04:30 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,196	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.

12th June 2014, 06:58 PM	#4
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 436	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

13th June 2014, 12:15 AM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,196	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.

16th June 2014, 04:26 PM	#6
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 436	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?

16th June 2014, 10:09 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,587	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.