Spanish Bilbo Circa 1700

Cathey · 3rd January 2018, 05:08 AM

Hi Guys

the picture does not show it well but the blade is a back sword for 2/3 rd's and spear for the remaining length.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

Victrix · 3rd January 2018, 06:14 AM

Hi Cathey and Rex,

Lovely sword! Thanks for posting. I can see the flat edge in the top right photo. Lange messer springs to mind. It’s clearly intended as a cutting (chopping) weapon. Interesting that the blade has no fullers so the strenth is more important than agility. It seems to me that these Boca de Caballos or Espada de Conchas are all different, especially the blades. So production was not standardized and the customer was likely able to choose his favoured blade on which the hafters had fashioned a hilt. Is it possible that the ”H” is a picture of a small animal, like a perillo?

Best wishes for the New Year 2018.

fernando · 3rd January 2018, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victrix

...It seems to me that these Boca de Caballos or Espada de Conchas are all different, especially the blades. So production was not standardized and the customer was likely able to choose his favoured blade on which the hafters had fashioned a hilt...

Apparently efforts were made throughout first mid XVII century to obtain a definite normalization, but we have to consider that non rank and file versions were still of free choice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victrix

... Is it possible that the ”H” is a picture of a small animal, like a perillo?...

It would have to be an atypical version

. Looking again into this, we see no trace of this punzon in the Catalogue of the Real Armeria, either. The only 'somehow' resembling this mark i spotted is in Gyngell's ARMOURERS MARKS (1959) as a secondary (?) mark for Juanes de la Huerta, AKA Juan de la Horta, or Orta, a famous master active in the XVI century. Don't ask me where in hell Gyngell found this mark, or a blade with it.

.

fernando · 5th January 2018, 12:01 PM

Time to rewind some previous assessments, as certainly contained erroneous conclusions.
I let myself concur with the mark in the ricasso being from a blade smith, forgetting that, the days in which this practice used to take place, were gone by the time the discussed sword was produced.
What actually started to appear with the founding of the Toledo Factory by Carlos III around 1760 was the inspection mark, that imposed by a Factory examining master. This was composed by a team of expert smiths, the first leading one being Dom Manuel Fernandez, as sourced by Juan José Pérez. This not meaning that this blade was produced in Toledo, at least until factual evidence is shown but, that circumstances appoint to such conclusion, is a point to consider. Its body inscriptions having probably been remarked, would not appoint to it being from a different origin but a swap of regimental allocations or an attitude of equivalent grade, for what this matters. Some remaining letters could denounce inscriptions relative to CABALLERIA DE LINEA, the broken D could be part of the King's crowned R, you name it. On the other hand, it remains hard to accept that this remarking operation was not not done by the Toledo Factory; even the 'asterisks' are precisely the same as those in other blades.
We may eventlly find in Calvó's ARMAMENTO ESPAÑOL ... blades of such extensive length as the one discussed, mounted in what he calls 'Arms for Personal Equipment', swords with blades with a square back in a little more than two thirds; this meaning that there were blade profiles for all tastes.
Nothing much to add to the discussed hilt; only that, having its shells fixed by four screws, would then be a Toledo Factory issue. The previous version of this 1728 model sword had such improvement from two screws introduced when starting its production in the Factory. It was already approached that, the straight quillons in this 'later' version was not common ... but possible. It is even registere that, in some cases, was the owner that had them straightened up.

.

Victrix · 5th January 2018, 02:22 PM

Hi Fernando,

Interesting to hear about the inspector mark. The straight quillons might be favoured by cavalry as they assist in keeping the sword straight (balanced) in order when galloping. I noticed Swedish infantry swords from early 1700s have only one straight quillon whilst cavalry swords have two. The reason for this is speculation on my part. Schiavonas have one straight quillon which many users bent so it did not turn during movement and hit the wearer in the ribs. It’s been suggested that the Schiavonas which still have a straight quillon were not worn but were stored in arsenals.

Does the sword in the post above have a leather covered grip or is that wood we see in the picture?

Many thanks.

fernando · 5th January 2018, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victrix

... Does the sword in the post above have a leather covered grip or is that wood we see in the picture ?...

In the above Carlos III hilt version, the wood part is visible because the grip is missing the wire wrapping and the vertical reinforcement bars. I just selected such example to emphasize the inspection mark issue.

.

Cathey · 7th January 2018, 03:35 AM

Hi Fernando

And thank you for all of the information you keep finding, its extremely interesting. Looks like the H may be an inspection mark as you suggest. I hope others will post further examples with the straight quillons for comparison.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

3rd January 2018, 05:08 AM	#1
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 284	Yes it's a backsword Hi Guys the picture does not show it well but the blade is a back sword for 2/3 rd's and spear for the remaining length. Cheers Cathey and Rex

5th January 2018, 12:01 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Time to rewind some previous assessments, as certainly contained erroneous conclusions. I let myself concur with the mark in the ricasso being from a blade smith, forgetting that, the days in which this practice used to take place, were gone by the time the discussed sword was produced. What actually started to appear with the founding of the Toledo Factory by Carlos III around 1760 was the inspection mark, that imposed by a Factory examining master. This was composed by a team of expert smiths, the first leading one being Dom Manuel Fernandez, as sourced by Juan José Pérez. This not meaning that this blade was produced in Toledo, at least until factual evidence is shown but, that circumstances appoint to such conclusion, is a point to consider. Its body inscriptions having probably been remarked, would not appoint to it being from a different origin but a swap of regimental allocations or an attitude of equivalent grade, for what this matters. Some remaining letters could denounce inscriptions relative to CABALLERIA DE LINEA, the broken D could be part of the King's crowned R, you name it. On the other hand, it remains hard to accept that this remarking operation was not not done by the Toledo Factory; even the 'asterisks' are precisely the same as those in other blades. We may eventlly find in Calvó's ARMAMENTO ESPAÑOL ... blades of such extensive length as the one discussed, mounted in what he calls 'Arms for Personal Equipment', swords with blades with a square back in a little more than two thirds; this meaning that there were blade profiles for all tastes. Nothing much to add to the discussed hilt; only that, having its shells fixed by four screws, would then be a Toledo Factory issue. The previous version of this 1728 model sword had such improvement from two screws introduced when starting its production in the Factory. It was already approached that, the straight quillons in this 'later' version was not common ... but possible. It is even registere that, in some cases, was the owner that had them straightened up. . Attached Images

7th January 2018, 03:35 AM	#7
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 284	Inspecion mark makes sense Hi Fernando And thank you for all of the information you keep finding, its extremely interesting. Looks like the H may be an inspection mark as you suggest. I hope others will post further examples with the straight quillons for comparison. Cheers Cathey and Rex

3rd January 2018, 06:14 AM	#2
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	Hi Cathey and Rex, Lovely sword! Thanks for posting. I can see the flat edge in the top right photo. Lange messer springs to mind. It’s clearly intended as a cutting (chopping) weapon. Interesting that the blade has no fullers so the strenth is more important than agility. It seems to me that these Boca de Caballos or Espada de Conchas are all different, especially the blades. So production was not standardized and the customer was likely able to choose his favoured blade on which the hafters had fashioned a hilt. Is it possible that the ”H” is a picture of a small animal, like a perillo? Best wishes for the New Year 2018.

5th January 2018, 02:22 PM	#5
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	Hi Fernando, Interesting to hear about the inspector mark. The straight quillons might be favoured by cavalry as they assist in keeping the sword straight (balanced) in order when galloping. I noticed Swedish infantry swords from early 1700s have only one straight quillon whilst cavalry swords have two. The reason for this is speculation on my part. Schiavonas have one straight quillon which many users bent so it did not turn during movement and hit the wearer in the ribs. It’s been suggested that the Schiavonas which still have a straight quillon were not worn but were stored in arsenals. Does the sword in the post above have a leather covered grip or is that wood we see in the picture? Many thanks.