My "new" cup hilt sword for your kind comments

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I think the only reason that the "colonial" thought is still being tossed around is #1-the fancier types owned by private citizens, gentlemen, aristocrats, etc and #2-the confusion with the so-named colonial Spanish cup-hilt rapiers from the New World. These, as you know, are plainer than their European cousins, lack many of the design nuances such as the bowl rim, possess plainer grips (usually horn) and quillons and have specific characteristics marking them as from the New World (such as the mushroom-shaped pommels). In retrospect, yours does not have many of these features, so I agree that this is as you pointed out, a military version of it's richer cousin, but you can see why there were comparisons. Sometimes when one sees a piece that stands out and is not of the typical pattern (and your Goliath blade does that!!), one might assume it is from 'other ports'...

Duly noted Mark; notwithstanding different perspectives, or different angles in which the (Spanish version)colonial atribution is viewed. A highly regarded Spanish dealer, when describing some (Colonial) sword i bought him, said:

Title:
Cup sword. Spain, colonies, around 1700.
Description:

Iron garnish, consisting of a sober cup with a rim, straight quillons, knuckle guard and pommel. Very wide wooden grip, lined in stingray skin. The status of "colonial" is determined by various aspects, one of which is the silver elements that compose it: ferrules, decorative rivets on the cup bowl, trim on the quillons and hoop, decorated nails and longitudinal bars on the grip. We also highlight the simulated recasso in gilted brass (photo 4). Straight blade, with with two fullers in its first third. The engraving of the legend "DON'T DRAW ME OUT WITHOUT RASON - DON'T SHEATH ME WITHOUT HONOR" is insinuated, although due to wear it is illegible.


Isn't this a somehow different aspproach ? I don't need to upload the sword in question; you will imagine how "not plain" it is by the above description .

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... never stated how much i love this piece!

Thank you so much .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Duly noted Mark; notwithstanding different perspectives, or different angles in which the (Spanish version)colonial atribution is viewed. A highly regarded Spanish dealer, when describing some (Colonial) sword i bought him, said:

Title:
Cup sword. Spain, colonies, around 1700.
Description:

Iron garnish, consisting of a sober cup with a rim, straight quillons, knuckle guard and pommel. Very wide wooden grip, lined in stingray skin. The status of "colonial" is determined by various aspects, one of which is the silver elements that compose it: ferrules, decorative rivets on the cup bowl, trim on the quillons and hoop, decorated nails and longitudinal bars on the grip. We also highlight the simulated recasso in gilted brass (photo 4). Straight blade, with with two fullers in its first third. The engraving of the legend "DON'T DRAW ME OUT WITHOUT RASON - DON'T SHEATH ME WITHOUT HONOR" is insinuated, although due to wear it is illegible.


Isn't this a somehow different aspproach ? I don't need to upload the sword in question; you will imagine how "not plain" it is by the above description .


Thank you so much .

Always interesting rebuttal Fernando, certainly adds dimension to the discussion by bringing out different perspectives !

I very much like the assessment of 'colonial' which Mark's wonderfully worded description presents. The term 'colonial' ,which is agreeably a most ephemeral description of the character of certain weapons in typed groups, is truly often misunderstood.

It is most typically (in my experience) associated with Spanish colonial swords and weapons in the New World (the Americas), however it is easy to presume that Portuguese colonies would experience some degree of the same application.

The simplicity often associated with colonial weapons of course may be aligned with Peninsular production weapons which were made in the form of higher end weapons but intended for rank and file. It should be remembered that in most cases, highly 'worked' and embellished weapons were privately commissioned by officers; while the 'armory' or munitions grade examples were typically produced in multiple numbers and purchased by unit commanders to be issued to troops.

Those weapons which fall into the 'netherworld' between may be with regard to the oft cases of officers who used 'fighting swords' on campaign. While certainly ego, tradition and status might compel many officers to carry thier elegant dress weapons (many officers did not engage and simply used these to signal or direct with according authority).

With 'colonial' examples, these (especially in Mexico) were often locally made examples using blades imported, heirloom or otherwise acquired with various components, emulating the much admired swords of Spanish officers there.
I have seen almost bizarre combinations of various forms which were entirely not congruent to their host forms, such as the bilbo or cup hilt, where the cup and cross guard (obviously redundant) were both present.

There are also examples of 'colonial' examples become, in a word' nearly garish in their interpretation of the beautifully worked higher end examples.
The example described by Fernando may be in this category (though it is not pictured) in degree. The blade is quite likely one of the 'Spanish motto' blades produced in Solingen in the 18th century specifically for export to Spain's colonies. I have seen countless examples of these blades on swords in that context which have been remounted well into the 19th c.

With regard to the use of religious devices and symbology, I think it is important to note that many of these military orders were with deep religious connection, so use of invocations and devotional devices is hardly unusual.
With groups of letters which appear to have no familiar meaning or seem disconnected, in my understanding these are often most likely 'acrostics' (that is the first letters of phrases, mottos etc) which are meant to be recognized by those so initiated.
I have a cuphilt with a curious assembly of such letters, which is presumably associated with a fraternal/ secret ? organization of years before, and an acrostic as described.

Many swords have these kinds of acrostic situations engraved in blades, which was a traditional convention from medieval times carried forth very much in Italy (I believe Caino blades were known for this).

While the brevity of this group of course could suggest initials, that seems less likely than the possibility otherwise to me. Often the decoration and associations on blades were controversial, so makers may have been less likely to 'sign' work due to possible repercussions. They did not necessarily hold to the convictions of the client.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The example described by Fernando may be in this category (though it is not pictured) in degree. The blade is quite likely one of the 'Spanish motto' blades produced in Solingen in the 18th century specifically for export to Spain's colonies. I have seen countless examples of these blades on swords in that context which have been remounted well into the 19th c...

C'mon Jim, is that what you infer from the description ? I am so frustrated that it wasn't clear enough and gave a wrong interpretation ... 19th. century ?. See PICTURES HERE .

[Jim McDougall]

C'mon Fernando, it was more my 'interpretation' than your description. I already had in mind the examples I had seen which did often closely respond to those you described, at least in my mind.

Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it varies from the standards of the Continental examples of the form.
As I explained then, the 'skin' used on the grip I believe to be 'galuchat', a faux rayskin developed by a leather worker in the court of Louis XV around 1760s. This was seeds embedded in untreated horse skin to give the hide appearance of the rayskin, and dyed accordingly.


In kind, I do hope the rest of my missive was somewhat decipherable in describing my views on this subject.

Interesting that while my descriptions of Caribbean/colonial cuphilts lent toward dramatic austerity, this one is nicely done with the grip material as well as turned quillon terminals. On your example the terminals are simply bulbous, but unworked. This observation is just that, and not meant to classify or categorize yours or any other cuphilt example. For me, the entire genre is fascinating regardless of these factors!

I took the liberty of extracting a photo from the thread you linked and cuphilt described for the benefit of readers for visual comparison to what we are referring to. The box is of the galuchat material, again for comparison.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it hardly meets the standards of the Continental examples of the form...

Hardly the point, dear Jim; which was (in my atempt) to oppose to the idea that 'Colonial' (tricky term) swords aren't necessarily plain in their construction, as has been put; wooden grips, plain cup bowl and all that. But make no big issue of the subject; we were probably transmitting in different frequencies .

PS
Too late i saw that you have added a couple more paragraphs to your previous entry .


.

[Jim McDougall]

'well there ya go' , as they say in these parts
Exactly, but of course we are often on different frequencies saying basically the same thing.
In my comments toward colonial 'styling' or lack thereof, I used the words 'simplicity OFTEN associated with colonial weapons'.

It does seem that words so often can carry so many meanings beyond what was intended, which is why my entries are 'often' so complex, as I try to qualify and explain my comments.

While it does seem we are deviating from the OP, actually, these observations are key to properly classifying these swords (or reliably attempting to).
There are no 'cut and dry' solutions, as 'colonial' weapons may have been put together in rural or remote locations without the supply, artisans and materials available to makers in Continental or Peninsular cities.

By the same token, many swords may have been put together in locations equally remote on the Continent etc. as well.

Again, it is important to remember that while officers and gentry would privately commission appropriately high end swords, the 'munitions' or 'issue' weapons would have been produced in accord with skills of the maker as well as the costs involved. Many units, especially cavalry, were elite, and deemed extensions of the officers themselves so well appointed, while many units were simply 'field forces' whose weapons need by sturdy but not necessarily stylish.

[M ELEY]

Excellent arguments, gentlemen. All very important points either way. It really doesn't matter, though, as this piece is hardly a put-together or blacksmith rendition. The 'could be' might never be fully answered, but this sword is so magnificent, who cares at this point! I have never looked down on colonial pieces (NOT saying this is one) as they are an important and integral part of the big historical picture.

Going back to the screw-tang, did we ever determine when this practice was started? Obviously, screws have been around since the Middle Ages and many components of armor possess said attachments. I know Scottish basket hilts with 'screw' pommels started appearing in the last quarter of the 18th century. Many of the Dutch pieces circa 1700 had the off-set screw/nut attachment for the knucklebow.