Basket hilted swords

[BlackcapBob]

Good Evening, This is my first post and first basket hilted sword which I recent bought, any comments or advice will be gratefully received.

The sword from my limited research I believe dates from around 1600 ?? and is English, with a Solingen blade made by Clemens Deinger which is stamped to both sides of the blade, it appears to have brass or similar decoration remaining in the stamp marks of some letters or symbols, it also has a stamp on the ricasso of a bird in a shield shaped armourers mark, the blade is 36” or 91.5 cm long and 1 1/16” or 2.7 cm at its widest point and of a backsword style, it is still sharp, there are no fullers.

The pommel is a solid spherical shape, there are no decorations on the two shields of the hilt and no apparent makers mark, the grip has its wires intact and in good condition with 3 separate types of wire thickness, there are Turks heads knots top and bottom. There is only one screw holding the hilt to the pommel.

I have noticed that one of Cathey’s many swords post 162 has a blade by Clemens Dinger which also appears to have a number of similarities in the shape of the hilt as mine, the blade is very different being a broadsword with several fullers.

I have a copy of 1000 Marks of European Blademakers and the similarities between the spelling of Clemens Deinger on my blade and Clemens Dinger on Cathey’s blade are striking with the N’s being reversed and both having a bird as there symbol in a shield stamp on the ricasso, is it possible that my blade with Deinger which appears a simpler design is slightly earlier than Cathey’s when for some reason they had dropped the E and developed a finer Swan shaped stamp also seen on the ricasso in addition to the bird shield stamp. Obviously over time trademarks change and newer sharper images could be stamped in addition.

According to Lenkiewicz, Clemens Dinger traded in Solingen between 1590 and 1617 during which period it appears to me that Deinger dropped the E and became Dinger and the swan stamp was developed later ??.

I have tried to obtain a copy of Solinger Schwertschiede des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts und Ihre Erzeugnisse by Weyersberg from Ken Trotman but he has sold out and will not be reprinting any more so I am unaware of what if anything Weyersberg knows about Clemens Deinger or Dinger of this period, any assistance would be appreciated, Cheers Bob.

[fernando]

Welcome to our forum Bob .
Great sword you show us. Let us see what the members have to say about it.

[BlackcapBob]

Hi Fernando, Thank you for allowing me to join the forum and make a post, this place is full of interesting swords and much much more, time for me to browse some more.
See you around, Cheers Bob.

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Bob, and welcome to the forum.
Your basket hilt indeed has resemblances in the hilt form to a number of examples. It must be remembered that these kinds of nuances are pretty much the closest to any sort of specific identification with these swords, as there were not regulated patterns but simply favored designs.

This seems to be a hilt for British dragoon use about mid 18th century but possibly earlier. The spherical pommel seems an earlier affectation and the screw attachment of quillons was characteristically English. However, as military swords were being made in garrison towns in Scotland for Scottish forces in British service, it is hard to distinguish.

As always, swords were basically assembled in these locations using mostly German blades, and the hilts produced by various makers and shops,.
In "British Basket Hilted Swords" (Mazansky) there are examples (p.141, and p.81 (D10) in which the hilt plates have similar 'notching' and were noted c. 1750s.

In the case of the blade , I found good reference to the markings in "European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks: by Staffan Kinman, 2015.
This is one of the most comprehensive and detailed books on markings in recent years and well augments the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962) with newer evidence and details.
On p.104:
A sword with standing swan in cartouche and inscription CLEMENS DEINGER was carried by King Gustaf II Adolf at Dirschau in 1627 during the Polish campaign.
It is noted that a reference was made in 1640, to a 'decrepit swordsmith Clemens Dinger', which of course suggests he was at end of his days by then. Perhaps the 'N' was inadvertently reversed )?).There appears to be a son carrying on in Solingen after with variations of the swan etc.

In my thinking, the roughly applied name with appropriate crosses and the swan mark may suggest the Clemens Deinger the older, and place the blade c. 1640 or earlier.

Whatever the case, I would say this blade was in use for obviously a very long time, and perhaps, as a heirloom found its way into a cavalry officers sword of mid 18th century. This was very often the case for Scottish officers in the British cavalry.

[BlackcapBob]

Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.

I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.

I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.

My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.

The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.

Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by BlackcapBob

Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.

I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.

I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.

My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.

The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.

Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.

Very good points Bob, and interesting to see our own versions of ratiocination in unison, and well noted on the age issue! I have reached out to see if I can get more information on the 1627 King Gustaf sword so hopefully I can add here.

Wayne, well observed on the 'mix and match' sword production situation in Great Britain prior to the latter 18th c. Basically swords were 'produced' (assembled) by 'cutlers' who used of course primarily imported blades while they fashioned hilts and scabbards.
The 'American' swords of the Revolution period were of course mostly British forms, and as George Nuemann ("Swords and Blades of the American Revolution", 1973) well shows, a hodge podge of Continental European swords including German, French, Spanish and sundry others.

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

V
...

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.

Thanks for that Jim, I had a minor brain fart , I'll remember (Harry) Potter tho.

[BlackcapBob]

Hi Jim and Wayne, Thanks for replies it would be interesting to know if the 1627 sword still exists to check out the stamps.

If my sword is pre or around the English Civil War time 1642-1651 then which side would have had Basket hilts or was it simply a case of bring what you have and choose a side.

Basket Hilts, Mortuary swords were in fashion and obviously the Rapier and Short swords were very popular never mind Blades from one era being re-hilted with a more modern style. Reworking old swords has happened for centuries, family swords being upgraded.

Would enlisted men have been given a hanger for infantry and cavalry would get a sword of some description, it appears that even organised armies had numerous options.

I have often wondered, in the British army officers and gentlemen bought their own swords I assume pre 1750 they could buy what they wanted either a Rapier, Broadsword or Backsword or were there regulations then giving guidance.

I assume that people often had more than one sword anyway, as the occasion dictated.

History is so interesting................for some people !! Cheers Bob.

[kronckew]

Thought I'd add my two cents (or maybe a tuppenny).

Interesting, I shall attempt to add a thought on the mix and matching world then. What a mess the sword mfg. was in at the end of the 18c! England over-extended on three fronts, adoption of a set 1796 pattern for swords was imposed to replace the mess to try to sort out all the variations into a more uniform mess, to increase supply which was falling behind, at least for troopers and ground pounders, Navy and officers came later. Officers had a wide leeway in selecting their swords, as they were and are still never 'issued' but bought privately.n Even std. Post 1796 blades varied amongst officers, as long as the hilts looked vaguely true to the patterns from a distance.

My 'American' revolutionary sword was originally a French dragoon sword, had part of it's brass 'basket' removed, possibly due to damage, in the transition to American service. British Royalist/Royal Dragoon swords were also made by Pooley or Pussey (sp?) in New York based on English 4-slot designs but a round grip and a urn pommel. You see replicas in the Mel Gibson film used by the wicked UK Dragoon leader. The film history is suspect, but the swords were fairly correct.

Mine was discussed HERE a while back and may be a naval variant. Oh what a tangled web we weave, etc.