European sword from XVII or XVIII c. - <?>

buendia · 15th September 2009, 06:30 PM

A Senefelder - you are right. There had to be originally a plate in the slots of the loop hilt. I am curious of the original looks, but in fact I don`t miss it very much since I won`t have to fight with it. I think it looks OK as it is.

At the moment I am wondering why does it have a thumb ring?

Do you think that such a narrow and relatively thin, but quite stiff blade was capable of strong slashes?
There are some grounded remains of nicks from some past action so can I think that it required cut and thrust style of fencing?
It`s double bladed, 36 inches long (91,5cm) - blade is 30,5 inches (77cm).
The weight is 1lb 6oz (620g).

Thank you very much.

A Senefelder · 15th September 2009, 06:58 PM

I remember something from the Swedish army museum like this as I think of it. I'll have to go looking for where I saw the images, but I seem to recall a late 17th century attributation. The website for the museum seems to be gone which is too bad as they had a very in depth section on thier swords from the 17th and 18th centuries. I'll have a look to see if I can find the images somewhere else and find the sword this reminds me of.

buendia · 15th September 2009, 10:17 PM

OK, now I know. It just required an appropriate leather glove and the "feeling" and grip of the sword completely changed. Bare hand is insufficient for this hilt. It feels somehow thin or too big and the thumb ring doesn`t feel good at all. With glove the sword becomes part of your hand. The grip gets ubelievably strong and comfortable. The sword becomes very fast and precise.

And it certainly can swish and slash. Such an inconspicuous blade. I fell in love.

buendia · 15th September 2009, 10:35 PM

A Senefelder - I would be grateful for that.
I decided to go through the photos I had saved and picked a few with some resemblances to my sword. The first comes from Stockholm museum and pictures XVII cent. swords for cut and thrust fighting (somewhere in the net is a very interesting photostory from the excursion of fencers and sword experts to the Museum.

The next sword M1685 was for Swedish infantry.

The third was just labelled 1680 - Northern Europe.

All the traces go to Sweden just as it was suggested before. I didn`t suspect that it could be Swedish sword!

kisak · 17th September 2009, 12:31 AM

While a sword of this style could have been sued by a Swede, or perhaps even made here, it is far from certain that such is the case. The impression I've gotten is that this general style saw use in both German areas and the Netherlands (if not elsewhere as well), in addition to Sweden.

buendia · 18th September 2009, 10:24 AM

Thank you for your remark kisak - I had a hard time trying to find or prove its Swedish/North European origin. I didn`t do much progress in that topic, but I have found out that the Swedes did like the Cross of Triumph:

What is the correct sword position of looking at a maker`s mark?
Looking at the sword this way (actually it`s on the other side of the blade):

The mark is in this position:

So I have checked what does an inversed cross mean. It`s st. Peter`s Cross - a symbol of humility and unworthiness in comparison to Christ. It makes sense to me - victory but bitter, when you think about. I don`t know if such an interpretation is possible, but it`s interesting.

buendia · 18th September 2009, 10:50 AM

I have found a picture of makers` marks, but no idea where from?

The 3 dots on each side of the crescent from my blade are "borrowed" from
the marks on this picture!
Maybe another symbolic mixture theory?
So what`s the name for the marks?

15th September 2009, 06:30 PM	#1
buendia Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Silesia, Poland Posts: 41	A Senefelder - you are right. There had to be originally a plate in the slots of the loop hilt. I am curious of the original looks, but in fact I don`t miss it very much since I won`t have to fight with it. I think it looks OK as it is. At the moment I am wondering why does it have a thumb ring? Do you think that such a narrow and relatively thin, but quite stiff blade was capable of strong slashes? There are some grounded remains of nicks from some past action so can I think that it required cut and thrust style of fencing? It`s double bladed, 36 inches long (91,5cm) - blade is 30,5 inches (77cm). The weight is 1lb 6oz (620g). Thank you very much.

15th September 2009, 06:58 PM	#2
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	I remember something from the Swedish army museum like this as I think of it. I'll have to go looking for where I saw the images, but I seem to recall a late 17th century attributation. The website for the museum seems to be gone which is too bad as they had a very in depth section on thier swords from the 17th and 18th centuries. I'll have a look to see if I can find the images somewhere else and find the sword this reminds me of.

15th September 2009, 10:17 PM	#3
buendia Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Silesia, Poland Posts: 41	OK, now I know. It just required an appropriate leather glove and the "feeling" and grip of the sword completely changed. Bare hand is insufficient for this hilt. It feels somehow thin or too big and the thumb ring doesn`t feel good at all. With glove the sword becomes part of your hand. The grip gets ubelievably strong and comfortable. The sword becomes very fast and precise. And it certainly can swish and slash. Such an inconspicuous blade. I fell in love.

15th September 2009, 10:35 PM	#4
buendia Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Silesia, Poland Posts: 41	A Senefelder - I would be grateful for that. I decided to go through the photos I had saved and picked a few with some resemblances to my sword. The first comes from Stockholm museum and pictures XVII cent. swords for cut and thrust fighting (somewhere in the net is a very interesting photostory from the excursion of fencers and sword experts to the Museum. The next sword M1685 was for Swedish infantry. The third was just labelled 1680 - Northern Europe. All the traces go to Sweden just as it was suggested before. I didn`t suspect that it could be Swedish sword!

17th September 2009, 12:31 AM	#5
kisak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Stockholm Posts: 182	While a sword of this style could have been sued by a Swede, or perhaps even made here, it is far from certain that such is the case. The impression I've gotten is that this general style saw use in both German areas and the Netherlands (if not elsewhere as well), in addition to Sweden.

18th September 2009, 10:24 AM	#6
buendia Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Silesia, Poland Posts: 41	Thank you for your remark kisak - I had a hard time trying to find or prove its Swedish/North European origin. I didn`t do much progress in that topic, but I have found out that the Swedes did like the Cross of Triumph: What is the correct sword position of looking at a maker`s mark? Looking at the sword this way (actually it`s on the other side of the blade): The mark is in this position: So I have checked what does an inversed cross mean. It`s st. Peter`s Cross - a symbol of humility and unworthiness in comparison to Christ. It makes sense to me - victory but bitter, when you think about. I don`t know if such an interpretation is possible, but it`s interesting.

18th September 2009, 10:50 AM	#7
buendia Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Silesia, Poland Posts: 41	I have found a picture of makers` marks, but no idea where from? The 3 dots on each side of the crescent from my blade are "borrowed" from the marks on this picture! Maybe another symbolic mixture theory? So what`s the name for the marks?