This one will be with me before Christmas
I hesitate between calling it a sword or a rapier; the 30 mm blade (1,18") is a bit wide for a rapier ... until a better opinnion.
Seller dates it 16th. century; i wouldn't reject a more accurate beg. 17th. century ... again until a better opinnion.
One quillon only; no other one missing.
A beautiful heavy pommel.
Double edged blade length 93 cms (36,5").
Grip wiring restored in the 19th. century.
Seller says origin is central Europe; what do you guys think ?
The fainted mark on the blade seems to be of these generical eyelash symbolic symbols.
A rather important detail; seems to me this is a left hander, which would make it a bit more rare. Can anyone confirm this?
I will be much obliged for your coments.
Fernando

.







[/img]

With the hexagonal cross-section and the grooves outlining the ricasso, that looks to be a type XIX blade, which probably dates it to be before 1600.

I agree with Roger. My guess would be circa 1590. These swords sometimes have large, hollow pommels, so dont be surprised if the pommel isn't quite as heavy as it appears. Also, the basket of the swept hilt should conform quite closely to your hand when you grip the sword. Its a good looking sword.

Thank you ever so much for your input :) .
BTW, would you call it a sword or a rapier ?
And, what do you think about it being for a left hander ?
Fernando

I would personally categorize it as a rapier, but I'd accept other interpretations.

More importantly though, the first thing I thought when I saw it was "Wow, I wonder if he knows it's a left-hander."

Unless the pictures are flipped or something, it seems to me to be clearly designed for left-handed use.

Thanks a lot for your observations, Craig.
Let me also wow; a left hand piece, besides being scarce, is always an addede value, collecting wise, in my understanding.
Fernando

BTW, is it possible to have a sugestion (or a certainty) on this sword's origin, instead of a vague central Europe indication?
Thanks in advance.
Fernando

Beautiful piece, Fernando! Congratulations!

I also bought an antique rapier not too long ago... I need to find time to take pictures and measurements to post.

Fernando Viana wrote:

Thank you ever so much for your input :) . BTW, would you call it a sword or a rapier ? And, what do you think about it being for a left hander ? Fernando

Well, don't forget that there is no standard definition for rapier. I would definitely call it a rapier, but I would call any complex hilted, straight double edged sword from the 16th to 18th century a rapier. The Italians would have called this a sword and not a rapier... but they also would have called a narrow, thrust oriented blade a sword as well and not a rapier. :)

I've seen this type of sword classified as a riding sword too. The difference being this type has a wide, sturdy blade capable of delivering a cut as well as a thrust. More akin to a combat sword than a dueling sword. But your guess is as good as mine.

Without seeing the sword itself, I can't see any sign of a break on the guard where I'd expect the break to be, if there had been another arm to the quillon. The 6th picture, where 4 arms come to form a cross in the line of the quillon is where I'd be looking for damage, but the arms flow smoothly into each other, with no lumps

I'd consider that to be close to a Riding sword, but there's no thumb ring that I can see.

Thank you all guys.

Definitely only one quillon, David; there are no parts missing in this hilt.

A few more specs:
Total weight 1.350 kg (3 pounds).
Blade thickness at forte 6,2 mm.
Blade thickness at ricasso 7,3 mm.
Total length 1,08 Mts (42 1/2").

Bill, do you think you couldn't finger the ricasso in this guard?

No one making a bet on this sword's origin ... Italy, Germany?

Fernando

.

Hello Fernando,

Fernando Viana wrote:

No one making a bet on this sword's origin ... Italy, Germany?

I'll try to look up that hilt shape in A.V.B Norman's book this evening and see if there are hints about the possible origin...

With that total length and blade profile I'd call it a sword rather than a rapier myself, but as Bill Grandy pointed out the definition of the rapier is not clear anyway.

Regards,

It looks like a lovely piece!

As for the exact definition, the rapier is a subcategory of all things "sword" anyway, so I don't see any harm in just calling it a sword.