:eek: I just picked up a large Spanish 17th Century Style Cup Hilt Sword (with an unusually ornamented cup hilt). I need some help since it seems larger than life and I am only smart enough to guess wrong. I am curious as to the origin, date and type of sword this would be. It is over 55 inches long with a 42.5 inch long blade that is 1.5 inches wide. The cross guard is a foot across and the two handed handle is 9 inches long, including the pommel. There are four human faces on the cup hilt, which is highly ornamented but deteriorating with about 6 holes in it. Nor armory or makers marks.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Photos at the link below

http://usera.imagecave.com/dash321/Ash3/

Thanks :)

best regards
doug

I'll guess Spanish, early-mid 20th c. I have a Spanish piece from ca. 1970, and it also is of ridiculous proportions. Massive turned cross and side ring, loooong grip, threaded pommel you could use as a doorstop, etc. flat-hexagonal blade with nice, deep etching. Faux antique finish throughout. Your piece reminds me of that one, but with less machine work. These earlier modern Spanish items, strange as they are, still look much more convincing than recent offerings. The piece in my collection (a bastard sword) is so beefy I'm considering turning it into a bearing sword (polish, gold leaf, new wrap, etc), which would make it a much more plausible piece.

I agree with Sean's assesment. The overall style of the manufacture reminds me very much of several spanish-made pieces from the '70's that I used to have.

Sorry for the delay, I was traveling. In response to Glen's question, this sword was portrayed as an antique, but not 17th C. I viewed it as a late 19th century sword, but was suprised at the "age"wear to the blade and the deterioration of the cup hilt, where there is extensive thinness and holes. Nothing is screwed on, the pommel is hammered into place, wire is a bit loose, but is in very good condition. Considering the proportions, I thought it may be a bastardized or parts sword. Never though it was post 1950 and was interested in other views, which are always useful. Thanks!