[Glen A Cleeton]

A fairly long pokey thingie, very pointy. There are a few lists of Toledo/Spanish makers and the two blade marks point to the Kingdom of Castile and an as so far unidentified maker. The iron/steel hilt looks mid 17th century to me but this was a bit of an impulse buy without in depth research.

Inbound here soon. I still lack a digital scale.


http://ciudaddelastresculturastoledo.blogspot...deros.html















Thoughts?

Cheers
GC

[Glen A Cleeton]

Is this mic still on?

So, some first impressions with the sword in hand. No way I would suspect it to be a Victorian or later attempt. The hilt is comprised (as I suspected) as several individual pieces, joined and peened. The castings of the writhen elements actually quite delicate, with the grip sounding as not too hollow a shell. Speaking only to the hilt, the annelets are large enough to treat as a rapier grip. The grip by itself between the ferrules is 3". Photos in hand to follow.

Now some nitty gritty.

The weight is considerable at 2.5 pounds (spring fish De-liar scale) eek, right? Well, hold on here, mixed dimensions

Blade length is at 33" as shown.
Width at the guard 27 mm
Thickness at the guard 7 mm
A very linear forte distal
Thickness at the pob still 6mm a fighting distance from the guard pob at roughly 4"
The blade (in my mind) shortened from a blade that was likely about 40" long at its original use
Thickness at the point 2.5 mm
The blade has the feel of varnish and the clank of a sword with good spring. Perfectly ovoid lenticular.

Sorry, no spreadsheet. I judge swords as fencible or not. At a pound more than a light magic spadroon, it is still at the range of what a longer rapier might tip 3 lbs or more. Instantly appraised before I opened the USPS priority box, I was under no allusion it would be a box of air, as felt with an epee. I feel it was a marriage sometime before 1700 but folk are welcome to disagree. For me, as with so many, the questions of its history will always be there. My take is someone wanted a weapon, not a decoration.

Pictures and more thoughts to come

Cheers
GC

[Michael Beeching]

As a child, I liked complex-hilted swords quite a lot, though I've generally grown out of it. That is especially the case with weapons that start to fit into the mold of a smallsword...

...However, in this case, I am really intrigued by the sword in question! All of the weights and dimensions give the appearance of a fighting weapon. If one removes the fighting potential of the weapon, what is the point, after all? That said, I am looking forward to a more detailed report.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Here are some resized images. All fittings are ferrous and imo, steel or iron. The plates do appear cast but I believe I may have mentioned cast steel was coming into vogue by the mid 17th century. I do not think the plates were cast together with the body of the roped guard but joined hot. I have done my best to show sections that were assembled. I have scrubbed a section of the blade and will be taking off the grunge/varnish, whatever that top coat is. You can somewhat see it had been sharp and then somewhat bated at some point. If I return with after photos, that will reinforce my take on a shortened or re-purposed blade. I could guess it might have been from an older broken estoc or rapier but that is just speculation.

















In a quick comparison, an inch or so shorter than my felddegen and a couple of ounces lighter. The two spadroons at hand are both just over a pound and a half. Iirc, my 1864 Ames nco spadroon is 1 lb 14 oz but that is in storage. I hope to have my family of spadroons together for a cross section of stats but you will likely not see them in a spreadsheet. Honest guys, soldiers and fencers were not walking around with scales or balances in their kit.

I can't be positive of when this marriage occurred but I do believe the hilt and blade predate the 18th century, with the blade possibly a good bit earlier. Some are thinking Germanic or Austrian for the hilt. I lack a lot of relevant book stuff but did recently pick up an Oakeshott book from the renaissance to the industrial revolution. About all I got from skimming through there was that he would list the hilt as a smallsword type. The attached blade makes it a sizable sword. As shown my large hands still fit a rapier grip, which was my inclination to regard it as before 1700.

Bless this mess



One other thought, the more I look is that the majority of the hilt was file work but i'll let the more experienced explain what we see.

Cheers
GC

[Don Stanko]

From my perspective, everything points toward 17th century. Based on workmanship and proportions, I’d say 1660 to 1690. While all metal handles weren’t the norm, I’ve owned several examples.

I think it was a good purchase Glen.