[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hey Daniel,

[E.B. Erickson]

I found the photos today! Tomorrow I'll scan them and get them posted in the evening.

--ElJay

[Mark Millman]

Dear ElJay,

Cool. I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing them!

Best,

Mark Millman

[E.B. Erickson]

Here we go. Cavalier hilt with raised shell motifs, some worn, some not. Traces of silvering in protected spaces on the guard.
The grip is one of my restorations.

You can also see a blade detail that I had forgotten about - this blade is not just isoceles in section - it's a slightly hollow ground isoceles.

I handed this sword to a foil fencer that was on the team with me (I was saber), and she worked it through some passages, got a big smile on her face, and said, "This sword is just crying to run someone through!". She was right. With the very stiff thrusting blade, and the fairly light weight, it does seem to want to do that.

[Mark Millman]

Dear ElJay,

Thank you very much for these photos, and for showing us this weapon.

In your previous comments, you suggested that the edge is unsharpened. Is that correct? If so, do you think that's the original state, or that the blade had been sharpened at one time but later got dulled (assuming that there's any evidence to distinguish the possibilities)?

Best,

Mark Millman

[Daniel Parry]

Thanks for those photos. That looks similar to the ones I have seen, perhaps 1640s or towards the end of the English rapier era when things were moving into transitional rapiers and then early smallswords.

How long is the blade ? And what is the weight ?

It's a lovely sword. And it also makes sense in a way as a triangular blade was a logical solution to having a relatively(depending on the thickness of the triangle) lightweight blade with strength. In a way it achieves what many narrow, stiff blades rapiers tried to achieve with other cross sections. It's a natural pre-cursor to the triangulated hollow ground smallsword blade in a way but using old technology.

[E.B. Erickson]

"In your previous comments, you suggested that the edge is unsharpened. Is that correct? If so, do you think that's the original state, or that the blade had been sharpened at one time but later got dulled (assuming that there's any evidence to distinguish the possibilities)?"
I think that it was sharpened, but age has had its way with the blade. I would say that down near the point I recall it still being sharp, but I haven't actually held this sword for several years, so I may be misremembering that.

"How long is the blade ? And what is the weight ?"
Right about 34" long. As I recall, total weight is around 2 lbs (maybe a little less?).

There is a very old thread on SFI where this blade type is discussed. It may be lost to cyberspace, as I looked for the thread the other day and couldn't find it. I posted my sword, someone else showed one, and then, right after me claiming that I had never seen one of these blades longer than about 35", someone posted an auction site's photo of a dish hilt ca. 1640s with a 38" blade of isoceles section.

--ElJay

[Daniel Parry]

Thanks EJ. Those dimensions and weight are about in line with early English and Northern European transition rapiers heading towards early smallswords. You do get longer transitional rapiers but haven't seen one personally of this blade type, but as you say the law of arms and armour collecting is that as soon as you say that, someone pops up with one that breaks the rule !

I like the hit on yours - stylish example of the period type.

[Mark Millman]

Dear ElJay,

Thank you very much for these additional details, which I greatly appreciate.

Best,

Mark Millman

[Daniel Parry]

A thought on the point about whether the blade was sharpened originally and had dulled or was not sharpened which is an interesting point. I haven't looked at this type enough times to tell from other examples.

I find in many cases if rapiers were sharp edged then they are often quite sharp still now, partly I guess because the blades often seem have fairly flat single bevel edges like Japanese cooking knives do now, which would be very sharp originally and maybe kept their edge well.

Where blades clearly had no edge it is fairly obvious by the profile of the blade. That said depending on the handling of the sword since use it could have had an edge that was dulled through cleaning etc.

My general impression is that rapiers up to 1640-1650, if they could have an edge they generally did at least for a third to half the blade length and often the whole length. The ones where they didn't was because the blade profile, usually long narrow blades with thicker cross sections to give stiffness, couldn't take one. This is just my impression and not statistically proven but I feel the default was if the profile can take an edge you might as well have one.

I would expect the triangular blade, if not too narrow, could take one and so would expect it to by that reasoning.

However, I do see from 1650 onwards transitional rapiers, early smallwords, some spanish cuphilts which could have taken an edge given the profile but clearly didn't. I wonder whether this was a development in fencing style towards the pure point fencing style. That said I have also seen transitional rapiers and early smallswords with flatter blades that were sharp. The triangular blade like this might have fallen into either camp ?

So I guess my impression is generally if you could have edge you did, then after 1650 or so there were more civilian/duelling swords which didn't because of style of use rather than confines of profile. ,

[Sean Manning]

Two vloggers have recently measured the distal taper of swords and sabres in their collection:

Nathan Clough, "How Thin were Medieval Swords?" Arms & Armor Inc. channel, 28 September 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIIypm61WE4&feature=emb_title

Matt Easton, "Sword DISTAL TAPER: What you NEED TO KNOW with STATS of Antiques & Good Replicas." scholagladiatoria channel, 1 November 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CV2O0jkHK8

The measurements are buried in the videos not in a handy table, and they chose places to measure by eye rather than carefully measuring from a point of reference, but its still information on a subject which is hard for people other than collectors and museum staff to access.

One thing which I notice is that some 18th and 19th century broad single-edged swords and sabres for the European market have extreme distal taper (ending up 20-30% as thick near the point as at the cross) while earlier European broad flat blades (and 18th and 19th century European blades for the overseas market) often have more moderate distal taper, losing about half their thickness from cross to point.

Peter Johnsson commented on the second video:

[Sean Manning]

Daniel, how are those measurements coming along? Like I said, sharing six measurements about each sword would be infinitely better than thinking of some perfect scheme that you never get around to carrying out and publishing.

[Adam Simmonds]

Hello All,

I hope this sword is relevant to the topic.

It is English and comes from the late 17th C (so I'm told), weighs 580 grammes with a blade 29 inches long.

As such it is relatively short, light and handy. The blade is stiff and the edges are still sharp.

I was told by the dealer I bought it from a number of years ago that it was likely a 'side sword' (an almost pointlessly vague term it seems to me) made for a small person in a military context.

I am sceptical of that interpretation however (partly due to the handle length) and suspect that rather than being a smallish sword for a smallish soldier it was a smallish sword for civilian carry and use.

Where do you think it fits within the broader discussion?

Best wishes,

Adam

[Sean Manning]

Adam, I agree that "side sword" is not a very useful term! I think I would call it an early smallsword or spadroon, one that could thrust through buff coats and great coats and mess up hands and faces with the edge.

It looks like a Parry type 3 or Oakeshott type XV blade (I wish there was a way of saying "somewhere in the family of" in the Oakeshott typology). If you could measure the thickness of the spine every 10 cm or 20 cm, we could see if if has the 'hockey stick' distal taper of some of the long rapiers or more like a late medieval sword.

[Adam Simmonds]

Thanks Sean.

Taper metrics measured from the base of the blade to about 4cm from the tip are as follows:

Distal:

Base: 5.7mm
10cm: 4.5mm
20cm: 3.8mm
30cm: 3.7mm
40cm: 3.5mm
50cm: 3.2mm
60cm: 2.9mm
70cm: 2.1mm

Profile:

Base: 34mm
10cm: 29mm
20cm: 27mm
30cm: 25mm
40cm: 23.7mm
50cm: 21.5mm
60cm: 19.6mm
70cm: 13.5mm

While it is quite light I certainly wouldn't want to be hit with it!

[Sean Manning]

And here is a quick-and-dirty sketch:



The curve reminds me of those early 17th century rapiers in Vienna.

[Adam Simmonds]

[Daniel Parry]

The measurements are finally being done. I apologise whole heartedly for the delay. Covid, laziness.... whatever you put it down to .... I was slow in getting it done.

Will be done by end of May I promise and I have extended the number of rapiers to 40, both through my recent acquisitions and some which friends will let me measure. That will give a more statistical number maybe.

I will also post the additional rapiers I have on the thread with pics. Some very interesting ones, including one which extends my personal collection record blade length to 46 1/2 inches from the guard not including the ricasso. I have seen longer but not owned one. It floats like a cloud though when handling.

Daniel

[Martin Buckley]

Really looking forward to seeing those new rapiers Daniel. Maybe you’ll have to make a little room by moving some of the collection on ;-)

[Sean Manning]

The Oakeshott Institute has a 3d scan of what I think is a sword with a Parry type 1 blade https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/milanese-rapier-b6a87326689545728e1725c62693a9a2