A Bilbo with inscriptions on the blade

[werecow]

Both very nice examples! And an interesting date, being before the 1728 date when they became a standardized model. I was given to understand that the earlier Bilbo models used two screws instead of four to fasten the guard plates. 1720 seems fairly early, yet I see four screws... So is this assumption about the number of screws relating to the date incorrect, am I incorrect in thinking 1720 is early, or is the hilt from a later date?

And just for fun I'll add some pictures (in traditional poor lighting) of the bilbo I bought from Ulfberth last year, because it is one of my favorite swords. Super nimble with quite a lot of reach, a ton of hand protection, and the closest thing to a razor's edge I've seen on an antique sword. Definitely underrated. (Yes I'm aware that that is not a particularly safe way to lay a sword on a table but all the other space was occupied or not photogenic. P)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by werecow

... I was given to understand that the earlier Bilbo models used two screws instead of four to fasten the guard plates. 1720 seems fairly early, yet I see four screws... So is this assumption about the number of screws relating to the date incorrect, am I incorrect in thinking 1720 is early, or is the hilt from a later date?

Yes, it all indicates that the blade is older than the hilt, as often occurs ... and vice versa.
I notice that inscription has not yet been subject to discussion. Some kind of unintelligible expression in a Latin (Domine) approach, so hard, or impossible ?, to fully translate.
Even more unique is that, precisely the same inscription is in a sword (i think sold) out there, in what appears to be a Spanish double shell guard sword.

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes, it all indicates that the blade is older than the hilt, as often occurs ... and vice versa.
I notice that inscription has not yet been subject to discussion. Some kind of unintelligible expression in a Latin (Domine) approach, so hard, or impossible ?, to fully translate.
Even more unique is that, precisely the same inscription is in a sword (i think sold) out there, in what appears to be a Spanish double shell guard sword.

In te Domine speravi non confundar in aeternum (Lat, “ In Thee, O Lord, have I put my trust, let me never be put to confusion”). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_31 .

[fernando]

Ah ... thank you so much, Victrix .
With that awkward spelling, i would never maket it ... neither would the translating engine.

Just to compare:

"IN TE DOMINE, SPERAVI, NON CONFUNDAR IN AETERNUM"

With:

"YNTE º DOMINE º EN º PEXAVI º , NO º CON º FUNDAN º YNETEXNU".

Thanks again .

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by werecow

Both very nice examples! And an interesting date, being before the 1728 date when they became a standardized model. I was given to understand that the earlier Bilbo models used two screws instead of four to fasten the guard plates. 1720 seems fairly early, yet I see four screws... So is this assumption about the number of screws relating to the date incorrect, am I incorrect in thinking 1720 is early, or is the hilt from a later date?

And just for fun I'll add some pictures (in traditional poor lighting) of the bilbo I bought from Ulfberth last year, because it is one of my favorite swords. Super nimble with quite a lot of reach, a ton of hand protection, and the closest thing to a razor's edge I've seen on an antique sword. Definitely underrated. (Yes I'm aware that that is not a particularly safe way to lay a sword on a table but all the other space was occupied or not photogenic. P)

i should not have sold that one Antoher magnificent blade : IVAN MARTINEZ

[werecow]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

i should not have sold that one Antoher magnificent blade : IVAN MARTINEZ

Actually this one was Sebastian Hernan(d)ez (although probably not really, of course, just the name on the blade). See the other side attached here for completeness' sake.

And yeah, it was a very nice birthday present, from you and me to me. }|;o) But take comfort in the fact that, from the looks of your posts here, you have no shortage of magnificent swords!

[Jim McDougall]

The SEBASTIAN variation on blades from Solingen seems to have had a reasonable occurrence, in my opinion mid to third quarter 17th c. On this Scottish basket hilt the Sebastian name with 'interpretation' on what may be a Wirsburg blade (by mark).
This hilt is Scottish 'Glasgow' in style and probably c. 1690s mounts. It seems to be reliably of that period per examination by an English authority hands on.

[midelburgo]

I know of a similar sword to the one opening this thread. Hilt seems older with four screws but not frame. And the date is 1760 instead of 1720. What makes me think 1720 was a sales pitch (1760 maybe too).
Both blades are marked with a Toledo mark and Solingen (and in a period when Toledo was inactive). I take that as they are Solingen products intended to be sold initially as from Toledo, but later they decided to etch them.

For the crowned T swords /Ayzavilla, I have two alternative explanations. They could be from the original batches at the reinstalment of Toledo in 1761, when the new factory was not yet built, or they could be from Trubia in the 1790s. Trubia is known to have made bayonets for the 1757 model musket, but there are no notice about swords being ever made there. The problem with these swords is that they have a mixture of old (pommel) and new (more simplified hilt decorations) characteristics.

The Sebastian Hernandez (real mark is the bell atthe ricasso) example is a later officer sword. At some time (about Carlos IV reign from 1789), they also standardized the officer swords hilts, with a sunburst guardapolvo, a polyhedrical pommel and what I call a "lyre" at the cross instead of a semicircle piece. They used the same hilt for Guards de Corps rank and file. (a Guard de Corps soldier had the status of a sergeant in the regular cavalry).
I include another Sebastian Hernandez blade with a similar officer hilt. This one looks more the real thing, but probbaly is also from the XVIIIth century.