A cup hilt sword for coments.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by dana_w

Is there a definitive list of characteristic which separate Colonial Cup Hilts from those made in Europe. Sometimes it seems to be a “I know it when I see it” situation

Peterson's "Arms and Armour in Colonial America. 1526-1783" is not much help, and I don’t own a copy of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, …. yet.

That is a very reasonably placed question Dana, and of course as far as I know, there are no definitive or categorized descriptions which would comprise a guide on cuphilts. The Continental European forms are well described in a number of references, probably one of the best would be book by A.V.B.Norman "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" (1980).While these are typically expensive there is I believe a reprint and interlibrary loan is another option.

The colonial examples are far less defined as they are typically roughly fashioned and rather than being the elegant, pierced steel examples or even the simpler forms on the Continent, they are often workmanlike and rugged arming swords. Instead of the thin, swift rapier blades they carry heavier arming broadsword blades.

The Continental examples will usually have a 'rompepuntas' (a folded over ridge around the rim of the cup), worked or writhen quillons and more artistically fashioned elements than the simple cups and guards of the colonials. Also inside the cup a fixture known as the 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly =dust guard) is at the aperture for the blade and surrounding it...these are not on colonial examples. The Colonial forms usually had the heavier broadsword blades, however it is known that shipments of the narrow rapier blades made in Solingen with Spanish makers names and marks did go to New Spain in some degree in the 18th century. It would seem that the traditional Spaniard gentry may have still kept the older form swords there, but I have never seen examples of them with these blades.

Keep in mind that the cuphilt form came into use at some time in the first half of the 17th century in Italy, Spain and in some degree in Germany. Often these are referred to broadly as 'Spanish cuphilts' but many, especially the piercework types, were Brescian or northern Italian. I believe much of the confusion was because many of these areas in Italy were actually Spanish provincial.
By the end of the 17th century, the cuphilt was essentially obsolete everywhere except in deeply traditional Spain . While it gradually went out of fashion even there into the 18th century, these were still favored in New Spain and there they continued to fashion the cup guards for heavy arming blades through the 18th and into the early 19th.

I think the examples shown here by Fernando and Mark are excellent in illustrating the somewhat rough, but superbly charming work seen in these remotely fashioned versions of these revered and traditional swords.

I hope this might be of some help, and to better follow the peculiarities of these colonial swords, Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain is essential.
As it has been some time since researching these, and I am relying on memory in writing this, I hope others might also add more reliable input.

[dana_w]

A friend who read my recent post offered to give/loan me a copy of of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”. WOW, Thanks "Anonymous"!

***

To summarize Jim's comments, Colonial Cup Hilts (cuphilts) are:

(A) "Typically" more roughly made & less decorative
(B) "Usually" more rugged arming swords rather than slender rapiers

You've mention elsewhere that Colonial Cup Hilts are

(C) "Normally" missing the arms in the hilt which hold the cup.

I'm off to find a copy of "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820".

[Jim McDougall]

That's fantastic Dana!!! It is an excellent reference, and effectively the only reference standing on Spanish colonial arms with other references quite esoteric and hard to find.
The guardopolvo is a plate at the base of the cup inside which surrounds the entry point of the blade and is ostensibly considered a 'dust cover', though that purpose seems tenuous and it seems more decorative. The quillons extend across the rim of the cup circumference the same as Continental types, but they are more rudimentary.
You have a PM .
Jim

[dana_w]

Sorry, I should have attributed condition (C) to "Juan J. Perez at swordforum.com . This is an exact quote:

"This sort of swords differs mainly from the peninsular civilian cup-hilts not only for their cruder manufacture and broader blades, but in the absence of the arms of the hilt that hold the cup in the original form of this sword.

However, this is not only a feature of swords from the Spanish colonies in America, but from Portuguese ones, and even from Portugal mainland itself, where this sort of cup-hilt was made regulation for cavalry units. This is always an option that should not be discarded."

I hesitate to say anything about Portugal

So Jim, to the list, should I add:

(D) They seldom have 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly = dust guard)

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Dana, I had forgotten Juan's remarkable studies on Spanish arms, and to be honest I did not recall the interim part of the crossguard across the inner part of the cup being absent (I need to find pics again but it seems the bar extends across in the ones I've seen. As far as I have known, the straight quillon guard essentially sits atop or in the top of the cup.

I do know that the continuation of the cuphilt phenomenon continued as noted into the 19th century in the colonial regions, and I have even seen 'court' type cuphilts with the traditional bowl and a vestigial crossguard across its base as a straight bar! obviously entirely redundant.

[M ELEY]

Excellent followup questions and answers. Just wanted to add the grip materials and shape can also be defining factors of the colonial types (I.e. Carribean or New World). In particular, horn grips with crisscross patterning is often seen, as are 'bulging' grips as seen on colonial espada and cuphilts.

Does anyone want to argue the 'mushroom-shaped' pommel styles as being colonial? Peterson used this one as a tip of the hat towards Spanish Main and I tend to believe him-

[dana_w]

This is the only Spanish Colonial Cup Hilt I own that has a horn grip. As you can see the line patterns on this one run in parallel. I guess this grip could also be described at "bulging".

I'll add a "mushroom-shaped" pommel style example when I have a chance to photograph one.

The photos that I have posted here are copyright (c) 2014 by Dana K. Williams. All Rights Are Reserved.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by dana_w

[I]"This sort of swords differs mainly from the peninsular civilian cup-hilts not only for their cruder manufacture and broader blades, but in the absence of the arms of the hilt that hold the cup in the original form of this sword.

However, this is not only a feature of swords from the Spanish colonies in America, but from Portuguese ones, and even from Portugal mainland itself, where this sort of cup-hilt was made regulation for cavalry units. This is always an option that should not be discarded....

Absolutely right !!! One way to differentiate Portuguese from Spanish cuphilt swords when present, other than consider them genericaly Peninsular