17thC Sword, maybe?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim and Fernando ,
Many thanks for your comments. A few further points, the Turks Head is made from individual strands, see photo, the crud of ages is giving the illusion of a homogeneous casting. The decoration on the blade and hilt all appears to be hand chiseled. As far as condition goes it does seem pretty good but I think we always need to be cautious re condition as some items do survive in very good order and although wear and tear can be a good indicator of age it is not a given. If indeed it proves to be a 19thC piece, which it may very well be, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make a sharp flexible sword with very good handling characteristics and not a 'brick on a stick' as someone to aptly described a lot of the Victorian wall hangers.
Thanks again for your interest.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. My Elmar lens seems to be adding a little enhancement to the images. It's a bit muckier than the photographs would suggest. I also gave it a good wipe down with an oily rag to remove the surface muck.

We crossed posts Norman, Ive been working all morning on finding examples etc. That is really good news on the Turks heads! Actually the thought of restoration has crossed my mind, and the peened pommel is one reason, these hilts were characteristically with capstan and not peened.
As noted, this curious pastiche of elements in the hilt motif is what makes me think of the very neo classic Victorian period. With this type of blade, it makes me think of blades in that period, in which this might be even a dueling epee made in classic forms.
While decoratively there are elements of concern, I don't doubt this is a fully usable sword.

For some reason I always think of English nobles and gentry, who leaned heavily on pretension and classicism, and the ever mysterious fiber of the Freemasons, where swords were a key icon and fixture. These guys often had swords 'customized' and would likely have regarded a 'dueling epee' with magical inscriptions de riguer much as a case of dueling pistols.

I was thinking of the 'muck' you noted all over this, could that have been cosmoline, a gel like stuff often put on items in old collections as a preservative.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
This may be an idea re the stylistic elements of the hilt and the blade has inscribed numerals (date)?
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Please do not equate the price with my offering!!!


https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23565/lot/104/

[Jim McDougall]

Well called Norman!!!
Obviously these roundels were something that had been in the hilt design repertoire for a while, and the early 17th century period seems to have well observed them, especially the English. They seem to have been deeply attracted to these European designs, as well as adopting classical themes and even fencing i.e. spadroon.

This, coupled with the running wolf and most importantly the numerals 1605....while these numbers groups such as 1441, 1414 etc. have always been regarded as magical numbers.....the coincidence(?) of these 1605, 1610 numbers seem compellingly possible as dates.

Yikes! the price tag on that one! wow!
I did see the term 'riding sword' pop up in my excavations of notes and references, and along with these spadroon etc. references.

I think you might be onto something there Sherlock!!!

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I was thinking of the 'muck' you noted all over this, could that have been cosmoline, a gel like stuff often put on items in old collections as a preservative.

Hi Jim,
The muck in the hilt looks very much like hardened grease so this could be a possibility. The lenticular blade does not seem altogether unusual for swords of this type.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
The muck in the hilt looks very much like hardened grease so this could be a possibility. The lenticular blade does not seem altogether unusual for swords of this type.
My Regards,
Norman.

You may be right on the blade, all I can think of is those 'practice' blades, but those of course did not have a block ricasso.
You bring up great observations Norman...….actually I think YOU are one of the knowledgeable guys here.

[fernando]

For a lousy looker like me, given the aspect of some of the sections as looking real old, pommel (plus peen fixation) and all, the blade inscription is so crisp that it could (could) have been made at a later stage .
On the other hand, when you play with values, you are certainly aware that, the difference in value (read price) between a Victorian item and a XVII century one, is abyssal; independently from what Norman withdrew from his sporran to catch this one.
Hopefully Jasper comes around and give a honest and capable opinion on this piece.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by fernando

the difference in value (read price) between a Victorian item and a XVII century one, is abyssal; independently from what Norman withdrew from his sporran to catch this one.

Hi Fernando,
You should know me by now. When I bought this it was with the probability that it was a Victorian concoction in mind but always with the hope that it was earlier. My opinion began to change upon close inspection and with a bit of research I came to the tentative conclusion that all or parts may actually be 17thC . I have p.m.'d Jasper for an opinion so we will see what happens.
Kind Regards,
Norman.


P.S. It might be worth mentioning that I cannot find a Victorian version of this type of sword, plenty of rapiers etc.