Spanish? Inbound Transitional Rapier/Smallsword

I'm a little weirded out by the profile of the blade. The taper to the tip looks really odd and sort of blobby overall.

It would be interesting to see it in actual light. If you got it from the seller I am thinking of he has a lot of modern stuff marketed as antiques.

Like Jordan says, weird blade. Gives me the late 19th century vibe.
Tried to find the marks in l'Hoste-Buigne Armes Blanches but nothing for sure.
One comes ,,close'', an Italian from the 16th C.
The hilt type suggests an Epee de Ville ou de Cour, mid 18th C. See l'Hoste Les Epees page 169 fig.281, though the high guillon block could place it a bit earlier.
Something is not right with this thing. That blade makes the hilt look like a late 19th or 20th C. cast too.
I dunno. I would send it back I guess. Too many questions, lots of fog.

PS.
Looked at the shell inserts. I do not see hand pierced metal here, but cast and left ,,as is''.
Another one of those things that make me go meh, like the filed off peen block.

Looking at the new picture I now see the shell plates are cast as one with the shell body.
This is certainly not period? This looks more like a decorative sword for the emerging middle class study. Castles have no need for more junk then they already have in there.
Decorations like these are typically something for the new middle class in search of a respectable background. The fad started around 1870-1880 I think. Same time the electro plate armour and parade shields hit the marked. I even have a 1.5 foot high silvered electro plate ,,salt'' from I guess a Medici dinner table or something. Trash, but museum quality trash and antique so it gets to be fun again. Yep, they made high quality copies from the best museum pieces for this new market. Guess they did the same with the hilt of your sword. Bet the original was a solid silver Ancien Regime court sword. Hence the decorated guillon block.

PS.
The reason I am fond of this 19th C. fakery is probably because I was taken from the 19th C. world of my grandparents to spend my puberty in my mothers Danish design world of steel and glass of the sixties. Uch and ouch! I still have my dads all steel ,,design'' bureau in the attic my mother selected for him. Poor fellow! Any takers?

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

If nothing else, it is just the right height for a walking sick. The blade as is, is super stiff and lacks what would have been its original foible.

Here are some resized images. I am still growing into this camera.

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.

Bless this mess


Cheers
GC

howler owes us some pictures