Antique Sword like that of Sir John Robinson 17th Century Rapier Gold Wash For Sale

Antique Sword like that of Sir John Robinson 17th Century Rapier Gold Wash
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Buy Now

Antique Sword like that of Sir John Robinson 17th Century Rapier Gold Wash:
$10000.00

For sale is a beautiful 17th century loop hilt rapier.
This sword is very similar to a sword in a portrait of Sir John Robinson, 1st Baronet, Lieutenant of the Tower of London and Lord Mayor of London currently held in the Royal Armouries, Object No. I.47. This painting was painted in 1662, which gives a very good reference for the time period of this sword. The similarities are uncanny, and it is distinctly possible this is the sword in the painting, though impossible to prove. If it is not the same sword, it was likely created by the same artisan.
The sword is an absolutely beautiful masterpiece of the period. Modern typology and terminology is difficult for a sword of this type. In period, it could have alternatively been called a rapier, sheering sword, riding sword, or simply, sword. The sword in the painting was likely to have been Sir John Robinson's "daily" sword, often called a "riding sword," and that is likely the purpose of this sword as well. The sword is well suited for the thrust or the cut, and is stately, while not overly decorative. It easily could be worn around town, but was certainly not the sword of a commoner.
The blade is double-edged an 33.5 in, in length. The overall length of the sword is 40 in. The blade is hollow ground for the length, with a strong medial ridge on the distal 3/4 of the length. There is a deep fuller that runs the first 1/4 of the length. Around the fuller are smaller decorative grooves, which form a cross at the end of the fuller. Within the fuller are deeply set letters, likely reading "EN TOLEDO." Toledo, Spain was a primary supplier of quality sword blades during this period, and it would have been viewed as highly desirable to have a Toledo blade. While the blade was likely made in Spain, the sword was likely mounted in England.
The hilt is about 6 in long and is made of forged steel which has been gold-washed. This form of hilt, often called a "loop hilt", was popular from the early 1600's through the late-1700's. The pommel is a type 22 from the Norman typology. The top quillon ends in a small finial which, surprisingly, remains intact. The grip is beautifully wrapped in three separate gauges of gold wire and chain, which result in a complex wrapping style rarely seen. Both ends of the grip have intricate Turk's head knots of very fine gold chain.
Overall, the sword is in remarkable condition for it's age, over 90% of the gilding remains. For similar examples, please consult:
The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820, A.V.B. Norman - Hilt Type 109, Plate 75, and Pommel Type 22European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution, Ewart Oakeshott, Figure 71
Sword Measurements:
Overall Length: 39.5 inchesBlade Length: 33.5 inchesHilt Length: 6 inchesBlade Width at Ricasso: 1.2 inchesBlade Width 4 inches from tip: .5 inchesFuller Length: 6.25 inchesPoint of Balance: 3.25 inchesWeight:
This sale is for the sword, and the sword only, the painting is not included and is pictured only for reference.
More information on Sir John Robinson, 1st Baronet, of London (January 10, 1615 - February 1680) - Biography pulled from History of Parliament.

Robinson’s grandfather was a Reading clothier ‘of good wealth and credit’. His father was half-brother to Archbishop Laud and nephew to Sir William Webb, lord mayor of London 1591-2. Robinson, a successful merchant, was reckoned ‘as great a Cavalier as was in England’, but he took no part in the Civil War, and was allowed to compound for the archbishop’s estate in 1650. During the Interregnum he became an influential member of the London corporation, sitting on the committees for City lands and the Ulster plantation, and purchased his estates. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he tried to influence the elections to the common council on behalf of the Royalists, and he appears to have stood for London unsuccessfully in 1659. WithRichard Browne I, he was deeply involved that year in the Cavalier plot, after which Lord Mordaunt took refuge at his house. On 22 Dec. 1659 he was appointed to the common council committee to draft the reply to the letter fromGeorge Monck. He signed the London petition for the return of the secluded Members and the calling of a free Parliament on 24 Dec. and was a member of the delegation to present it to the Rump. In February 1660 he conducted on behalf of the City the crucial negotiations which led Monck to abandon the Rump and to come to terms with the City, thus securing the aims of the petition. He was one of the three treasurers of the £60,000 loan granted by the City to Parliament later that month. Charles II wrote to thank him for his services, and expressed the hope of soon being able to reward them. Mordaunt reported that Robinson led the City and was Monck’s ‘favourite’ with whom he settled the London trained bands. He wrote to Charles II that he was dealing ‘moderately with those Presbyterians who fear the settlement of episcopacy and the return of the King without conditions’, and that harm was being done ‘by the extravagant discourses of some of the King’s party’.4

Returned to the Convention for London, unopposed, Robinson was moderately active, though appointed by name to only eight committees. But he was prominent in both formal and financial matters. When Parliament met he was desired to ask the moderate Presbyterian Edmund Calamy to preach, and Lord Wharton included him in his list of friends. On 2 May he informed the House of the letter from the King received by the corporation, and with the other City Members was given permission to carry the reply. He advanced £14,500 to the King and his brothers, as well as £1,000 towards the expenses of their reception, and was twice thanked by the House. On 18 May he carried the assessment bill to the Lords. His only recorded speech was in favour of allowingBulstrode Whitelocke†to benefit from the indemnity bill. He was appointed to the committee to examine unauthorized Anglican publications. As lieutenant of the Tower, in succession toHerbert Morley, he was the subject of a complaint on behalf ofSir Hugh Owenon 9 Nov., while he himself was ordered to complain to the lord mayor about the City’s neglect in the collection of taxes. He was teller for the unsuccessful motion to bring in a bill to levy two months’ assessment on London for the militia. On 8 Dec. he was appointed to the committee to draw up instructions for disbanding the remainder of the army.5

Robinson was one of the court candidates for London at the general election of 1661, but their support of episcopacy and their failure to oppose the excise had alienated the liverymen, and after a show of hands they declined the poll. Robinson also stood for Middlesex, but was defeated. Although not a Member he was among those appointed by Ormonde, the lord steward, to administer the oaths. He was returned for Rye at a by-election in November on the recommendation of the Duke of York, winning over two of his opponents’ voters at the cost of £100. became again a moderately active committeeman in the Cavalier Parliament, with 92 committees, though he spoke only on personal matters. In his first session he was appointed to the committees for the execution of those under attainder, the militia bill, the prevention of frauds on the customs and the additional corporations bill. Acting presumably as commissioner for corporations, he was active in removing dissenters in 1662, and at the King’s request accepted election as lord mayor. He formed a syndicate which farmed the London excise for £118,000 p.a., and remained very active in the commercial life of the City, serving on the boards of the East India and Royal Africa Companies. He was associated with(Sir) Edward Hungerfordin financing an expedition to Hudson Bay, becoming the first governor of the Company. As leader of the court party on the corporation, he was chiefly instrumental in raising loans for the crown from the City in the period 1661-4.Samuel Pepyswrote:

my lord mayor I find to be a talking, bragging bufflehead, a fellow that would be thought to have led all the City in the great business of bringing in the King, and that nobody understood his plots, and the dark lanthorn he walked by; but led them and plowed them as oxen and asses (his own words) to do what he had a mind; when in every discourse I observe him to be as very a coxcomb as I could have thought had been in the City ... but to see how he do rant and pretend to sway all the City in the court of aldermen and says plainly that they cannot do nor will he suffer them to do, anything but what he pleases; nor is there any officer of the City but of his putting in, nor any man that could have kept the City for the King this well and long but him. And if the country can be preserved, he will undertake that the City shall not dare stir again. When I am confident there is no man almost in the City cares a turd for him, nor hath he brains to outwit any ordinary tradesman.

Pepys also spoke of him as one of the ‘fools’ about the Duke of York. Robinson was probably ‘not so wise as King Solomon’, but his achievements were none the less genuine. An account of the aldermen of London prepared for Charles II described him as

most industrious in the civil government of the City, watchful to prevent anything that might reflect any prejudice or dishonour upon the King’s Government, happy in dispatch of business, to the great contentment of the people.6

As lieutenant of the Tower, Robinson had the unenviable task of acting as gaoler to political prisoners, and in 1664John Hutchinsoncomplained that he was demanding excessive fees from prisoners, making false musters in his company in the Tower, and detaining the soldiers’ pay; but the Council took no action. Robinson was marked as a court dependant in 1664, and served on the committee for the conventicles bill. In 1666 he was appointed to the committee to inspect public accounts. His name appeared as a friend of Ormonde in both lists of the court party in 1669-71. He was among those appointed to receive information about conventicles in 1669, and to consider the bill of 1670. When it became law he took a leading part in enforcing it, both in the City and Tower Hamlets. On 21 Nov. he told the House that the dissenter Jekyll was ‘very full of faction in the common council’, where his own influence was on the wane. He made himself particularly unpopular by getting the court of aldermen to veto the common council petition on grievances on trade in 1673 (see under LONDON), and his name appeared on the Paston list. In January 1674 Robinson was involved in the proceedings against Arlington, one of the charges against whom was the illegal imprisonment of Charles Modyford, a member of the Council of Jamaica and son of its governor, on a charge of buccaneering.William Sacheverellpresented a petition from Modyford alleging that Robinson had taken a bribe to let him out of the Tower in 1671. Robinson, in his own defence, spoke of the ‘malice as well as ingratitude’ of Modyford to whom he had allowed three or four days’ freedom without fee, with the King’s permission, on being assured Modyford would thereby secure an inheritance from a dying grandmother. Cleared of these charges, he wrote to(Sir) Joseph Williamsonon 16 Feb.;

I ... was glad you own I could do Lord Arlington any kindness. He is very safe by what I can understand, maugre his enemies, and the Modyfords’ malice against him and me is not only cried down in Parliament, but all the City over.7

Robinson was marked as an official in 1675. In the spring session, he was appointed to the committee for appropriating the customs to the use of the navy. The case of the Four Lawyers exposed him to cross-fire between the Houses. They were committed to his custody by the Commons, and when he refused to release them the Lords demanded his dismissal, but the Lower House thanked him for acting like ‘a trusty commoner’. The King approved his action, and granted him fee-farm rents to the value of £3,719 which he claimed for allowances and expenses of the Tower. He was criticized for insufficient firmness in handling a weavers’ riot, butHenry Coventryfound the King ‘unwilling to blast all his past services for some miscarriages in this particular occasion’. In the autumn session he was appointed to the committees for the liberty of the subject and against illegal exactions. His last important committee was in 1677, to ensure the Protestant education of the royal children. Shaftesbury marked him ‘thrice vile’ and inA Seasonable Argumenthe was said to have ‘got in places and gifts, by his wife’s interest and other ways, £40,000’.(Sir) Stephen Foxlater revealed that Robinson was in receipt of a pension of £1,500 p.a., and he appeared on both lists of the court party in 1678.8

Robinson was re-elected for Rye at the first general election of 1679. Shaftesbury marked him ‘vile’, and attacked him in the Lords ‘for letting the Popish prisoners come together’. Monmouth was entrusted with a request from the Lords for Robinson’s removal as lieutenant of the Tower, to which the King replied that he ‘did intend to turn him out, only wanted money to pay him off’, as he had received no expenses since 1674. On 29 Mar. Titus Oates testified at the bar of the House that information about the part of the Popish Plot dealing with a Roman Catholic rising in Ireland had been laid by Edmund Everard, one of the prisoners in the Tower, before Robinson, who had suppressed it. In reply, Robinson declared:

I never was but in one plot, and that was for the Restoration of the King, and I know nothing of what Everard says. ... He confessed nothing of the Plot to me, but talked a great deal of gallimaufry stuff. I have fed him and clothed him whilst he was in the Tower, and, I thank God, I am not yet paid for it.

After the appointment on 7 Apr. of a committee of the House of Commons consisting almost exclusively of Robinson’s arch-enemies in the City of London to investigate his management of the Tower, the King dismissed him as lieutenant. He was absent from the division on the exclusion bill, and took no other part in the proceedings. He was so ill that his death was falsely reported on 22 May 1679, ‘being heartbroken for being turned out of the Tower’. But he lingered on until the following February. His personal estate was valued at over £30,000. His son settled in Northamptonshire, and his great-grandson, the fifth baronet, sat for Northampton as a Whig from 1774 to 1780.9

Buy Now

Titles of Distinction

Orders of Distinction