Originally Posted by scinde

Rather than an individual approach, I'll just wish all concerned a better time than was had last year.

In terms of the EIC equivalent of the British 1796 Light Cavalry sword, the earliest version was designated Pattern No. 3, and swords of this pattern bore inspection marks that are virtually the same as those on the B of O examples. As both the British issue swords and the EIC issue swords are virtually identical, it's near impossible in this day and age to say which is which, unless a particular sword is regimentally marked.

After the introduction of the 1821 Pattern LC sword, the same type of inspection marks were applied to both the B of O 1821 Patterns and the EICo equivalent; and again it's virtually impossible to say which is which unless regimentally marked.

From my own experience in looking at earlier identified EICo pattern swords, it's certainly the case that the inspection marks are barely legible, so reasonable to suggest that in the case of early swords, they may have been completely worn away by continual cleaning.

Circa 1832-33 the EIC pattern numbering system changed, at which time the (1796 type) EICo Pattern No. 3 was re-designated Pattern No. 301; and the EICo. 1821 Pattern was designated Pattern No. 303.

Mole was certainly one of the makers who produced swords of the (1796 patter) EICo Pattern No. 301 sword, when it was re-issued early 1840s. One characteristic of the EICo Pattern No. 301 swords, is that the grip timber is carved with finger grooves, as apposed to the finger bumps being created by cord wrapped around the timber grip under the leather covering.

After circa 1856, swords (arms) for the EICo were procured via the British War Department, for as long as the EICo control of India lasted. Therefore the style of inspection mark changed again and the EIC system of date coding and inspector identification disappeared. Thus we can find EICo swords bearing the inspection mark of a capital "I" surmounted by a Broad Arrow.

Also from my own experience, I've found that swords were often regimentally marked on the front of back of the quillon, on the knuckle bow, on the back-piece, or on broader parts of an open bar hilt. Based on my own observations, some Indian Army Bengal cavalry swords produced in the mid 1880s, have the regimental designation marked on the ricasso.

The stirrup-hilted swords such as used by the 13th Bengal and the 17th Bengal Lancers are not a 1796 pattern, and the greater majority of the blades marked J. Bourne & Son were produced by Mole for Bourne; whereby reference to certain pattern swords made for Bourne by Mole, are found in the Mole records. And these include stirrup--hilted swords (13th Lancers), those with an 1821 light cavalry type hilt, also those with an 1853 type (solid tang) hilt, and others.

Swords of the (1796 Pattern - EICo No.301) made by Mole were carried by Indian Officers and Sowars of the Governor -Generals Body Guard Bengal around the turn of the century, and actually appear in a photo circa 1897. The only marking on a surviving example recorded by me, has a Mole trade marking very lightly stamped on the back edge of the blade near the hilt.

Gordon

Originally Posted by kronckew

The original 19c yellow and navy blue nylon paracord sword knot (portapee), for display and combat purposes only. :D There is a blue ranger bead slider knot for tightening it on the wrist just above where the knot is dropped thru the guard which was slid further up for the earlier photo.

I did unwrap it and pushed it aside for the photo above, but I did leave it on in the slot in the knuckle guard to better contrast the pommel bit.