1796 Pattern Yeomanry Officers Sword
 

Hi all,
I've recently purchased a beautiful 1796 type officer's cavalry sword and would appreciate the opinions of the members here. I have it documented as a 1796 pattern yeomanry officer's cavalry sword, but the lion head pommel and ivory handle differ from the conventional standard patterns. I believe it's yeomanry sword dating between 1803 and 1808 due to the manufacturer and lack of conformity with the standard pattern, but I welcome corrections from those more knowledgeable than I am.

Maker:
Henry Osborn, Birmingham (Bordesly St.Mills).

Thus, I would value people's opinions on where its origins can be more narrowly traced.

https://theantiquestores.com/details...-Sword/id/3015

https://raven-yard-antiques.s3-accel...37895c1aws.jpg

Yours Sincerely, Gregory.

Hi Gregory,

That's a lovely sword you have aquired. The ivory always raises things up a notch I feel. Being from Henry Osborn, one of the top makers of the day is another bonus.

I think the dates given by the vendor are about correct, Henry Osborn moved his premises to Bordesley around the turn of 1800 and went into partnership with Gunby sometime around 1806 - 1807 (by August 1807 the partnership is mentioned in a news article).

Seeing the details of the blade decorations may help us narrow that date down further. From what I can see from the vendors photos, it is in keeping with what I've see on other early blades from Osborn.

Steve Langham does amazing research on British sword makers and cutlers that you can access on his site: Swordresearch.org

Unfortunately the vendors description "1796 Pattern Yeomanry Officers Sword" is a bit loose of an interpertation in my opinion. The reality is that a lot of people owned and were given swords for any number of reasons; and most of these didn't follow any set pattern. We can apply some rules of thumb, but the fact that there were so many militias, volunteer corps and Yeomanry troops; all of which were quasi private military units, meant that almost anything went. Even in the regular army there were regiments that didn't follow the prescribed pattern and instead adopted a regimental pattern, the newly formed Rifles regiments were notorious for this.

So some guidelines to follow:
- Regulations were that the hilt had to match the uniform buttons. So Army and Navy had gilt hilts, cavalry had steel. Of course the Rifles units had to be different, so they had silver buttons and steel hilts like the cavalry.
- Stirrup hilts like on your sabre gained popularity from the 1780s on with both infantry and cavalry.
- The 1803 pattern came about because infantry officers began to favour cavalry like sabres over the 1796 Pattern infantry sword. The Lions pommel, slot hilt and GR cypher weren't a new design, rather an adaptition of an already popular hilt.
- Infantry / dismounted officers prefer shorter sabres with leather scabbards (29 - 31 inches).
- Cavalry / mounted officers prefer longer sabres with metal scabbards (steel for cavalry, brass for infantry) (31 to 33 inches).
- If the scabbard only has a frog studd, it's for a baldrick more typical for the infantry.
- If the scabbard only has belt rings, then it's for mounted use.
- If it has both, then it could have been for either. Many scabbards, like yours, have both.

Without knowing the blade length, the best we can say at the moment is that it's a non-regulation Georgian officers' sword from the height of the Napoleonic wars.

A lovely sword, I'd love to see better photos of it when you have it in hand.