Victorian Era Infantry Officer’s Sword?
 

This sword seems to resemble a Victorian Era Infantry Officer’s Sword, but it doesn't match any of the examples I've seen. The blade is not marked and it has no decoration. I don't believe the scabbard is original to the sword.

Hi
Looks like a British 1854 pattern infantry officers sword to me
Blades on these varied from light, walking out blades to fighting blades
What do you think it looks like
Not sure on scabbard though

Regards
Ken

Thanks Ken,
The guard doesn't exactly match the British 1854 pattern that I've found online. It looks to be something close to a 1822 pattern or 1854 pattern but not an exact match. I don't feel qualified to give an opinion on the blade, but it seems just as sharp as my Civil War Era, Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber.

I would say it is an 1854 but the hilt looks to have been banged about a bit and seems missing a couple of the finer embellishments. The very plain blade leads me to think it may be a sergeant's sword rather than the usual officers's pattern. I would agree that the scabbard is not original.

hi
I have had a few of these and be v careful if trying to un bend the brass
it is so brittle and very difficult to straighten
and if brazing it melts at a lower temp than normal brass brazing rods
is there a proof slug in the blade
regards
Ken

Thanks RoberGuy!

Most of the pattern 1854s that I have found online have an additional embellishment in the guard, but I've just found one who's guard matches this one. I'll look into the "sergeant's sword" angle.

Thanks Ken Maddock!

When it comes to antiques, I feel better not trying to "unbend" anything. There are no markings on the blade.

Dana
Looking for examples of this hilt style I noticed that it actually conforms to a rifle officer's sword hilt but without the stringed bugle emblem and not made of steel! Robson's Swords of the British Army states that there were slight hilt variations and this may just be one makers take on the regulation hilt. I also noted that the Royal Army Medical Corps carried the same pattern and the 1892 version is exactly the same hilt as yours. (Robson 1st edition, plate 172).

I was looking more closely at your photo and the blade tip looks almost like it has a 'yelman' (flattened back with central ridge) and yet it does not seem to have a pipe back blade. Is it just my failing eyesight? :confused:

Thanks for the great info RobertGuy.

I've post some closeups of the tip for you these are enlargements from a small area of the original photos. I played with the brightness and lighting a little bit.

Thanks for the extra photos. The point does have a yelman so this should be a pipe back blade. (rounded spine). If that is the case the pipe back blade was discontinued in 1845 but the normal officer's hilt had a fold down inner portion until 1854. A real conundrum. My money is now on it being a Royal Army Medical Corps sword but... :shrug:

Thanks RobertGuy. It is a "real conundrum".

This really is an anomaly, and interesting as to the average collector this would likely be assumed simply an 1822 infantry officers sword. As you have all well illustrated, there is complexity beyond such simplicity even in regulation swords.
I have not had my trusty Robson (1975) out for a long time, and it was good to go through it again.
From what I can gather, most assessments here seem pretty well placed, and it does seem this hilt aligns most readily with the post 1854 guard without folding section.

What is most curious is that in 1845, a new blade form was introduced by Wilkinson for these swords (broadly classified M1822 and gothic hilt, as per Ffoulkes). The blade on Danas example is the earlier 'pipe back' (often called quill back). Hilts fitted with these new Wilkinson blades also had a tang button.
This sword has the earlier style blade, yet the hilt is more to the 1854 solid guard form also without tang button.
To carry further, the Royal cypher remains 'open', that is without the rose, thistle and shamrock embellishments of the 1850s (Robson, p.119).

In my thinking, it seems likely this example may fall into the period of early 1850s, in perhaps a transitional sense. The unmarked blade of 'pipe back form seems likely German made (these type blades were used on their swords well through the 19th c) and often 'blanks' sold to British outfitters.

The hilt, as noted, may have been of prototype before official changes to guard early 1850s.

The scabbard, as noted, possibly not original.....by 1855 these carry ring steel scabbards replaced the leather and brass frog carry type.

I do not think this is Medical officers (1892) as these of course had the 'dumb bell' cross section blade, unless this was one with a German blade of the period (which seems unlikely), also these hilts had the tang button and I think without 'steps'.
It is of course possible that it might have been in the Medical officers use given the unusual circumstances in the elements here, and in that early 1850s period with a German blade.

Jim
I agree that the 1892 Medical Officer's sword would have had the dumb bell blade form. What set me thinking was the actual hilt style which is more akin to a rifles sword but without the stringed bugle. I was wondering if Medical Officers used that pattern hilt but in gilt brass back in 1822? The Medical Corps as such wasn't formed until 1898 but regimental surgeons and medical staff officers carried infantry pattern swords. Sadly I don't recall ever having seen an attributed Medial Officer's sword from that early .I note from Robson that all ranks in the Army Hospital Corps carried swords with sergeants carrying one with a polished brass infantry hilt and a 29 1/2'' blade.

Dana
I need to ask, how long is the blade on your sword?

Specifically, my worry about the scabbard is that it seems longer than the sword in it's entirety.
Regards
Richard

Some of this is caused by distortion in the photo. It was taken at an angle with a wide lens. I'd need to climb a ladder to take the shot with a 35mm lens straight down, and I didn't have a ladder. But you are right The blade is 29 inches long. The sword is 34 1/2 inches long. The scabbard is 36 inches long.

The blade is 29 inches long. The sword is 34 1/2 inches long. The scabbard is 36 inches long.

Thanks Jim. You are always a wealth of useful information and insights.

The 29 inch blade could mean it's a medical sergeant's sword. These were in fact the same sword as carried by infantry drummers between 1822 and 1856 (Robson 1st ed. page 163)

Absolutely my pleasure Dana, its fun research and a great example to work with. Your kind note very, very much appreciated :)

A bit more known about these now, it is in fact an infantry sergeants sword. The blade which is fullered but with a yelman or quill point is the dead give away. So to with the solid guard without a hinge. I have a George the VI example.

Sweet, thanks for the info.

David, thank you so much for that update!!!!
It means a lot to have new evidence and information added to these older threads, and greatly enhances our stored data archived for future research.
Great example as well :)

Minor correction to my post above, it's a George IV (4th) 1820 to 1830, sergeants sword, somehow I got the Roman numerals the wrong way round. There were quite a few new patterns came in 1822 and this is one of them.
Yesterday I found and bought another of the pattern, this one a VR monogram, same hybrid pattern blade and a hinged thumb guard.... Probably pre 1850, I am told that the pierced monogram is the giveaway here. The later pattern without piercing was for Staff Sergeants only apparently, regular Sgt's no longer carrying a sword.
It has no stamps or etching, and again the later ones have Regt. issue stamps. Funny enough, these are rarer than the commissioned officers ones, apparently being an issue item they had longer service lives, and fewer were made!

Coming late to this thread, I just want to note that solid guards did exist before 1850 and hinged ones continued after due to the private purchase system meaning that individuals could choose which type they wanted in defiance of the regulations. Not so relevant with a sergeants sword of course.

Also that scabbard is almost certainly from a cavalry sword, could be a 1796 LC or either of the 1821 patterns (light and heavy had the same blade with different guards in 1821 I believe).

Robert

Scabbard looks similar to a British cavalry type and missing the mouth, still has value.Would be interested in seeing a closeup of the scabbard drag as it doesn't quite match 1821, 1853p drags.