Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard
Good point about the pre 1801 arms Jim but I think unless a sword has Osborn's name on it, its not an Osborn. He was a maker rather than a retailer and no doubt proud of his work, thus I'm sure his name always appears where the sword was made by him.
You mention also undecorated blades with officer type hilts (still talking about P1796's of course)- that's another big subject! As a general (but certainly not invariable) rule, if it has an officer's type hilt, I would say its an officer's sword regardless of the fact that it has a plain blade. I call these "economy" officers' swords - some officers may not have sufficient finances to be able to afford a decorated blade, some may have had two swords, a nice B&G to impress the ladies and a plain blade for business. As far as the yeomanry are concerned, it is actually quite often the case that all members of a unit, both officers and troopers, carried swords with decorated blades as these people were the well-heeled tradesmen and middle class of their time. This was certainly the case with the Loyal Birmingham Light Horse Volunteers and the Liverpool Light Horse.
Richard
|
Hi Richard,
Good points on Osborn, and identifying by distinctive features alone. He was indeed one of the premeire makers of his time, perhaps even one of the most sought after as he was instrumental in making the original swords of this M1796 pattern in accord with LeMarchant. It does seem unlikely that he would have left his work unmarked, unlike numbers of the others who as noted probably sought to simulate Osborn's work, and obviously left it unsigned in that intent.
Officers typically had pretty much carte blanche as I understand, though they did follow general patterns in view of the efforts for regulation and standardization. As far as I know officers were commissioned, and as such would have usually been well heeled as those were by purchase, and quite expensive. In those times fashion was key to image and status, and I would think that the sword would not be scrimped on, actually the contrary. I do believe officers had dress or levee swords, general manuever and field swords and outright combat or 'fighting' swords. I honestly do not believe officers would have carried handsomely decorated blades into battle, nor swords with fragile decoration, but nicely and firmly hilted with sturdy plain blades.
I think that later accounts and narratives 'presumed' a sword attributed to a particular figure was carried by him at a certain battle or event, but in reality a 'service' weapon was used in place of the more colorful weapon. As the weapon was later embellished, along with the narratives by association, the misperception would have been set. Naturally, as with all weapons, this is just a plausible scenario, and exceptions prevailed, but this seems a plausible 'rule' in degree.
For example, Wyatt Earp in the legends greated around him, was well associated with the fabled 'Buntline Special' , a Colt .45 with a foot long barrel specially ordered and presented to him by the writer Ned Buntline.
It was long assumed that Wyatt wore this gun and had it at the OK Corral, however in later years it was discovered he seldom ever wore it, and actually used a Smith & Wesson in the famed gunfight. In actuality, he did not even have a holster, and had a specially lined pocket in his trail coat to carry his gun.
An odd analogy in discussing early cavalry sabres
but the point is the same.
Again it is great having you with us on this discussion, as your expertise in these regulation swords is well established with the amazing examples you hold and have handled, as well as the corpus of articles you have written.
All the very best,
Jim