Quote:
Originally Posted by mgolab
Thanks Jim.
Finally received it. Seller was only 1 hr. or so from my house but USPS took three days...I should have picked it up.
anyway, there is a crown over TG. I assume Thomas Gill?
|
Thats great! Then it IS a Thomas Gill! Very nice! That puts the blade roughly 1784 and straight as were popular for dragoon swords, however these cavalry swords were of course longer. If the blade was indeed shortened that would go to the 'possible' naval' connection, but might have had other options as well. The brass hilt would be unusual for cavalry in these years. though certain anomalies did exist, but with much fancier blades.
According to various reading if I recall, there were certain tendencies toward cavalry type swords in naval contexts, and many in the 1800 period had stirrup hilts, just as seen in your previous post of the 'montmorency' blade saber shown as naval fighting sword .
When I got the Wooley & Deakin example I posted in comparison back in the 70s, it was listed as a cavalry officers saber.
I have seen these exact sabers, brass stirrup hilt, fluted ebony grip and montmorency blades, it seems a number produced by Wooley and Deakin c1800, as well as another the same by Durs Egg.
As I mentioned earlier, James Wooley of Birmingham seems to have certain preferences for French sword elements, as seen in his versions of the M1788 light cavalry saber (Thomas Gill followed German). This nuance I have never seen addressed, but I noticed it years ago, but being another of my petty quirks, was never really pursued.
Along with these preferences, Wooley also favored montmorency blades, but will place this later in separate thread.
Back to your sword, and again the blade, it seems likely the blade probably is something used in a rehilt about 1800 in any number of scenarios...the blade itself with profound intrinsic historic value.