A Pair of English Swords?

[drac2k]

Funny, as things go in Batches; I just acquired my second Lion-headed sword in a month and what I believe to be a British 1796 Light Cavalry Officer's Sword.
The first questions are on the 1796 sword; am I correct in its attribution and does anyone recognize the maker's mark? I can not make heads or tails of it.
The second sword is unknown to me; I am assuming that it is also British, circa 1790-1812, but I can not find a similar example.
Any help would be appreciated!

[Radboud]

I don’t think either of these swords are British.

The top one isn’t a 1796 LC in any case. The blade shape is wrong, the ricasso too large, the guard too thick and it’s missing the langets… to name a few of the issues.

The hanger might be British, but I suspect it’s more likely to be from one of the German states. Especially with the marking on the grip furrell.

[drac2k]

Thanks for your response Radboud, but I'm pretty sure that the long sword is the 1796 Light Cavalry Sword. It measures 33.5" long, it has the hatchet type end and as per "Swords of the British Army," by Brian Robson, there are examples without the langets.
I think that you could be correct in attributing the lion-headed sword as being German.
Thank you for your comments

[toaster5sqn]

I'd be inclined to agree with Radbound that it looks slightly off for a 1796 LC. The heavier guard is generally an indication of the Prussian Model 1811 Light Cavalry sabre which was a copy of the 1796.

But there is still that very short quillion and long ricasso that seem off even then.

That makers mark could be the clincher but I haven't found it in any of my references.

Robert

[kronckew]

The '1796' could be a British officer's private purchase sword. Doesn't appear to be a Prussian Blucher 1811 variant. Officers ones vary considerably, have different grip 'ears' and even languets shapes – or missing them entirely. Officer ones were lighter and quite flexible. The Indian Army liked them, and made their own versions, I'd bet with larger ricassos. Officer ones frequently had the Mfg.'s name on the spine. Trooper ones were mostly all marked with regimental/troop/rack numbers.

I'd guess German (Prussian) officer ones also would vary.

With no markings other than that on the ricasso, no bluing, or blade decorations, unless someone else knows whose it is, you may be out of luck for more details.

What is the weight of the 1796 lc? My officer's one weighs 698 grams and the balance is about 6 inches in front of the guard. It also has no markings surviving.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Trooper ones were mostly all marked with regimental/troop/rack numbers.

British 1796 LC sabres with regimental/troop/rack numbers are significantly less commonly found than those without. Normally such numbers indicate foreign service, for example, with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Sweden, Prussia or Portugal. All of these countries received supplies of British cavalry swords amongst other weapons during the Napoleonic wars.

The most one can realistically hope for on a British troopers sword is an inspectors stamp (crown over a number) and a makers mark on the spine at the base. Some are marked with a B on the spine for the balance point. But plenty have nothing.

Of course there are exceptions like with the Yeomanry, who often had swords purchased privately by their Colonel. So I’m not saying that they aren’t out there, but they are not “mostly all” marked.

For some reason, such markings are more common on the 1796 heavy cavalry sword, and one possible reason could be because the yeomanry were all light cavalry and for the large part used the 1796 LC sabre. But again there were exceptions here as well.

Edit: Kronckew, that’s a light cavalry sword! What is the blade length?

[Bryce]

G'day Drac2k,
I agree with the previous comments that neither sword is British. The top sword isn't a British 1796 LC sabre. Can you please post a better photo of the hilt?
Cheers,
Bryce