1796 L.C. Officers Sword.

Norman McCormick · 8th August 2010, 08:34 PM

Hi,
Got this locally on Friday and from what I can gather it had been lying in a garage for as long as the seller could remember. Not much was visible in its dirty condition but after a careful clean-up some of its former glory was revealed, see photos. The type of Royal Arms tells us this was manufactured sometime between 1796 and 1801. The maker, Osborn, is clearly marked on the spine but even if it wasn't I believe the faceted backstrap and ferrule along with the shape of the grip 'ears' was a peculiarity of Osborn swords. The grip is black leather covered wood bound with three strands of silver wire. The grip ironwork appears to have been blackened possibly japanned, I haven't come across a grip similarly finished so I would be interested if anyone could comment on this aspect. I have inspected the damage to the blade and the hilt and with my limited knowledge it would appear that this damage is old and possibly, hopefully, contemporary with the working life of the sword.
Regards,
Norman

Norman McCormick · 8th August 2010, 08:54 PM

Some blade detail.

Jim McDougall · 8th August 2010, 10:32 PM

Absolutely breathtaking Norman!!! Outstanding notes on the faceting as well, and as you note, this distinct feature would identify Osborn even without markings.
I once had a light cavalry officers sabre which had the same type faceting and comma type ears on the grip, but was not marked, so would have likely been Osborn. Interestingly it did have the Royal coat of arms, which you will note has the triple fluer de lis in the upper right quadrant. This was the pre 1801 coat of arms, as the fluer de lis was obviously discontinued at the outset of the Napoleonic wars.

Thank you for sharing this!!!

Norman McCormick · 9th August 2010, 01:59 PM

Hi Jim,
Once again many thanks for your input.

My Regards,
Norman.

Ian Knight · 9th August 2010, 02:17 PM

Hello Norman,
An interesting P1796. I have a very similar Osborn made sabre.

Do you think that the knicks to the blade are more likely caused by abuse rather than action on the battlefield? There seems to be many and they appear to be quite shallow.
I have seen a number of swords which were used at Waterloo and the damage to the blades was quite different. i.e. Few but deep knicks.

Ian

Norman McCormick · 9th August 2010, 07:32 PM

Hi Ian,
Thanks for your interest. With regard to the damage you may well be right. The nicks are located all along the blade the deepest being at the hilt end. The muck and rust was consistent throughout including in the nicks, however the abuse could have been perpetrated when the sword was in a reasonable condition and before it was dumped in a garage and left to rot. There was another sword associated with this one i.e. in a similar state from the same garage. Although the type was of little interest to me I did check this blade for damage the assumption being that 'little boys and big boys' like to spar with swords 'like they do in the movies'. There was no blade damage to this second sword so I reckoned these two had not been 'played with' at least not with each other. I have not handled many provenanced battlefield swords so I cannot honestly say whether the damage to this sword is definitely from use or abuse. This dubiety puts me in a bit of a quandary, restore or not? If the damage is contemporary with its working life I would leave well alone if not the temptation is there to replace the guard and find a scabbard? I would be interested in Forum members thinking on the 'use or abuse' and the 'restore or not' questions. Ian you mentioned that you have a similar sword, any chance of a few photographs?
My Regards,
Norman.

Richard · 18th August 2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Knight

Hello Norman,
An interesting P1796. I have a very similar Osborn made sabre.

Do you think that the knicks to the blade are more likely caused by abuse rather than action on the battlefield? There seems to be many and they appear to be quite shallow.
I have seen a number of swords which were used at Waterloo and the damage to the blades was quite different. i.e. Few but deep knicks.

Ian

Interesting observation Ian, and something I had never really thought about. However, I have a few swords with definite Waterloo or other battle provenance and these would certainly bear out what you are saying, i.e. a few but quite deep nicks.

Richard

Top : Sword of Lt Chatterton, 12LD, carried at Vittoria, Salamanca, Quatre Bras and Waterloo
Bottom: 16th LD officer's sword, almost certainly at Waterloo

Richard · 18th August 2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

this distinct feature would identify Osborn even without markings.

Jim,

I don't think comma ears and facetted backpiece and ferrule always mean Osborn. I think this design detail certainly originated with Osborn but later on many other makers copied the design. Actually, I'm wondering if Ian's sword is an Osborn as there is no indication of a name on the blade (that I can see)even though it is absolutely in Osborn's style?

Richard

Ian Knight · 22nd August 2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Jim,

I don't think comma ears and facetted backpiece and ferrule always mean Osborn. I think this design detail certainly originated with Osborn but later on many other makers copied the design. Actually, I'm wondering if Ian's sword is an Osborn as there is no indication of a name on the blade (that I can see)even though it is absolutely in Osborn's style?

Richard

Hello Richard,
The blade is marked 'Osborn Warranted' on the back of the blade close to the hilt. The Osborn part of the inscription has lost its gilding and is hard to photograph.

Ian

8th August 2010, 08:34 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,646	1796 L.C. Officers Sword. Hi, Got this locally on Friday and from what I can gather it had been lying in a garage for as long as the seller could remember. Not much was visible in its dirty condition but after a careful clean-up some of its former glory was revealed, see photos. The type of Royal Arms tells us this was manufactured sometime between 1796 and 1801. The maker, Osborn, is clearly marked on the spine but even if it wasn't I believe the faceted backstrap and ferrule along with the shape of the grip 'ears' was a peculiarity of Osborn swords. The grip is black leather covered wood bound with three strands of silver wire. The grip ironwork appears to have been blackened possibly japanned, I haven't come across a grip similarly finished so I would be interested if anyone could comment on this aspect. I have inspected the damage to the blade and the hilt and with my limited knowledge it would appear that this damage is old and possibly, hopefully, contemporary with the working life of the sword. Regards, Norman Attached Images

8th August 2010, 08:54 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,646	Some blade detail. Attached Images

8th August 2010, 10:32 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Absolutely breathtaking Norman!!! Outstanding notes on the faceting as well, and as you note, this distinct feature would identify Osborn even without markings. I once had a light cavalry officers sabre which had the same type faceting and comma type ears on the grip, but was not marked, so would have likely been Osborn. Interestingly it did have the Royal coat of arms, which you will note has the triple fluer de lis in the upper right quadrant. This was the pre 1801 coat of arms, as the fluer de lis was obviously discontinued at the outset of the Napoleonic wars. Thank you for sharing this!!!

9th August 2010, 01:59 PM	#4
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,646	Hi Jim, Once again many thanks for your input. My Regards, Norman.

9th August 2010, 02:17 PM	#5
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	Hello Norman, An interesting P1796. I have a very similar Osborn made sabre. Do you think that the knicks to the blade are more likely caused by abuse rather than action on the battlefield? There seems to be many and they appear to be quite shallow. I have seen a number of swords which were used at Waterloo and the damage to the blades was quite different. i.e. Few but deep knicks. Ian

9th August 2010, 07:32 PM	#6
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,646	Hi Ian, Thanks for your interest. With regard to the damage you may well be right. The nicks are located all along the blade the deepest being at the hilt end. The muck and rust was consistent throughout including in the nicks, however the abuse could have been perpetrated when the sword was in a reasonable condition and before it was dumped in a garage and left to rot. There was another sword associated with this one i.e. in a similar state from the same garage. Although the type was of little interest to me I did check this blade for damage the assumption being that 'little boys and big boys' like to spar with swords 'like they do in the movies'. There was no blade damage to this second sword so I reckoned these two had not been 'played with' at least not with each other. I have not handled many provenanced battlefield swords so I cannot honestly say whether the damage to this sword is definitely from use or abuse. This dubiety puts me in a bit of a quandary, restore or not? If the damage is contemporary with its working life I would leave well alone if not the temptation is there to replace the guard and find a scabbard? I would be interested in Forum members thinking on the 'use or abuse' and the 'restore or not' questions. Ian you mentioned that you have a similar sword, any chance of a few photographs? My Regards, Norman.