Victorian Era Infantry Officer’s Sword?

[dana_w]

Originally Posted by RobertGuy

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...

Thanks RobertGuy. It is a "real conundrum".

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[RobertGuy]

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?

[dana_w]

Originally Posted by RobertGuy

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?

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

[Richard G]

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

[dana_w]

Originally Posted by Richard G

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.

[dana_w]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

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

[RobertGuy]

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)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by dana_w

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

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

[David R]

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.

[dana_w]

Sweet, thanks for the info.

[Jim McDougall]

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