1796 L.C. Officers Sword.

[Ian Knight]

Hello Norman,
To have the sabre professionally restored would cost a lot of money, probably into three figures.
You could restore it youself however by sourcing the parts, disassembling the sabre and fitting the new parts. You should be able to use the knucklebow from any P1796 Officer's sabre as this doesn't have the faceted finish used on the backpiece and ferrule.
If you do consider the sabre to have sustained the damage in 'action' I would remove any corrosion, protect the sword using Renaissance Wax and leave as is.
My P1796 officer's sabre.

Ian

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Ian,
Thanks for posting your sabre, a very nice example. As regards restoration it's one of those things 'do you or don't you'? In this case I think the damage I would cause to the peened tang and the 'ear' rivet in disassembly is not worth the aesthetics of a replacement guard. I will call it 'old' damage as it certainly hasn't been done in recent times and be satisfied with that. If a scabbard happens to come along at some time I don't see a problem with a marriage, mismatches re swords and scabbards seem the norm rather than the exception anyway. If you happen to know of a lonely scabbard you know where to get me.
My Regards.
Norman.

[Emanuel]

Hello,

Here's another Osborn 1796 LC officer's sword. It has suffered a bit of damage to the quillon and the engraving is worn off. It still has "Osborn Warranted" etched in one of the panels. I was surprised by how relatively light this sabre feels. I have a some tulwar that feel quite a bit heavier.

Emanuel

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Emanuel,
Thanks for posting your example. I agree that they are light sabres, no Jedi jokes please, and I wonder if the troopers version is as well balanced. Maybe Ian would care to comment on this as he has both types, it's a long time since I have had both kinds in my possession so I'm not able to make a proper judgement. Regarding Tulwars, I have one which I would say is as well balanced but not quite as light, having said that I don't have any Tulwars of really good quality so I wouldn't like to make any direct comparisons. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Richard]

I hope you guys don't mind me coming in on this debate?

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Richard

I hope you guys don't mind me coming in on this debate?

Hi Richard,
No problem, the more the merrier. The assertion that the faceted faces was solely an Osborn design feature was mine I'm afraid. I was under the impression that this was the case but I defer knowing your experience is much greater that mine when it comes to Napoleonic era swords. Were there several makers who copied this design? With regard to the 'abuse v use' question, this would appear to be quite subjective and very difficult to quantify. I think that real battlefield attributable swords are not that thick on the ground, although you wouldn't think so when reading descriptions on a well known internet auction site, and therefore the signs, or not, of genuine 'battle damage' is quite a difficult thing to ascertain with any real precision. Whether my sword has been the subject of 'abuse or use' will unfortunately, I suppose, have to remain an opinion only. This dubiety, to my mind, impinges greatly on the next question 'restore or not'. The restored sword you posted would appear to have been a composite brought back to its original configuration. Was the infantry guard a period or modern marriage? If it was a period addition/replacement some people may view it as part of the history attached to the sword and as such should be left as is. Regardless of anyones views on this subject the hilt restoration on your example is artfully done and has resulted in a really nice sword. On another subject, do you have any views on the wieldable aspects of the officers swords versus the troopers version? We're a relaxed lot here so please come in on any subject at any time, the bigger the input the more interesting it gets.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Richard,
No problem, the more the merrier. The assertion that the faceted faces was solely an Osborn design feature was mine I'm afraid. I was under the impression that this was the case but I defer knowing your experience is much greater that mine when it comes to Napoleonic era swords. Were there several makers who copied this design? With regard to the 'abuse v use' question, this would appear to be quite subjective and very difficult to quantify. I think that real battlefield attributable swords are not that thick on the ground, although you wouldn't think so when reading descriptions on a well known internet auction site, and therefore the signs, or not, of genuine 'battle damage' is quite a difficult thing to ascertain with any real precision. Whether my sword has been the subject of 'abuse or use' will unfortunately, I suppose, have to remain an opinion only. This dubiety, to my mind, impinges greatly on the next question 'restore or not'. The restored sword you posted would appear to have been a composite brought back to its original configuration. Was the infantry guard a period or modern marriage? If it was a period addition/replacement some people may view it as part of the history attached to the sword and as such should be left as is. Regardless of anyones views on this subject the hilt restoration on your example is artfully done and has resulted in a really nice sword. On another subject, do you have any views on the wieldable aspects of the officers swords versus the troopers version? We're a relaxed lot here so please come in on any subject at any time, the bigger the input the more interesting it gets.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hello Norman

I think Osborn's "comma" ear design was probably considered the most elegant of the differing officer hilts and was therefore most widely copied. I have definitely seen it on swords by Richard Johnston and many others where no maker is evident (and which are clearly not by Osborn as he always put his name on the blades he made).

Re swords with battlefield provenance, yes, they are very rare except as you say on one certain website which indulges in the wildest wishful thinking. I don't think we can ever say with 100% certainty that a sword was present at such and such a battle. Chatterton's sword above has impeccable provenance - his name is on the sword, he was present at the battles I have listed and it suffers greatly from service wear .... but its possible he had two swords! So you can be 99.9% certain as I am in this case but never 100%

Re the Bombay cavalry sword. I was totally satisfied that the infantry hilt was a modern marriage, probably added to make the sword saleable. It was very ill fitting and had actually been bent to make it fit. I therefore decided to restore it to its former glory (I hasten to add I didn't do the work myself!).

Richard

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Ian,
Thanks for posting your sabre, a very nice example. As regards restoration it's one of those things 'do you or don't you'? In this case I think the damage I would cause to the peened tang and the 'ear' rivet in disassembly is not worth the aesthetics of a replacement guard. I will call it 'old' damage as it certainly hasn't been done in recent times and be satisfied with that. If a scabbard happens to come along at some time I don't see a problem with a marriage, mismatches re swords and scabbards seem the norm rather than the exception anyway. If you happen to know of a lonely scabbard you know where to get me.
My Regards.
Norman.

Ah, the big question - to restore or not! Personally I would but others will have different views. Here's a sword of the 1st Bombay cavalry I restored earlier

Top : Before
Bottom : After