1796 L.C. Officers Sword.

[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

[Jim McDougall]

Richard, its really good to have you come in on our discussion!!! and I was hoping you would but hadnt seen you posting for a while. Welcome back, and thank you for the as always, great notes. You're absolutely right of course, the distinctive and attractive comma ears would have likely been copied by others seeking to match the desirability of Osborn's work, and while I noted it was 'likely' to be, 'possibly' would have better served.

I think what is most interesting is the pre 1801 arms, and realizing that this cannot serve as a steadfast denominator in dating of weapons, again it presents as probably pre 1801. I am not sure when Johnston worked, or the others who also may have used the comma ear feature, or the faceting, but I have generally been inclined to pre 1801 and Osborn. It seems I have seen the comma ears on other M1796 light cavalry sabres that were with plain blades and probably a bit later, and thinking they were either officers 'fighting' sabres or for troopers, possibly yeomanry?

Again, great to have you posting again!!!!

All the best,
Jim

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Richard, its really good to have you come in on our discussion!!! and I was hoping you would but hadnt seen you posting for a while. Welcome back, and thank you for the as always, great notes. You're absolutely right of course, the distinctive and attractive comma ears would have likely been copied by others seeking to match the desirability of Osborn's work, and while I noted it was 'likely' to be, 'possibly' would have better served.

I think what is most interesting is the pre 1801 arms, and realizing that this cannot serve as a steadfast denominator in dating of weapons, again it presents as probably pre 1801. I am not sure when Johnston worked, or the others who also may have used the comma ear feature, or the faceting, but I have generally been inclined to pre 1801 and Osborn. It seems I have seen the comma ears on other M1796 light cavalry sabres that were with plain blades and probably a bit later, and thinking they were either officers 'fighting' sabres or for troopers, possibly yeomanry?

Again, great to have you posting again!!!!

All the best,
Jim

Good point about the pre 1801 arms Jim but I think unless a sword has Osborn's name on it, its not an Osborn. He was a maker rather than a retailer and no doubt proud of his work, thus I'm sure his name always appears where the sword was made by him.

You mention also undecorated blades with officer type hilts (still talking about P1796's of course)- that's another big subject! As a general (but certainly not invariable) rule, if it has an officer's type hilt, I would say its an officer's sword regardless of the fact that it has a plain blade. I call these "economy" officers' swords - some officers may not have sufficient finances to be able to afford a decorated blade, some may have had two swords, a nice B&G to impress the ladies and a plain blade for business. As far as the yeomanry are concerned, it is actually quite often the case that all members of a unit, both officers and troopers, carried swords with decorated blades as these people were the well-heeled tradesmen and middle class of their time. This was certainly the case with the Loyal Birmingham Light Horse Volunteers and the Liverpool Light Horse.

Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard

Good point about the pre 1801 arms Jim but I think unless a sword has Osborn's name on it, its not an Osborn. He was a maker rather than a retailer and no doubt proud of his work, thus I'm sure his name always appears where the sword was made by him.

You mention also undecorated blades with officer type hilts (still talking about P1796's of course)- that's another big subject! As a general (but certainly not invariable) rule, if it has an officer's type hilt, I would say its an officer's sword regardless of the fact that it has a plain blade. I call these "economy" officers' swords - some officers may not have sufficient finances to be able to afford a decorated blade, some may have had two swords, a nice B&G to impress the ladies and a plain blade for business. As far as the yeomanry are concerned, it is actually quite often the case that all members of a unit, both officers and troopers, carried swords with decorated blades as these people were the well-heeled tradesmen and middle class of their time. This was certainly the case with the Loyal Birmingham Light Horse Volunteers and the Liverpool Light Horse.

Richard

Hi Richard,
Good points on Osborn, and identifying by distinctive features alone. He was indeed one of the premeire makers of his time, perhaps even one of the most sought after as he was instrumental in making the original swords of this M1796 pattern in accord with LeMarchant. It does seem unlikely that he would have left his work unmarked, unlike numbers of the others who as noted probably sought to simulate Osborn's work, and obviously left it unsigned in that intent.
Officers typically had pretty much carte blanche as I understand, though they did follow general patterns in view of the efforts for regulation and standardization. As far as I know officers were commissioned, and as such would have usually been well heeled as those were by purchase, and quite expensive. In those times fashion was key to image and status, and I would think that the sword would not be scrimped on, actually the contrary. I do believe officers had dress or levee swords, general manuever and field swords and outright combat or 'fighting' swords. I honestly do not believe officers would have carried handsomely decorated blades into battle, nor swords with fragile decoration, but nicely and firmly hilted with sturdy plain blades.

I think that later accounts and narratives 'presumed' a sword attributed to a particular figure was carried by him at a certain battle or event, but in reality a 'service' weapon was used in place of the more colorful weapon. As the weapon was later embellished, along with the narratives by association, the misperception would have been set. Naturally, as with all weapons, this is just a plausible scenario, and exceptions prevailed, but this seems a plausible 'rule' in degree.

For example, Wyatt Earp in the legends greated around him, was well associated with the fabled 'Buntline Special' , a Colt .45 with a foot long barrel specially ordered and presented to him by the writer Ned Buntline.
It was long assumed that Wyatt wore this gun and had it at the OK Corral, however in later years it was discovered he seldom ever wore it, and actually used a Smith & Wesson in the famed gunfight. In actuality, he did not even have a holster, and had a specially lined pocket in his trail coat to carry his gun.
An odd analogy in discussing early cavalry sabres but the point is the same.

Again it is great having you with us on this discussion, as your expertise in these regulation swords is well established with the amazing examples you hold and have handled, as well as the corpus of articles you have written.


All the very best,
Jim