1796 L.C. Officers Sword.

[Norman McCormick]

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]

Some blade detail.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

Hi Jim,
Once again many thanks for your input.
My Regards,
Norman.

[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

[Norman McCormick]

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.

[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?

[Richard]

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

[Richard]

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]

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

[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

[Ian Knight]

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

[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

[Ian Knight]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

I really love those sabres Richard.
I have always believed from reading about first hand accounts from the period that cavalry engagements would be short but very violent affairs. In the mayhem of a cavalry engagement one or two blows would have been the maximum possible. Perhaps a parry and one or two cuts at an opponent.
One only has to read the various Scots Greys accounts from the Battle of Waterloo to have a good understanding of a cavalry action.
When a trooper was attemping to kill an opponent he would use his sabre with all of his force. Trooper's would often stand in their stirrups to give their blow more force. If the opponent were lucky enough to parry the blow this would leave a very deep notch in the blade as in the lower of Richards two sabres. Many blows would also hit the opponents blade at an angle showing the impact and removing a slither of metal. I own a French 1810 dated Cuirassier's sabre with it's original scabbard and hatchet pointed blade. This sword blade shows such an impact near the hilt. See photos below.
In action notches to the blade would vary from the point of the blade up to and including the hilt.
I am convinced that much of the damage that I see to swords at auction is caused not by military engagements but merely from abuse by more recent owners enacting scenes from their favourite movies or just play acting. These knicks are very distintive: Very many shallow cuts and nicks on the lower half of the blade away from where the hand would be grasping the sword.
Obviously, sword blades can also show deep cuts from being used in action and the more shallow cuts from sword abuse.

Ian

[Jim McDougall]

Great observations Ian!! and I think that would be a great topic for a thread on 'sword forensics'.....examination and assessment of combat damage vs. unrelated inflictions of the blades of edged weapons.

It is true that real sword combat, in addition to perhaps virtually all forms of combat, whether embellished in literature, narrative or movies, is far from these depictions. Actually even duels etc. were typically brief actions with a series of rapid and quickly ended moves, interspersed with long positioning, guaging and deliberate movements....far from the swashbuckling, constant clanging of blade against blade. In actual use, energy is quickly spent, though in actual combat, fear, anger and adrenalin propel the combatants far beyond normal limitations. It is really impossible to guage the intensity of the blows struck, or random results of such violent interaction, and the kind of glancing damage seen on Ians posted French blade is a great example.

It is hard to imagine protocol, regulation or procedural adherence in the maelstrom of chaos that must have exploded in these horrific events, but I recall one instance that I believe was recounted from the Charge of the Light Brigade. A wounded British cavalry trooper engaging a Russian cavalryman in the melee following contact in the charge, was later complaining about the engagement claiming that he had used a cut so and so in attack, expecting a responding cut in accordance to protocol, but complained the fool responded with the inappropriate cut in accord, and knocked him off his horse.
Clearly the trooper was referring to the "Rules and Regulations for the Sword Exercise of Cavalry" (1796) written by LeMarchant and authorized by George III............it seems it must have been uttered humorously, as obviously the Russians could not have been expected to follow such rules. Just the same, it is interesting to see how sanely and rationally prescribed rules cannot possibly be part of the relative and incidental insanity experienced in the horrors of this kind of combat, regardless of training and expectation.

It is fascinating to see the history that unfolds as we examine a cavalry sabre tossed unceremoniously into a garage, and left for years. It is a shame that the public at large typically does not realize that historic items are not just in museums or in books, but in staggering numbers exist in these very circumstances. It is heartening to see another of these old warriors saved from obscurity.....thank you Norman!!!!! and thanks for the fantastic discussion here guys!!!

All the best,
Jim

[Richard]

When I was collecting French 1st Empire swords a few years ago, one of the things I always used to look for was denting and damage at the bottom of the scabbard as in the Imperial Guard Chasseur a Cheval scabbard below. All French cavalry swords with brass scabbards sustained this sort of damage where the bottom of the scabbard clashed with the rider's spurs in general or in a melee. It is something that always delineates a genuine example from a forgery.

[Richard]

On the other hand, here is the scabbard from Gen Francis Hugonin's (4th Dragoons) sword (before restoration) showing a very nice dent which has bent it at rakish angle of about 15 deg. Was this caused by the blow of an enemy sabre? Maybe it deflected a musket ball? No, the answer is that it was stored in an attic for about 25 years and some fool stepped on it!

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Richard!! Those are excellent pointers in looking at these swords, and those are the kind of tips that really help in assessing these weapons. Thank you for sharing them, especially about the dings at the end of the scabbard, one never thinks of the damage to the scabbard, always focused on the sword. This is true weapons forensics, looking for clues beyond what is normally the center of attention.

All the best,
Jim