Basket hilted backsword

Ron Anderson · 5th October 2010, 01:14 PM

It's been a while since I troubled you with a new thread. This is a recent purchase. It is in uncleaned condition and to my mind is an incredibly good piece.

The surprising thing to me is the guard, which is wrapped in silver wire, and looks to be from an earlier era than was suggested in the sales description.

The blade is very nice, and long. This is a huge sword. There seems to be one armourer's mark on the hilt which is difficult to make out.

Can anyone here tell me whether this is English or Scottish, and what era is dates back to. Is this a forerunner to the 1788 pattern Scottish basket hilt? It sure looks similar, with a few differences.

The basket looks to be steel, not brass.

I look forward to hearing your opinion.

M ELEY · 7th October 2010, 06:26 AM

This is the way I like them. Old, plain fighters that were NOT dress swords, Victorian era "rank" pieces, piece-together or tinkered with, brass-hilted "band" swords, etc. I have always wnated to have one of these for the collection...maybe someday

.

No expert, but isn't this the 1798 pattern that was issued to Scottish troops serving under the English??

On a second look, yours has the iron vs brass basket and perhaps a precursor of the pattern-

www.swordforum.com/fall99/1865.html
(I love this sword type!)

Ron Anderson · 7th October 2010, 07:05 AM

Thanks for your reply.

It's similar, yes. But not the same. Perhaps it is a precursor. Notice the bars in the front, which are much more prominent. Also the guard's a little different in shape.

This is steel not brass.

And the grip is silver wire wrap – the kind you find on18th century rapiers.

This sword is huge. The blade is very long.

It was actually described as an English (yes, English!) backsword - cavalry.

But it's so Scottish in it's look I have to wonder. As you say, there's that 1798 pattern to consider, for a start.

Jim McDougall · 8th October 2010, 08:57 PM

This is indeed a beauty! and it is indeed English. Technically there were no such things as truly 'Scottish' baskethilts after the fateful '45 rebellion of 1745. However the British king did very much favor these attractive and well protecting basket guards and as he began raising cavalry units of dragoons comprised of Scottish men, the production of basket hilt type straight backswords increased. Technically, there are no Scottish baskethilts with the straight backsword blades either. Obviously these statements are generally made, and there may be exceptions.

The brass hilts mentioned used by British infantry actually were superceded by iron/steel hilts in about 1828, and these kinds of patterns continued through the 19th century, however this example seems either a variation or as noted, precursor to the brass hilt types. The styling, grip, and presence of turks heads on the grips seem of 18th century affectation. The blank, rather than pierced saltire plates also suggest 18th century English origin.
There was a British armoury at Edinburgh and other lowland armourers that were producing and some hilts I believe, but most were being produced in Birmingham by makers such as Drury and Jeffries, these being the more familiar pierced steel exceptions in the c.1770 infantry swords.

Extremely nice fighting example, and would like to see better photos of the blade...wondering if it corresponds to the M1796 heavy cavalry sword blade.

All best regards,
Jim

Ron Anderson · 9th October 2010, 12:15 AM

Hi Jim

Thanks for that info.

Here are more pictures, including blade. My feeling is this is not a 1796 pattern blade. The fuller is different and doesn't extend all the way to the spear tip the way I've seen in those 1796 pattern swords. I've just checked my Robson reference book to confirm.

Personally, I've never been impressed with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword. For its size, it seemed lightweight and weak and clumsy. As I used to own a Heavy Cavalry French Pallasch circa 1811, I was surprsied when I first picked up the English equivalent, and disappointed.

The blade on this sword seems of a much better quality to me. This is a nice blade indeed.

Jim McDougall · 9th October 2010, 02:16 AM

Thanks for the updated photos Ron, and seeing the blade detail, it is of course obvious this has nothing to do with the M1796 blade. With the elliptical fuller terminus it seems more like a Continental type blade, so likely a Solingen product.

I know what you mean on the M1796 heavy cavalry swords, and quite honestly they received similar reviews to what you have noted when they were first introduced. These did however exact horrifying results on the French forces at Waterloo with the immortal charge of the Royal Scots Greys. Despite these accounts, for the most part these were regarded exactly as you note, as being clumsy and ineffective, quite contrary to the ambitious hopes of LeMarchant when he sought to create these official patterns for light and heavy cavalry.

The French pallasch as you have also noted, was a superb weapon indeed.

All the best,
Jim

Norman McCormick · 11th October 2010, 08:23 PM

Hi Ron,
Can you post the stats of the blade, length etc? Is the blade absolutely straight or is there a slight curve?
Regards,
Norman.

Ron Anderson · 11th October 2010, 11:10 PM

Hi Norman

I'll do the measurements when I get home tonight.

I think the blade is completely straight.

Ron Anderson · 12th October 2010, 10:23 AM

Hi Norman

Thanks for your interest.

The blade is between 97 and 98 cms. With the hilt the sword is about 114cms long.

The hilt is 15.5 cms wide from the extremities of the basket.

It is completely straight.

Regards
Ron

Cathey · 13th October 2010, 04:18 AM

Hi Ron

Wonderful to hear from a fellow Australian collector. This is an interesting sword and whilst I have a number of basket hilts in my collection I have never come across a pommel like this one. You might consider sending some pictures to the Baron of Earlshall who is in the process of finalising a book on Basket hilts that will become the definitive reference. His website is: www.thescottishbaskethiltedsword.co.uk/. If anyone can settle the question of English or Scottish I am certain the Baron can. Personally I would put money on it being English.

In your profile, you mention that you collect edged weapons is there a specific area of sword collecting that you specialise in?

Cheers Cathey.

Jim McDougall · 13th October 2010, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathey

Hi Ron

Wonderful to hear from a fellow Australian collector. This is an interesting sword and whilst I have a number of basket hilts in my collection I have never come across a pommel like this one. You might consider sending some pictures to the Baron of Earlshall who is in the process of finalising a book on Basket hilts that will become the definitive reference. His website is: www.thescottishbaskethiltedsword.co.uk/. If anyone can settle the question of English or Scottish I am certain the Baron can. Personally I would put money on it being English.

In your profile, you mention that you collect edged weapons is there a specific area of sword collecting that you specialise in?

Cheers Cathey.

Hi Cathey,
I just wanted to say its good to have you posting again! Its been a while it seems so just saying hello. Also its good to hear your assessment in this being English, as I have been convinced of that as well. I have always heard the guideline that there are no Highland Scottish swords post Culloden (1746) which seems reasonable technically as weapons were of course proscribed in the Highlands.
Naturally the industrious and clever Scots certainly must have made swords covertly much as they secreted away thier treasured basket hilts, but to identify these would be the height of identificative skill.
With the formation of the Scottish regiments for the Crown and the armoury at Edinburgh, there must have been swords of course to those with associations to these cases.

I think the most heartbreaking reference is that of "Swords From the Battlefield at Culloden", where the proud blades taken from fallen Highlanders in this travesty were taken from the hilts and made into an iron fence. Here you could see the familiar Andrea Ferara, running wolf and other markings on these painted over blades.

Again, wonderful to hear from you Cathey!

All the best,
Jim

Ron Anderson · 13th October 2010, 05:39 AM

Hi Cathey

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm actually not Australian by birth but have been here for a good few years.

I'm originally from Johannesburg, where I collected a wide variety of edged weapons, but most notably English regulation pattern officer's swords.

However, I sold my collection about 10 years ago, on emigrating, and have only started rebuilding again in the last 2 years.

I'm now far less discriminating. I also collect clubs, armour and knives from around the world.

But my real interest is in old European swords and armour - 18th century and earlier. And antique daggers, particularly European, but also elsewhere.

I'm pretty eclectic.

Cathey · 13th October 2010, 05:51 AM

HI RON REX AND I ALSO HAVE A GREAT INTEREST IN EARLY SWORDS AND ARMOUR BUT THEY ARE GETTING VERY PRICEY WE PUT A POSTING ON YESTERDAY ABOUT A RAPIER TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT
CHEERS REX/CATHEY

Ron Anderson · 13th October 2010, 06:53 AM

Hi Cathey

I do like rapiers. On this one I'm not that impressed with the hilt. The quality of it does not look great. And this I think is an indication that it may be a Victorian era piece, where the purpose of such swords was for display purposes only. The best guarantee for me that the item is truly early is in the quality of the workmanship. Copyists generally did not have the resources or motivation to provide the same level of quality in the work. The blade may be older, I don't know. The wire on the hilt certainly looks new.

I would let it go. There will be opportunities to buy a better item. Unless you're happy with a Victorian copy.

While I am not certain it is a Victorian copy, I have learned to trust cognitive dissonance (that intuitive feeling that something is not quite right). On these sorts of item, that may be the best guide in determining a good from a bad buy.

Norman McCormick · 13th October 2010, 05:57 PM

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the info. The blade profile with its single fuller and spear point reminds me a lot of some British blades from just before and into the second quarter of the 19thC. I thought at first it might be an infantry blade remounted but with a 97/8cms blade I'm assuming it really has to be a cavalry weapon. The ricasso is the part that makes me think that the blade falls into the timeline I previously mentioned. I have attached a photo showing two blades, the upper is a Heavy Cavalry officers sword c1870 the lower an 1821 Pattern Light Cavalry troopers sword c1830, this shows the difference in profiles at the ricasso. The fact that your blade is absolutely straight has thrown me a little re the actual source of the blade but I still think the timeframe is reasonably accurate for the blade style if not for the hilt. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area will chip in with more info.
My Regards,
Norman.

Ron Anderson · 14th October 2010, 12:24 AM

Hi Norman

Thanks for that.

I can see your point about the style of the blade being 19th century. I am quite familiar with the regulation pattern British swords. It isn't a 1796 pattern blade. And I don't think it's a cavalry blade from the 1821 pattern.

It's possible it's an imported blade, from Solingen perhaps as Jim suggests. But then it certainly wasn't employed in the British army as a regulation cavalry pattern in the 19th century.

So while the blade and the fuller does remind me too of blades of the period you suggest (early to mid 19th century), I believe it must be pre-1798. That would make sense to me of the fact that it resembles the 1798 pattern Scottish broadsword hilt.

I'm leaning towards it being very late 18th century, certainly before 1798.

The wire hilt seems to suggest much earlier, surprisingly, as does the pommel.

I would be surprised if this sword was not military, given the length and quality of the blade. But it seems to pre-date the arrival of the regulation patterns.

That's the best I can do at the moment.

But Maybe it belonged to some sort of yeomanry unit with a Scottish background.

That could place it into the 19th century perhaps.

I say this with reservation because I think Yeomanry swords would surely have had a variation of an existing blade pattern anyway.

Cathey · 14th October 2010, 02:36 AM

Hi Ron,

interesting view. When Rex and I started collecting we where fortunate to have assistance from a number of extremely experienced and well read collectors of old swords. The first thing they taught us is it is not so much how it looks but how it feels in the hand, which is why it is so hard to be certain from a photograph. Swords where made to be used in battle or made for the wealthy as part of there decorative wardrobe (or watching the battle from a safe distance).

My experience with Victorian copies and/or other display swords is that they are usually extremely ornate and well made, what gives them away is the complete lack of balance in the hand and in many cases signs of post industrial revolution manufacturing techniques i.e modern welds.

In the case of this rapier, after expert advice we know it was manufactured using the hammer and forge pre industrial technique. The sword is exceptionally well balanced in the hand and the blade far longer than anything I have seen on a copy to date. Of course a copy it could still be, however I am also reminded of a tale of two long time friends and well respected experts who fell out for the rest of there lives over a difference of opinion on the authenticity of a sword in the Wallace collection.

To buy or not to buy that is the question, I think if we can secure it for something close to the cost of a good Victorian copy it may be worth the risk.

Cheers Cathey

Ron Anderson · 14th October 2010, 03:22 AM

Hi Cathey

I would agree. The price is the pertinent factor here and I don't have that information.

I am not an expert in early swords.

There are obviously different grades of weapon, among both real early pieces and Victorian copies.

This makes authentification all the harder.

So I prefer to err on the side of caution.

But I would take a small risk if the the price was right. Certainly.

5th October 2010, 01:14 PM	#1
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Basket hilted backsword It's been a while since I troubled you with a new thread. This is a recent purchase. It is in uncleaned condition and to my mind is an incredibly good piece. The surprising thing to me is the guard, which is wrapped in silver wire, and looks to be from an earlier era than was suggested in the sales description. The blade is very nice, and long. This is a huge sword. There seems to be one armourer's mark on the hilt which is difficult to make out. Can anyone here tell me whether this is English or Scottish, and what era is dates back to. Is this a forerunner to the 1788 pattern Scottish basket hilt? It sure looks similar, with a few differences. The basket looks to be steel, not brass. I look forward to hearing your opinion. Attached Images

7th October 2010, 06:26 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,092	Very nice baskethilt! This is the way I like them. Old, plain fighters that were NOT dress swords, Victorian era "rank" pieces, piece-together or tinkered with, brass-hilted "band" swords, etc. I have always wnated to have one of these for the collection...maybe someday . No expert, but isn't this the 1798 pattern that was issued to Scottish troops serving under the English?? On a second look, yours has the iron vs brass basket and perhaps a precursor of the pattern- www.swordforum.com/fall99/1865.html (I love this sword type!) Last edited by M ELEY; 7th October 2010 at 06:39 AM.

9th October 2010, 12:15 AM	#5
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Jim Thanks for that info. Here are more pictures, including blade. My feeling is this is not a 1796 pattern blade. The fuller is different and doesn't extend all the way to the spear tip the way I've seen in those 1796 pattern swords. I've just checked my Robson reference book to confirm. Personally, I've never been impressed with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword. For its size, it seemed lightweight and weak and clumsy. As I used to own a Heavy Cavalry French Pallasch circa 1811, I was surprsied when I first picked up the English equivalent, and disappointed. The blade on this sword seems of a much better quality to me. This is a nice blade indeed. Attached Images

13th October 2010, 04:18 AM	#10
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	Fellow Ossie collector Hi Ron Wonderful to hear from a fellow Australian collector. This is an interesting sword and whilst I have a number of basket hilts in my collection I have never come across a pommel like this one. You might consider sending some pictures to the Baron of Earlshall who is in the process of finalising a book on Basket hilts that will become the definitive reference. His website is: www.thescottishbaskethiltedsword.co.uk/. If anyone can settle the question of English or Scottish I am certain the Baron can. Personally I would put money on it being English. In your profile, you mention that you collect edged weapons is there a specific area of sword collecting that you specialise in? Cheers Cathey.

13th October 2010, 05:57 PM	#15
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hi Ron, Thanks for the info. The blade profile with its single fuller and spear point reminds me a lot of some British blades from just before and into the second quarter of the 19thC. I thought at first it might be an infantry blade remounted but with a 97/8cms blade I'm assuming it really has to be a cavalry weapon. The ricasso is the part that makes me think that the blade falls into the timeline I previously mentioned. I have attached a photo showing two blades, the upper is a Heavy Cavalry officers sword c1870 the lower an 1821 Pattern Light Cavalry troopers sword c1830, this shows the difference in profiles at the ricasso. The fact that your blade is absolutely straight has thrown me a little re the actual source of the blade but I still think the timeframe is reasonably accurate for the blade style if not for the hilt. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area will chip in with more info. My Regards, Norman. Attached Images Last edited by Norman McCormick; 13th October 2010 at 06:08 PM.

7th October 2010, 07:05 AM	#3
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Thanks for your reply. It's similar, yes. But not the same. Perhaps it is a precursor. Notice the bars in the front, which are much more prominent. Also the guard's a little different in shape. This is steel not brass. And the grip is silver wire wrap – the kind you find on18th century rapiers. This sword is huge. The blade is very long. It was actually described as an English (yes, English!) backsword - cavalry. But it's so Scottish in it's look I have to wonder. As you say, there's that 1798 pattern to consider, for a start.

8th October 2010, 08:57 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	This is indeed a beauty! and it is indeed English. Technically there were no such things as truly 'Scottish' baskethilts after the fateful '45 rebellion of 1745. However the British king did very much favor these attractive and well protecting basket guards and as he began raising cavalry units of dragoons comprised of Scottish men, the production of basket hilt type straight backswords increased. Technically, there are no Scottish baskethilts with the straight backsword blades either. Obviously these statements are generally made, and there may be exceptions. The brass hilts mentioned used by British infantry actually were superceded by iron/steel hilts in about 1828, and these kinds of patterns continued through the 19th century, however this example seems either a variation or as noted, precursor to the brass hilt types. The styling, grip, and presence of turks heads on the grips seem of 18th century affectation. The blank, rather than pierced saltire plates also suggest 18th century English origin. There was a British armoury at Edinburgh and other lowland armourers that were producing and some hilts I believe, but most were being produced in Birmingham by makers such as Drury and Jeffries, these being the more familiar pierced steel exceptions in the c.1770 infantry swords. Extremely nice fighting example, and would like to see better photos of the blade...wondering if it corresponds to the M1796 heavy cavalry sword blade. All best regards, Jim

9th October 2010, 02:16 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Thanks for the updated photos Ron, and seeing the blade detail, it is of course obvious this has nothing to do with the M1796 blade. With the elliptical fuller terminus it seems more like a Continental type blade, so likely a Solingen product. I know what you mean on the M1796 heavy cavalry swords, and quite honestly they received similar reviews to what you have noted when they were first introduced. These did however exact horrifying results on the French forces at Waterloo with the immortal charge of the Royal Scots Greys. Despite these accounts, for the most part these were regarded exactly as you note, as being clumsy and ineffective, quite contrary to the ambitious hopes of LeMarchant when he sought to create these official patterns for light and heavy cavalry. The French pallasch as you have also noted, was a superb weapon indeed. All the best, Jim

11th October 2010, 08:23 PM	#7
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hi Ron, Can you post the stats of the blade, length etc? Is the blade absolutely straight or is there a slight curve? Regards, Norman.

11th October 2010, 11:10 PM	#8
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Norman I'll do the measurements when I get home tonight. I think the blade is completely straight.

12th October 2010, 10:23 AM	#9
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Norman Thanks for your interest. The blade is between 97 and 98 cms. With the hilt the sword is about 114cms long. The hilt is 15.5 cms wide from the extremities of the basket. It is completely straight. Regards Ron

13th October 2010, 05:39 AM	#12
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Cathey Thanks for your feedback. I'm actually not Australian by birth but have been here for a good few years. I'm originally from Johannesburg, where I collected a wide variety of edged weapons, but most notably English regulation pattern officer's swords. However, I sold my collection about 10 years ago, on emigrating, and have only started rebuilding again in the last 2 years. I'm now far less discriminating. I also collect clubs, armour and knives from around the world. But my real interest is in old European swords and armour - 18th century and earlier. And antique daggers, particularly European, but also elsewhere. I'm pretty eclectic.

13th October 2010, 05:51 AM	#13
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	HI RON REX AND I ALSO HAVE A GREAT INTEREST IN EARLY SWORDS AND ARMOUR BUT THEY ARE GETTING VERY PRICEY WE PUT A POSTING ON YESTERDAY ABOUT A RAPIER TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT CHEERS REX/CATHEY

13th October 2010, 06:53 AM	#14
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Cathey I do like rapiers. On this one I'm not that impressed with the hilt. The quality of it does not look great. And this I think is an indication that it may be a Victorian era piece, where the purpose of such swords was for display purposes only. The best guarantee for me that the item is truly early is in the quality of the workmanship. Copyists generally did not have the resources or motivation to provide the same level of quality in the work. The blade may be older, I don't know. The wire on the hilt certainly looks new. I would let it go. There will be opportunities to buy a better item. Unless you're happy with a Victorian copy. While I am not certain it is a Victorian copy, I have learned to trust cognitive dissonance (that intuitive feeling that something is not quite right). On these sorts of item, that may be the best guide in determining a good from a bad buy.

14th October 2010, 12:24 AM	#16
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Norman Thanks for that. I can see your point about the style of the blade being 19th century. I am quite familiar with the regulation pattern British swords. It isn't a 1796 pattern blade. And I don't think it's a cavalry blade from the 1821 pattern. It's possible it's an imported blade, from Solingen perhaps as Jim suggests. But then it certainly wasn't employed in the British army as a regulation cavalry pattern in the 19th century. So while the blade and the fuller does remind me too of blades of the period you suggest (early to mid 19th century), I believe it must be pre-1798. That would make sense to me of the fact that it resembles the 1798 pattern Scottish broadsword hilt. I'm leaning towards it being very late 18th century, certainly before 1798. The wire hilt seems to suggest much earlier, surprisingly, as does the pommel. I would be surprised if this sword was not military, given the length and quality of the blade. But it seems to pre-date the arrival of the regulation patterns. That's the best I can do at the moment. But Maybe it belonged to some sort of yeomanry unit with a Scottish background. That could place it into the 19th century perhaps. I say this with reservation because I think Yeomanry swords would surely have had a variation of an existing blade pattern anyway.

14th October 2010, 02:36 AM	#17
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	Victorian Copies - Rapier? Hi Ron, interesting view. When Rex and I started collecting we where fortunate to have assistance from a number of extremely experienced and well read collectors of old swords. The first thing they taught us is it is not so much how it looks but how it feels in the hand, which is why it is so hard to be certain from a photograph. Swords where made to be used in battle or made for the wealthy as part of there decorative wardrobe (or watching the battle from a safe distance). My experience with Victorian copies and/or other display swords is that they are usually extremely ornate and well made, what gives them away is the complete lack of balance in the hand and in many cases signs of post industrial revolution manufacturing techniques i.e modern welds. In the case of this rapier, after expert advice we know it was manufactured using the hammer and forge pre industrial technique. The sword is exceptionally well balanced in the hand and the blade far longer than anything I have seen on a copy to date. Of course a copy it could still be, however I am also reminded of a tale of two long time friends and well respected experts who fell out for the rest of there lives over a difference of opinion on the authenticity of a sword in the Wallace collection. To buy or not to buy that is the question, I think if we can secure it for something close to the cost of a good Victorian copy it may be worth the risk. Cheers Cathey

14th October 2010, 03:22 AM	#18
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Cathey I would agree. The price is the pertinent factor here and I don't have that information. I am not an expert in early swords. There are obviously different grades of weapon, among both real early pieces and Victorian copies. This makes authentification all the harder. So I prefer to err on the side of caution. But I would take a small risk if the the price was right. Certainly.