Federalist sword

[Hotspur]

It is the somewhat contradictory premise introduced in your first post that prompts more source and research work.

This scarce type described in Harold Peterson's "The American Sword", plate 18. Many of these types were inscribed on the blade "American light horse" for the cavalry dragoons. They were discussed at length in a Man-At-Arms article from back in 1992. This pattern sems to be the first true American sword pattern after we officially became a country.

Part of the post I lost was in regarding the massive amount of data presented in Neumann's pages listing American horseman sabers. We see one cast grip lion and the origin and maker left an unknown but does relate a European blade. In the several pages of Neumann's horseman's sabers there are indeed several lion pommel swords but pommels only attributed to American. Flayderman's Medicus book lists four lion's in a row all quite similar except for only one of those four being listed American made and three English. None of the four with cast grips.

The use of the lion pommel as iconic as well falls away in my perception as the American continentals such as Washington were not happy with the thought of the lion pommels persisting as a label for their new nation. The eagle does indeed start to pick up steam nationally by the end of the revolution and again, were does that leave the silversmiths and cutlers of New England. It is possible, yes, that cutlers did assemble and even cast full grips but the evidence really does not bear out what is first listed as scarce and then secondly regarded as the first true American pattern.

What I have found of American interpretations of lions (and later eagles, particularly the Osborn Weepers-pcay is listing a doozy of one on the bay right now) show a great deal of coarseness in the differences between texture and finish of chasing the castings and making castings from extant castings instead of producing the wax models. If Prahl is supposed to have been the source for these cast grip lions, why on earth would his eagles have appeared so primitive (along with some other Philadelphia brass casters) compared to the much more refined work going on both in Philadelphia and Baltimore silversmith shops.

Another cast lion hilt in Neumann's to consider is attached below here. I have it handy as an example of brass work from another discussion. What is listed there as French naval artillery turns out to be actually better listed as Belgian (yes?) infantry.

With the cast spiral hilts of other English and European examples then combined with lions used in many countries, determining swords with obviously European blade construct (and many so marked) the evidence kind of piles up against anything except compilations by cutlers. Bazelon and Mowbray (the elder) both share Prahl information along with the earlier Peterson notes and it may well be these later publications (as also with Neumann) are kind of on the fence toppling away from absolutes.

With that, I myself would not take an absolute stance either but might be convinced by later findings.

Note the sleekness of the two Neumann's if you have a copy handy. The cast horseman lion (not attached here) is quite like the French/Belgian shortsword grip and also quite like the Prahl blocky grip eagle version.

Cheers

GC

[Hotspur]

Regarding Peterson, I have just opened it again and the blurb for sword 18 is easy to read much into without regarding the first line. Made in Germany. The similar swords regarded there are not all meant to be cast hilts but simply of a type. It is the blade inscription of American Light Horse that is prevalent and not the cast lion hilt that is being described as common.

The Peterson dating of the Prahl eagle is speculatively outdated and updated with better information in Mowbray's eagle book.

I will admit I am one of the rookies out there and may in time find more of the old articles quite useful in their own rights but a lot has surfaced with the growth of the internet and hard publications as well. I spend an inordinate amount of time speculating regarding eagle pommels and was gearing up to supplant Mowbray the elder's eagle work and then got to reading through the younger and Flayderman assembling the Medicus book. More head scratching yet to be uncovered but the original concept of networking worked through others efforts such as Rankin and Tuite which opened my eyes even further while still leaving more to uncover.

One revelation of my own and not well published is a maker generally assumed and written to have been working in Paris. His work and family actually in Strausborg. Regarded as the mysterious Parisian. I have more to tie that one up for it to be conclusive but it was an internet find, not a book I have.

Cheers

GC

Cheers

[M ELEY]

Ahhh, research...it will be the death of us all (right, Jim McD?).

I see your point with the many hilt types coming out of Europe and admit that this sword could have completely been manufactured over-seas. As a matter of fact, the sword I traded to get this one had a solid brass lion-hilt finely formed with octogonal hilt. I have seen this hilt type ascribed to French patterns that were imported to America both during and after the Revolution. Mine was a Spanish colonial broadsword with German made blade, classic 6-sided balde with Spanish markings and motto. I will hang onto the fact, though, that so far, this pattern of private purchase has not been seen in any other European setting. So, motto or not ("American Light Horse"), I think these were made for the American market, specifically for cavalry officers. Until i see one in a Waterloo collection, that is. I seem to remember the article's author stating he didn't belive that either Rose or Prahl had made the hilt, but some 3rd party (Rose never worked in brass save for his later cavalry scabbards, which were poorly made vs his beautiful swords). Likewise, as you stated, Prahl's work appears more primitive. In any case, I appreciate the feedback. It keeps me on my toes-

I know what you mean when you mention the opinions and theories of other authors. Much head-scratching. I think as time goes by, some of those treaties fall by the wayside (In Stu Rankin's book on naval weapons, he at one time was convinced that early U.S. marine swords followed the Brit NCO pattern...an opinion seconded by none). Tuite's article on naval weapons (down-loadable-YES!) was excellent and presents a conundrum when he shows that one-off naval cutlass with iron cylindrical grip. An interesting piece resembling a cutlass I am researching. In any case, it's all good.

[M ELEY]

Speaking of Bruce Bazelon, he is the author of the article of whic I so frequently quote and he has truly doen his research. The name of the article is "The Philadelphia Brass Hilt". He does admit that his approach is just a theory, but lends support to it through facts and hypothesis. He likewise conferred heavily with Mr Mowbray in writing the article, so I think there's credence here. In any case, I think it's a beautiful sword and I'm glad to have it in my collection.

Here's a varient from Morristown,NJ (Example 12)
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...ew/vol4-1d.htm

A rough example with "American Light Horse" marking on blade-
www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?
ahid3693&aid=27357&lid=7593169#topoflot

[M ELEY]

For posterity's sake, here are the descriptions of the few examples I was able to find in auction catalogs over the years. My source for these was Norm Flayderman's catalogs (no example found in Fagan & Co, Dale C. Anderson, Frederick's Swords, Museum of Historical Arms, etc, over a 15-20 yr period). The info identifies the style of saber as one of private purchase for American cavalry officers, some possibly made in Philadelphia, but probably the majority either from over-seas (Germany & England), Euro blades with poss American-made hilts. (note I paraphrase somewhat for time constraints)

Ex.#1- American Horseman's Cavl'y Saber 1785-1800, made by famous British sword maker Harvey specifically for the American market. Heavy, tall all-brass hilt (pommel/grips cast as one piece) with brass divided slot hilt guard. Blade is 36" curved,sible-edged, completely flat/wedge-shaped (no fullers). Lion pommel rudimentary with hand-engraved etching to create detail in the face/mane, ears cast in relief of a 'star pattern'. Deeply marked "Harvey".

Ex.#2- "American made horseman's saber c.1780-85 by Phila. silversmith", Heavy, tall all-brass hilt with traces of original gilt. Massive lion's head pommel/grips cast as one piece. Slot-hilt guard hall-marked with "I. Myers" (Well known Philadelphia silversmith ca. 1773-1790). In known advertisements by him in Phila. newspapers of the time, he said- "Gentlemen of the Army & Navy may be supplied with swords & dirks of every description, silver & gilt mounted". 31" curved single-edged balde with 3 deep parallel fullers each side (seems to be the earlier pattern vs the wider fuller, IMHO).

Ex.#3- American horseman's saber c.1775-1785. Large brass 4-slot hilt with lion pommel (identical in form to above, not like the lion pommels on the typical Rev War pieces), spiral horn grips (resembling the later form all brass grip in same style) Elegant large, quite delicately devided guard with simple fluting on pointed quillon, 33" blade, curved, single-edged with broad shallow unstopped fuller. (I know there were many types of lion-hilts during the Revolution, but the pic of this sword hilt is spot-on to the Federalist types we are discussing)

Ex.#4- A lion-hilt, 4 slot hilt in iron, the pommel with backstrap and sharkskin/wire grip, ca 1785-1800, 35" single edged curved blade marked "American Light Horse" in large letters both sides of the blade in the wide fullers. Blade also has German maker (Wm. Tesche Peters Sohn/Solingen/Fecit), also a sunburst, stars, U.S. and etched spread eagle. This one had its original scabbard.

Ex.#5- Large brass lion hilt pommel/grip sword with 35" single edged curved blade marked "American Light Horse" both sides of blade plus 'Wilhelm Tesche Peters Sohn in Solingen Fecit'. Decor consists of U.S in a shield device, and eagle. 4 slot-hilt of brass.

[Hotspur]

Yes, I have Bazelon's Pennsylvania book from 1987 in hand. He has one crude dog cast hilt. I think we are also looking at the context a bit differently when he writes "The one piece brass hilt is typical of Philadelphia swordsmithing. The pommel is the 'dog's head' motif' andthe 34 3/4" blade is hand drawn from a single piece of steel." Underline mine to show his syntax in regarding the overall (all parts) of the cast hilt, slotted hilt, long crude variation as typical of Philly make. A couple of pages later is the Rose light horse ca 1795, lion, composite grip and slotted guard. Why he lists the rose as the revolution with that date with naught but the blade marked Rose. " These dates (93-95) are approximately those which can be attributed for this sword on stylistic grounds underline mine again. Nothing in the makers of Philadelphia section of that book regarding cast hilts. I do probably need more Bazelon along the line but may see duplicate informations from the compilers like Dick Bezdek (and woe is, kinda like me).

A break for Peterson here. Do you mean J Meyers 1785-1804 or maybe his family at large? Peterson references #80 silver five ball spadoonky Also a Myer Myers of NY as a silversmith (smallsword). Peterson silver lions and dogs. The blade of 39 shows traces and IDed as Prahl but the cutlery work/silver Wiltberger. Dogs, none to mention in that silver section.

So let us look again at the elder Mowbray in 1988 regarding brass casting in Philadelphia. He begins with the silversmiths and American makers. Not one hilt with a cast handle mentioned, eagle or not. Lots of information on borrowed and imported parts and blades. On to Philly. Prahl and Rose are fairly well bio'd then as now. In glowing optimism he writes " As a specialty, the swords of Philadelphia have no peers, providing the meatr and potatoes-and more than a little of the caviar- to the collector of American swords." His maker list for the Philly eagles is quite meager as charted directly below that quote. However, it is Prahl, Rose, Weaver, Widmann and Horstmann that might be the most prolific in the waning of classical and federalist tastes as well as common forms. Lets go on to cast brass hilts specifically. Prahl type 1 1800. The only spiraled grip is not surprisgly (to me) not cast brass but rather a Rose blade with a Prahl pommel " In absence of any information that Rose was ever involved in the founding of brass, it is assumed this arm constitutes a "marriage" of a Rose blade..." Type 1 is a mix of stirrup and slots, as are on occasion the type 2. The type 3 listed as possibly an older version as it is owner named/marked five years after Prahl's death in 1809. A cast McLaws eagle dated to 1805 and abstraclty quoted here for description "Although the brass work is quite artistic, it little resembles the much less streamlined normally associated with Prahl" . Concl

Philly brass in chapter 41 "The results ranged from highly-stylized, near streamlined, efforts to a calculated degree of crudity." He shows a Rose like hanger/nco type blade that's cast hilt is smooth like a Prahl effort. Adjacent, A European hanger, possibly French with a cast bird hilt from half a century earlier.

Chptr 42 the Federal Lancer hilt What more to say? This is a prelude to dismissing the capabilities of Philly/Quaker foundries in lieu of the advances marching forward in Europe. "...the design of the hilt with its stylized eagle represents an art-in-metal school that seems alien to any in vogue in America (circa 1815) See also Medicus notes A Flayderman example with a spiraled similar lancer "this short sabre is nearly identical to the previously illustrated example"

I could pull out more from the Rose examples of blades but blades is what Rose is most known for regardless of their other contracts. No casting by them known.

So I have Bazelon, Mowbray and Flayderman pretty much covered in denying the spiraled cast grips with the exception of the dog in Bazelon's unknown maker example. Mowbray ends the cast hilt with the lancer eagle and we see some other air-srteam models coming in and specifically noted by Mowbray as the advances in Sohlingen. He is prefacing in that chapter for volume II of the eagles which later becomes Stuart Mowbray's work with Flayderman to use the Medicus collection as a pretty good do-all for all swords of the American military histories. This written, it is apparent Bazelon and Mowbray did co-operate as publisher and editor with the 1992 article perhaps too little too late in going back to re-publish both the PA collection book and the elder Mowbray's eagles.

If then Stuart's editing along with Flayderman offers the best balanced fence sitting we know of regarding dogs lion and eagles (oh my) then the earlier notes are left as entirely contentious but even Mowbray the elder is writing in his book that Philly cutlers and foundries were simply not up to par with overseas castings. The Medicus collection book is as much a bible to me now that I have it as Peterson was even before starting there and reading online.

Long post but where I began the other day.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

Wow, GC, you have done your homework well! A lot of excellent information presented here. I'm printing it off for my records. I'm not arguing the fact that in retrospect, these swords were probably made over-seas, but Bazelon was the man who wrote the article I speak of. Unless he changed his stance from the time of it's publication (1992), he was speaking of these lion-hilts as being made in Philadelphia and he presented theories to his hypothesis, which Flayderman used when he was selling the above swords.
No skin off my teeth if it were made here or over-seas, as long as they were true "light horse" swords, which I believe Bazelon proved with his arguments. Fashion drives popularity and probably American officers saw others with this type sword, which caught on. Too many existing examples with "Philadelphia" and "American Light Horse" etched on the blade, plus no accounts of these type swords turning up in any German, French or English arsenals. (I posted several other examples above via edit).
The silversmith I mentioned was from an auction catalog of Norm F's, so I don't have any other info than what he (and I ) listed above. Sorry! In any case, I just want to make sure I understand you on one point. You don't think there's even a chance that Prahl (who was making swords/castings during this time period) couldn't have been the creator of this hilt type?

[Jeff D]

Hi Glen and Mark,

Is it Post #13 that you prove how out of date the 1992 Bazelon article is?
Unfortunately I am a two finger typist and do not have time to type the article, and I have no way of getting the article to you. I will quote Bazelon's acknowledge of these concerns using the same sources as you. His conclusion is that Rose and Prahl are not the sources for these brass hilts but builds a pretty convincing argument for a cottage industry in the Philly area as the source. I will have to leave it to you to find the article and see how he comes to a that conclusion as that is what the entire article is about.
If it is something else in Glens posts that I have missed that show how "out of date" the article is please let me know as I will see if it is addressed.


'...These factors lead to the conclusion that the brass hilts were made by another party working in cooperation with Rose and Prahl'


The reason I bring this up again is that the Bazelon article is the most up to date and thorough discussion on these strange brass hilted swords (that I am aware of). I will happily discard it when some thing better comes along. It also is helping me find an answer to my mystery saber which I won't post here so as not to distract the thread. I think it is the best information on your saber.
Now how about it, lets see those markings. This may the key to proving or disproving the source of these sabers.

All the Best
Jeff

P.S. If you are still unconvinced, I will happily save it from your sea dog collection and place it with my horsey set

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Ahhh, research...it will be the death of us all (right, Jim McD?).

I see your point with the many hilt types coming out of Europe and admit that this sword could have completely been manufactured over-seas. As a matter of fact, the sword I traded to get this one had a solid brass lion-hilt finely formed with octogonal hilt. I have seen this hilt type ascribed to French patterns that were imported to America both during and after the Revolution. Mine was a Spanish colonial broadsword with German made blade, classic 6-sided balde with Spanish markings and motto. I will hang onto the fact, though, that so far, this pattern of private purchase has not been seen in any other European setting. So, motto or not ("American Light Horse"), I think these were made for the American market, specifically for cavalry officers. Until i see one in a Waterloo collection, that is. I seem to remember the article's author stating he didn't belive that either Rose or Prahl had made the hilt, but some 3rd party (Rose never worked in brass save for his later cavalry scabbards, which were poorly made vs his beautiful swords). Likewise, as you stated, Prahl's work appears more primitive. In any case, I appreciate the feedback. It keeps me on my toes-

I know what you mean when you mention the opinions and theories of other authors. Much head-scratching. I think as time goes by, some of those treaties fall by the wayside (In Stu Rankin's book on naval weapons, he at one time was convinced that early U.S. marine swords followed the Brit NCO pattern...an opinion seconded by none). Tuite's article on naval weapons (down-loadable-YES!) was excellent and presents a conundrum when he shows that one-off naval cutlass with iron cylindrical grip. An interesting piece resembling a cutlass I am researching. In any case, it's all good.

Great posts Mark as always!!!!
Ahhh………….research...…...remember, "more research to be done!" ???

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim and good to hear from you. Wow, I had almost forgotten about this old post! Has it really been almost 10 years??! Getting old! Unfortunately, I don't have that sword anymore. It was a nice piece, but I traded it in for something more appropriately naval. Thanks for digging this one up and reminding me the importance, as you always say, in research! Talk to ya soon, Cap'n!
Mark