Federalist sword

[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?

[Hotspur]

Good morning,

What I am getting at in conclusion is that Flayderman and the Mowbray archives waffle the Philly notes Bazelon based his 1992 article on. If I make it back to Hartfod in the fall, I'll chat up Stuart a bit at their book stall. With and in collaboration, the Mowbray and Flayderman archives embody their best work and guesswork being left to a minimum. That titles resets values and supposition (in my mind) to a minimum of absolutes and information.

In a previous post you link

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...ew/vol4-1d.htm

and the example shown is the typical horseman of American hussar hilts sans cast lion grips. This is exactly my point in referencing Neumann's expanses of that general type. To then assign cast lions as predominate and Philly cast is then lumping them into the whole. In that the lion is still somewhat available and used throughout the 18th century does not make Washington and other patriots less leery of claiming the lion pommel slots anything but non-regulation variants. Yes, long crude blades (ala Rose) and slots or hussar hilts are prevalent and often Philly based but the cast hilts are not.

A later analogy

Move on to the American Civil War and while the gothic baskets with spread eagles are often listed as popular for Federal foot officers and the blade as well as purpose fit the general mold, the regulation French patterns should not be confused with those gothic hilts while existing hand in hand with exactly the same blade decorations as well as the blades themselves.

````

I have not read the Bazelon article. What I am regarding from your notes (including Flayderman's and Mowbray's earlier contentions) is that the cast lion hilts or just pommels and general pattern are easily accepted. To label the cast hilts in Philly and predominate in the revolution to federalist period is denial of both earlier work and a summation half a decade after Bazelon's apparent theorizing and Flayderman's later collaborations. My feelings and research really do point to the dearth of information group during the internet's growth which is still expanding expotentially.

Throughout that, the background historical information such as political trends. Import/export retail operations along with cutler and smith facts are also still growing but Philly has become a pretty open book by the time of Bezdek's compilations as well as the Medicus publication. None of that supports what seems to be alluded to here other than imported non regulation cast grip lions of private purchase by officers. By the federal period, the lion hilts are even less in demand with the eagles starting to overlap by 1790 with that trend lasting another half century, just as the British lion had been popular in the colonial period.

I have gone from accepting older absolutes and conjecture as better and more complete information surfaces. I find my personal focus a lot more refined to just a handful of eagle types but the trends and information accumulating crosses many other paths.


Have a great eve and day of merriment and we will likely purse this some more but my thoughts and yours have both been fairly stated to what I find a fair conclusion for now.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

Hello GC and Merry Christmas to you. Out of respect for the holiday, no need to respond for now, just something that has been bothering me...
I've been mulling over your information and find it very conclusive as well. It makes sense that these were imported all along if for nothing more than that most of the existing 'marked' blades were foreign. Likewise, your point about the much more uncommon brass lion hilts points both to private purchase and probable foreign import. Now that that is behind us, on to the next uncomfortable issue mentioned before...
Is this private-purchase brass lion-hilt limited to just American cavalry? Was it sold to other factions of the early U.S. troops? Was it in fact sold over-seas via private purchase to other militia in other countries? Baselon insists in that earlier article that solid brass hilts were not popular in europe as the design flaw lay in the grip being slippery when wet with sweat. If we accept that the hilts were not made in America, that they were not the standard pattern but private purchase and that they were far less common, do we also open that door to uncertainty as to their ultimate use?

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Hello GC and Merry Christmas to you. Out of respect for the holiday, no need to respond for now, just something that has been bothering me...
I've been mulling over your information and find it very conclusive as well. It makes sense that these were imported all along if for nothing more than that most of the existing 'marked' blades were foreign. Likewise, your point about the much more uncommon brass lion hilts points both to private purchase and probable foreign import. Now that that is behind us, on to the next uncomfortable issue mentioned before...

You are now asking of clarification for much the same points already discussed but I'll give it a shot but some replies will on occasion go back to response already posted and be a question to answer the question.

Is this private-purchase brass lion-hilt limited to just American cavalry?

Were the 19th century spread eagle gothic hilted infantry swords with U.S. etchings on the blades sold to only U.S. infantry Officers? In the form you are pursuing, it is easy to make a case for lion pommel cast grip slotted hilt cavalry blades marked American targeted solely for American cavalry officers. However, are there any regulations supporting only these as suitable for cavalry officers during the federal period?

Was it sold to other factions of the early U.S. troops?

Under the qualification you have limited, hard to make a point those identical swords were distributed for anything else but American use. However, not intended for troops but for private purchases and as already accepted time and again by both of us.

Was it in fact sold over-seas via private purchase to other militia in other countries?

Somehow I am reading three questions with much the same intent, so my replies would be much the same. Sold in bulk to many of a certain group? Someone would have to come up with a period description of the sale receipt or written history referring to a mass of identical swords displayed by the group. Something like this but more descriptive of the swords themselves.

"He entered Springfield with a good deal of mediaeval display. His escort, which was composed of St. Louis German butchers, remarkable for their size and ferocious aspect, was mounted on powerful iron-gray horses and armed with big revolvers and massive swords, and thus accoutered dashed through the streets of the little town, which was held by…"

Are we considering only the cast grip lion pommel slotted hilt cavalry blades with American markings?

Baselon insists in that earlier article that solid brass hilts were not popular in europe as the design flaw lay in the grip being slippery when wet with sweat. If we accept that the hilts were not made in America, that they were not the standard pattern but private purchase and that they were far less common, do we also open that door to uncertainty as to their ultimate use?

Again, I have not read the article or passages in context and in the determining qualifications of the discussion but cast grips reigned for more that two centuries on any number of shorter blades and are also found on swords with longer blades including the Prahls discussed earlier. Not grooved, those would have been considered much slicker. Would a horseman have not regularly worn gloves/gauntlets? Is he mentioning it in regard to the all those briquet and infantry hangers? Those cast grips that were meant for worldwide domination over the course of centuries?

A better reference and context for Bazelon's insistence?

I don't know.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

I assure you I didn't mean to repeat past answers, perhaps more of a clarification. In the end, what I am getting out of this is simply this. Probability of these types (I am referring directly to the brass solid lion hilt slotted saber, regardless of blade marking) of swords being of European manufacture is very high with a slight probability of some American involvement. No question of private purchase (I never questioned this, even from the beginning). Until another type of this sword appears in a well-documented European setting, we can assume they were in highest probability only (or mostly) made for the American market. The final question is are these swords only used by cavalry officers (private purchase) or could other American unit (navy, artillery, foot soldiers, etc) officers have taken a fancy to them as well. Many of the existing lion-hilts are not marked "American Light Horse", after all.

[M ELEY]

I really didn't mean to open a can of worms, but once I got to thinking about the very significance of private purchase, which leaves open many possibilities for any type of officer finding these swords attractive, I began to wonder about naval use. Yes, I am a naval collector, but it was never my intention to steer this sword down that path. It is an incredible piece of history regardless of how you look at it. Perhaps I'm daft for pointing this out, but here goes-

Naval officers of the time period 1780-1810 frequently purchased their own type of swords depending on what they liked. There were no standard patterns back then or rules as to what a sword had to be. That being said, here is a composite of the typical things seen on private purchase officer's swords of the time-

#1- Solid brass hilts- These were extremely popular with navalmen due to brass being rust-resistant to salt air. Note this same metal was valued in British and French naval swords for the same reasons.

#2. 4 sloted-hilt swords- Very well documented in Annis and May, Gilkerson (who dedicated multiple pages and pics of same hilt type) sword. Neumann likewise.

#3. Single-edged sabers among naval officer's swords (note 'saber' being the curved type vs 'sword' which strangely referred to the straight cutlass-type blades of the more common seaman's sword) was very common.

#4. The lion hilt. Multiple examples of lion hilt naval swords pictured in the above volumes, in brass none-the-less. Jone Paul Jones sword was a lion hilt.

#5. The ribbed grip. Whether it be the classic m1803, the Baltimore cutlass, the French boarding sabers, etc, the solid ribbed grip was the way to go with naval swords. Most of the ones I mention were in iron, however, brass examples were known to exist, especially in French examples.

As a matter of fact, the only things saying that a sword such as this isn't naval can likewise be attacked. One is the lack of any naval adornment, such as an anchor motiff or somesuch. Many, if not most, private purchase swords that were made for a general audience lacked such specifics and well-documented naval officer's swords from past conflicts with no markings are known. The only other weak point to be made is the blade length. At 32", it is not a typical naval length. This can be shot down by the fact that many officer's type swords had longer blades vs the more common hunting hanger types with shorter blades. In 'Boarders Away', pg 117 ex D, we see an officer's sword with 31" blade. In P.G. Annis book "Naval Swords", we see multiple Brit naval presentation swords with 30+" blades.

Even beyond all this, in May's monumental naval volumes 'Swords for Sea Service', vol.1 & 2, he directly points to naval officers who purposely chose to buy cavalry-type officer's swords for themselves based on their taste. Swords of this type with naval attribution can be found in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

I stumbled over an officer's saber in Gilkerson's book. Pg 123, #16 is a pic of an American made eagle head made in Philadelphia for a naval officer ca. 1797-1803. Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such. The hilt is ribbed, but as the pic is only a drawing, it doesn't say if it is brass. The eagle is of the primitive Prahl type. Is it just a coincidence that as the brass lion hilt faded into the sunset, it was replaced by the federal eagles, many of which were on naval swords?

Wow, I seem to have presented a treatise for challenge here, but as a naval collector, the possiblity of even a slight chance of naval usage makes this sword even more precious to me. And now, I open myself up to cannonfire-

[Hotspur]

I stumbled over an officer's saber in Gilkerson's book. Pg 123, #16 is a pic of an American made eagle head made in Philadelphia for a naval officer ca. 1797-1803. Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such. The hilt is ribbed, but as the pic is only a drawing, it doesn't say if it is brass. The eagle is of the primitive Prahl type. Is it just a coincidence that as the brass lion hilt faded into the sunset, it was replaced by the federal eagles, many of which were on naval swords?

Oh come on The piece is described as the grip made of the finest material (ivory as shown light, others shown dark as ebony horn etc). It shows a distinct and sharp ferrule to contain organic material. Surely you don't read that or the rest of the "less than glorious attempts" as described by Mowbray and cutlery in Philadelphia. It doe not include the description of Gilkerson 16 within the light of Mowbray's remark. It does not read as "Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such" Quote/transcribe it word for word if you want to but I have that next to me as well as both the Mowbray eagle book and the Medicus collection never mentioning the sword (or anyone please show me in those if I have missed it n those two other tomes).

It is pretty clear at least in that example of your regard for that passage alone kind of reads to me as you hope to see what you would like to be instead of looking at some texts more objectively.

This is not to simply nay say and deny other speculation and theory entirely but I feel you are stretching a bit. I am open minded enough to accept that absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence. However, evaluating published texts and illustrations need not read in to what one hopes to find.

Cheers and respectively

GC

Glen Cleeton

[Jeff D]

Hi M ELEY,

Congratulations, I think you do indeed have a Philly brass Hilt. Is there any way to get better pictures of the letters on the hilt? I think Glen's concerns are all answered in the 1992 Bazelon article.

Jeff