My new Georgian spadroon

thinreadline · 25th March 2018, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Excellent acquisition, Ken! One I would be proud to have in my own collection (remember me in your will-

). The script 'GR' places it in the period you mention, but the defining point is that small drilled hole in the knucklebow that often had a ring device placed here. This feature became popular after 1790 up to about 1800. It is a way to differentiate some of the officer's naval swords of the period, those with drilled holes and those without.

Is the hilt ivory, bone or simply white wood? I have a sword of this period with the same ribbed grip and this style wasn't uncommon. I originally thought my grip (black material) was horn, but I soon learned it was ebony wood, so wood grips were also common. In any case, an excellent specimen dating to the time of the Quasi-War, Napoleonic and War of 1812 era.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11883

Can you expand on the naval vs non naval officer aspect of these swords re the drilled hole. Have not heard this before and it sounds rather interesting .

M ELEY · 25th March 2018, 02:42 AM

Sorry about the 'naval' mention and I didn't mean for it to set us off track. That particular aspect of a naval sword I've owned led to that discovery, but in fact any of these sabers that have the retention hole at the top of the knuckle bow are invariably 1790 up to 1800. You will note in the sword thread I posted, the knuckle bow has that swelled area where the knucklebow attaches to the hilt/pommel area, but no bored hole. I date mine to 1770's up to 1790-ish. It appears this hole device became the fashion around the 1790 period (last decade of the 18th c.) to have this little hole, sometimes with ring attachment. Don't ask me what the h#ll it was for!!

I will also say that because this was such a fashion on English officer's swords (infantry, naval, NCO) that sometimes an earlier sword, say from the 1770's or so, had the hole drilled out at a later time. I've only seen this once, however. I do wish I can remember the EXACT source for this info, as I know its important to substantiate sources. I will try to look through my books for the pinpoint info. In the meantime, we are only talking about a difference in about 20 years or so. Spadroons (and other officer-type swords from the UK) circa 1770's up to 1800 have very little differences in their patterns.

Glenn, are you out there, buddy? You might weigh in on this one?

kronckew · 25th March 2018, 10:20 AM

The ring was for attaching a sword knot according to my ref. book of british naval swords. It does also show some swords without a ring, but with a hole (for one). these spadroon types appear to be late 18c to early 19c. I also have an American eagle pommeled 5 ball spadroon model from the early 19c with the portapee attachment ring.

This hanger came without a brass ring, so i added one, assuming the original one had broken off. Shown with a knot i made for display, until i get a proper one.

M ELEY · 25th March 2018, 11:44 AM

Excellent post, Wayne! I very much like your spadroon. The fact that it still has a capstan indicates it's pretty early, pre-1800. A sword knot makes sense now that you have enlightened me. The other weapons you mention seem to support that the sword knot/ring/hole device was 1790-1805 or so. A lot of the 5 ball guard swords have them.
Mark

Kmaddock · 25th March 2018, 10:40 PM

Hi Mark
Thanks for the thumbs up and the extra information,
The grip is ivory and actually my very first ivory handled sword. I have a fairly divergent collection but never had ivory sort some strange reason.
I reckon this is a keeper so it will be a while before this one gets moved on to someone else but my 9 year old has a good interest in my collection and I reckon he will be ahead of you in the will stakes, sorry mark

Regards
Ken

M ELEY · 26th March 2018, 11:27 PM

I understand and will cry quietly-

Very nice acquisition either way. Hoping to add a naval spadroon to my collection some day. You are lucky and fortunate to have someone that values your collection. My two daughters and their boyfriends have no interest. Sigh...

Mark

M ELEY · 29th March 2018, 09:08 PM

Wayne, what is the length of the sword you posted? It looks like a shorter blade; a perfect connection to onboard sea use! Also, how about a pic of that eagle head American sword? Unless you posted it in the past and I missed it?
Mark

25th March 2018, 10:20 AM	#3
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,238	The ring was for attaching a sword knot according to my ref. book of british naval swords. It does also show some swords without a ring, but with a hole (for one). these spadroon types appear to be late 18c to early 19c. I also have an American eagle pommeled 5 ball spadroon model from the early 19c with the portapee attachment ring. This hanger came without a brass ring, so i added one, assuming the original one had broken off. Shown with a knot i made for display, until i get a proper one. Attached Images

25th March 2018, 02:42 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Sorry about the 'naval' mention and I didn't mean for it to set us off track. That particular aspect of a naval sword I've owned led to that discovery, but in fact any of these sabers that have the retention hole at the top of the knuckle bow are invariably 1790 up to 1800. You will note in the sword thread I posted, the knuckle bow has that swelled area where the knucklebow attaches to the hilt/pommel area, but no bored hole. I date mine to 1770's up to 1790-ish. It appears this hole device became the fashion around the 1790 period (last decade of the 18th c.) to have this little hole, sometimes with ring attachment. Don't ask me what the h#ll it was for!! I will also say that because this was such a fashion on English officer's swords (infantry, naval, NCO) that sometimes an earlier sword, say from the 1770's or so, had the hole drilled out at a later time. I've only seen this once, however. I do wish I can remember the EXACT source for this info, as I know its important to substantiate sources. I will try to look through my books for the pinpoint info. In the meantime, we are only talking about a difference in about 20 years or so. Spadroons (and other officer-type swords from the UK) circa 1770's up to 1800 have very little differences in their patterns. Glenn, are you out there, buddy? You might weigh in on this one?

25th March 2018, 11:44 AM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Excellent post, Wayne! I very much like your spadroon. The fact that it still has a capstan indicates it's pretty early, pre-1800. A sword knot makes sense now that you have enlightened me. The other weapons you mention seem to support that the sword knot/ring/hole device was 1790-1805 or so. A lot of the 5 ball guard swords have them. Mark

25th March 2018, 10:40 PM	#5
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Hi Mark Thanks for the thumbs up and the extra information, The grip is ivory and actually my very first ivory handled sword. I have a fairly divergent collection but never had ivory sort some strange reason. I reckon this is a keeper so it will be a while before this one gets moved on to someone else but my 9 year old has a good interest in my collection and I reckon he will be ahead of you in the will stakes, sorry mark Regards Ken

26th March 2018, 11:27 PM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	I understand and will cry quietly- Very nice acquisition either way. Hoping to add a naval spadroon to my collection some day. You are lucky and fortunate to have someone that values your collection. My two daughters and their boyfriends have no interest. Sigh... Mark

29th March 2018, 09:08 PM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Wayne, what is the length of the sword you posted? It looks like a shorter blade; a perfect connection to onboard sea use! Also, how about a pic of that eagle head American sword? Unless you posted it in the past and I missed it? Mark