A Pair of English Swords?

awdaniec666 · 20th January 2022, 11:36 PM

I could only add that in my opinion when one is talking about certain models (f.e. "M1796 LCS") there is often a relative narrow spectrum in which a thing can vary. I would therefore not describe your sword as a british 1796 light cavalry pattern sword because it´s missing too many criteria swords of this model had in common. I´d point out the difference in hilt, as well the blade design.

The lionhead sabers brass hilt has a "Patina" which is not fitting my personal experience with old brass. Suggestion: Maybe red/orange paint remainings?
The argument "it could be a German state" is too often brought when the origin of a sword is uncertain. I do not see this sword come from the germanic influence sphere. My "guts tell me" it could be dutch colonies, but I am far away to be in any kind educated on these swords.

cheers

drac2k · 21st January 2022, 05:42 AM

Thank you all gentlemen for your informative posts; I guess if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it still might not be an LC 1796 sword.
The man I got it from said that he purchased it in London; I know him and he tells the truth, however, he has bought so many swords, he might just have been confused . The sword looked worn to me and some aspects, such as the hilt seemed a bit off.
Based on the place of purchase, the variations, and the armory mark that looks like it could be Indian, I think that kronckew's theory of an Indian copy of an LC 1796 could be the most plausible conclusion. I will post better pictures of the hilt tomorrow.
In regards to the lion head sword, it doesn't look like paint, traces of gilding possibly or like old Confederate swords, sometimes the brass has a coppery patina(I am not suggesting that this is a Confederate sword).

awdaniec666 · 21st January 2022, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drac2k

The man I got it from said that he purchased it in London; I know him and he tells the truth, however, he has bought so many swords, he might just have been confused .

London, like many other places, has been and is a marketplace for stuff from all over the world.
Whatever these swords are, and I wish you luck in researching them, they are part of history and to be honest sometimes it´s nicer to have something that stands out and is unique in its way than another one of thousands "M-whatever" that are around. But I get the point of having one of the iconic M1796 in Britain or M1811 in Germany.
If you´re still interested in a M1796 LCS, PM me. I know a guy who bought a batch of these from a museum in Europe yesterday and sells them for a good price

drac2k · 22nd January 2022, 05:48 PM

Better pictures of the hilt.

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 07:07 PM

Thanks for the additional photos, is there any leather remaining on the grip? Also what is the length of the grip?

drac2k · 22nd January 2022, 07:13 PM

Almost all of the leather and the handle is 5" long.

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 07:54 PM

Thanks, photos can be deceiving when trying to gauge proportions and it looked small. 5 inches is an appropriate outside grip length.

Without wanting to be malicious my concerns with this sword are:
1. The blade profile is wrong for a 1796 patten Light cavalry sword. The tip should become broader at the end. They flare out.
2. There is too much ricasso before the fuller starts.
3. The langets are missing. As you have pointed out, sometimes these did break off but there is no evidence of that on your sword.
4. The Quillon is too short.
5. The grip ferrul (the band between the leather and the guard) is too broad and the fit poor.
6. Trooper swords didn’t have grip wire, and Officer swords (when present) the wire was silver or silver plated and finer than what is present here.
7. The fit of the blade to the handle is poor, like they do not belong together.
8. The overall fit and shape of the grip and blade is poor especially if it is an officer’s sword.
9. The knuckle guard is too thick for a British 1796.

If I purchased this recently and it was sold to me as a British 1796 pattern light cavalry, I would take it back.

22nd January 2022, 05:48 PM	#4
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,281	Better pictures of the hilt. Attached Images

20th January 2022, 11:36 PM	#1
awdaniec666 Member Join Date: May 2021 Location: Central Europe Posts: 177	I could only add that in my opinion when one is talking about certain models (f.e. "M1796 LCS") there is often a relative narrow spectrum in which a thing can vary. I would therefore not describe your sword as a british 1796 light cavalry pattern sword because it´s missing too many criteria swords of this model had in common. I´d point out the difference in hilt, as well the blade design. The lionhead sabers brass hilt has a "Patina" which is not fitting my personal experience with old brass. Suggestion: Maybe red/orange paint remainings? The argument "it could be a German state" is too often brought when the origin of a sword is uncertain. I do not see this sword come from the germanic influence sphere. My "guts tell me" it could be dutch colonies, but I am far away to be in any kind educated on these swords. cheers

21st January 2022, 05:42 AM	#2
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,281	Thank you all gentlemen for your informative posts; I guess if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it still might not be an LC 1796 sword. The man I got it from said that he purchased it in London; I know him and he tells the truth, however, he has bought so many swords, he might just have been confused . The sword looked worn to me and some aspects, such as the hilt seemed a bit off. Based on the place of purchase, the variations, and the armory mark that looks like it could be Indian, I think that kronckew's theory of an Indian copy of an LC 1796 could be the most plausible conclusion. I will post better pictures of the hilt tomorrow. In regards to the lion head sword, it doesn't look like paint, traces of gilding possibly or like old Confederate swords, sometimes the brass has a coppery patina(I am not suggesting that this is a Confederate sword).

22nd January 2022, 07:07 PM	#5
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 289	Thanks for the additional photos, is there any leather remaining on the grip? Also what is the length of the grip?

22nd January 2022, 07:13 PM	#6
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,281	Almost all of the leather and the handle is 5" long.

22nd January 2022, 07:54 PM	#7
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 289	Thanks, photos can be deceiving when trying to gauge proportions and it looked small. 5 inches is an appropriate outside grip length. Without wanting to be malicious my concerns with this sword are: 1. The blade profile is wrong for a 1796 patten Light cavalry sword. The tip should become broader at the end. They flare out. 2. There is too much ricasso before the fuller starts. 3. The langets are missing. As you have pointed out, sometimes these did break off but there is no evidence of that on your sword. 4. The Quillon is too short. 5. The grip ferrul (the band between the leather and the guard) is too broad and the fit poor. 6. Trooper swords didn’t have grip wire, and Officer swords (when present) the wire was silver or silver plated and finer than what is present here. 7. The fit of the blade to the handle is poor, like they do not belong together. 8. The overall fit and shape of the grip and blade is poor especially if it is an officer’s sword. 9. The knuckle guard is too thick for a British 1796. If I purchased this recently and it was sold to me as a British 1796 pattern light cavalry, I would take it back.