SWORD for comment and I D please

[katana]

Looking at the hilt there is evidence of a re-hilt....

There seems to be a steel washer below the screw holding the knuckle bow which would not be original. ( Perhaps the washer acts as a 'spacer' to improve the 'fit' of the knucklebow.)

There is also evidence of 'vice marks' on the pommel and other parts of the hilt.....perhaps where it was held whilst the tang was peened over. There seems to be no patination on the inside of the brass guard ...which seems to suggest that the hilt componants were cleaned whilst it was apart.

The leather washer at the junction of the blade with the guard seems recent...there is little or no wear where it would meet the top of the scabbard. It is possible the leather covers the possible mis-matched blade and guard ie the slot in the guard was originally designed to accept a different profile of blade.

Still a nice piece .....and perhaps why this is difficult to ID

Kind Regards David

[kisak]

Regarding the blade, this cross-section is seen on some Swedish swords from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The profile looks a bit odd though, in many cases I'd expect a bit more profile taper, especially in the smaller infantry words (which this seems to fit size-wise). The "quillions beneath the guard"-variant of the hilt seems pretty rare in Sweden though, it doesn't really match any of the swords shown in vol1 and 2 of Berg's Svenska Blankvapen.

Personally I'd think of the brass hilts seen here as "walloon descendants" rather than proper walloon hilts (much like I think of the Swedish "karolinian" cavalry hilt), but that might just be my own little oddity.

[kahnjar1]

Thankyou Gene, Manuel and David. Things are now getting interesting, but still no conclusive result.
A couple of things to be clarified.

This sword is not what I would call a true "double edged" item as the edges are not, and appear not to have EVER been sharp. It is the point which is sharp.

The raised rib on the blade is on BOTH sides, and does not have the concave "mate" as per discussion above.

I have attached better pics of the hilt, and the apparent "vice" marks are as a result of the orginal casting marks and a BAD pic---sorry guys!

The "washer" is in fact part of the casting of the guard and not a seperate piece. There is no washer of any sort at the top of the pommel.

Yes the brass has been cleaned at some stage as there is the telltale powder residue in the grooves, and the leather gusset shows no sign of being against a scabbard mouth.

Whats next??

[katana]

Hi Stuart,
thanks for the clarification......they do say a picture is worth a thousand words .......unfortunately...sometimes a thousand of the wrong ones The newer pictures definately show this.

I am stumped with the blade ....it reminds me of some bayonets ....but obviously this is far too long ...and I am not suggesting that this is a re-hilted one either, but the 'thrust' , without the 'cut' makes perfect sense. I also wonder as to the damage to an opponents sword if this sword was used to parry a 'strike'. The 'ribs' would add strength to your blade (like a girder) and limit the 'flex' that would normally help to 'cushion' the impact of another blade.
Would it make sense that this blade may be designed to pierce armour

Regards David

[celtan]

Hi Kisak,

Almost missed your post.
I believe you are referring to my sword.
Mine does taper, it's the angle of the picture that makes it look as if having parallel edges...

Both Russians and Prussians tangled with Swedes, Could this actually be a remounted captured blade? There even was a brief Anglo-Swedish War, wasn't it?

Do you have any idea of my sword hilt's date? The rather similarly hilted British sword is a 1796 model. The foliate shape of the blade is very interesting, almost sensuous...

Merry 2009 to "y'all"


Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by kisak

Regarding the blade, this cross-section is seen on some Swedish swords from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The profile looks a bit odd though, in many cases I'd expect a bit more profile taper, especially in the smaller infantry words (which this seems to fit size-wise). The "quillions beneath the guard"-variant of the hilt seems pretty rare in Sweden though, it doesn't really match any of the swords shown in vol1 and 2 of Berg's Svenska Blankvapen.

Personally I'd think of the brass hilts seen here as "walloon descendants" rather than proper walloon hilts (much like I think of the Swedish "karolinian" cavalry hilt), but that might just be my own little oddity.

[kisak]

Originally Posted by celtan

I believe you are referring to my sword.
Mine does taper, it's the angle of the picture that makes it look as if having parallel edges...

Both Russians and Prussians tangled with Swedes, Could this actually be a remounted captured blade? There even was a brief Anglo-Swedish War, wasn't it?

Do you have any idea of my sword hilt's date? The rather similarly hilted British sword is a 1796 model. The foliate shape of the blade is very interesting, almost sensuous...

That is indeed the type of blade I was talking about. A remounted trophy blade could be possible I guess, a whole lot of Swedish swords were lost to Russia after Poltava for example. The Anglo-Swedish war seems like an unlikely candidate though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-S...%E2%80%931812)

Stuart's blade isn't a perfect match for any Swedish model, but as officers were often free to buy their own swords, it could simply be a less common variant. Regarding the profile taper there are some 18th century swords for heavy cavalry with a rather moderate taper, but these would be quite a bit larger than Stuart's sword.

As for your sword, the hilt is of a type which was in use in Sweden for quite a long time, so the dating will be quite vague I'm afraid. The relatively straight knucklebow and finely grooved, non-spherical pommel would indicate that it's from the latter part of the period in which these saw use though, perhaps something like 1760-1820?

This would also mean that we can identify it as an infantry officer's sword, originally this hilt was used by all kinds of officers, but somewhere pretty soon after the death of Karl XII it fell out of use with cavalry officers, leaving this type for the infantry (cavalry officers had two hilt types to choose from back then, infantry officers didn't have any choice).

[celtan]

Thanks Kisak,

Very interesting! It's usually the other way around, countries which aren't legally at war actually attacking each other. Like the US attacks on German U-booten in WWII, the English attacks on Spanish ships before the Napoleonic Wars, the US attacks on Spanish merchantmen before the Spanish American War, the Chinese and Russian attacks on UN Troops in Korea, the Russian attacks on Allied troops after WWI and WWII. The Mexican/American border conflicts etc...

But a declared war without hostilities? That's truly ingenious: Wars fought with only loud raspberries!

I wish they were all like that.

Kudos to the Swedes!

: )

Originally Posted by kisak

That is indeed the type of blade I was talking about. A remounted trophy blade could be possible I guess, a whole lot of Swedish swords were lost to Russia after Poltava for example. The Anglo-Swedish war seems like an unlikely candidate though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Swedish_War_(1810%E2%80%931812)

Stuart's blade isn't a perfect match for any Swedish model, but as officers were often free to buy their own swords, it could simply be a less common variant. Regarding the profile taper there are some 18th century swords for heavy cavalry with a rather moderate taper, but these would be quite a bit larger than Stuart's sword.

As for your sword, the hilt is of a type which was in use in Sweden for quite a long time, so the dating will be quite vague I'm afraid. The relatively straight knucklebow and finely grooved, non-spherical pommel would indicate that it's from the latter part of the period in which these saw use though, perhaps something like 1760-1820?

This would also mean that we can identify it as an infantry officer's sword, originally this hilt was used by all kinds of officers, but somewhere pretty soon after the death of Karl XII it fell out of use with cavalry officers, leaving this type for the infantry (cavalry officers had two hilt types to choose from back then, infantry officers didn't have any choice).