French(?) cuirassier sword
 

Hi! I have question about sword I found on the gun show. The hilt looks like french M1854, blade looks like An XI. Blade is unshortened and unmodified. The very strange thing - absolutely no proof marks on blade or hilt! :confused: First I thought it is replica or fake, but I showed sword to few very experienced collectors and they say it is real one. I saw a few M1854 with older blades, but they all have at least two proof marks on the blade and few more on the hilt...

Welcome to the forum, GrozaB :) .
Nice sword you have there. It does indeed look authentic.
Let us see what the members think of your question.

Yes, sword look authentic to me - some patina only in impossible to clean areas, etc... But this one is the first french blade I see without any proof marks. Maybe it is not french, but some German state, South America, etc?

Hi,

It happens that I've bought a fake recently and I immediately begin to study thoose. Your sword inedeed looks authentic and French. It was not spearpointed in1816 but still equipped with the "M1854" hilt. Interesting. Are we certain that this is a M1854 hilt? There were "bancal" swords 1822 type heavy cavalry with the same hilt equipped.... There are many reasons why does not have markings. One of them could be that it was not manufactured by any big french manufacturer, neither Klingental or Chatellerault, but a smaller private manufaturer in france or in any of the occupied territories. Barisoni of Milano produced them for example. :shrug:

Well put Matej; an hypothesis that we often tend to forget.

Something seems odd in the scale of this hilt. Overall dimensions might be helpful. Not just the castings but the grip shape is not what I would expect in French manufacture.

Attached are my officer's 1854 and shown in scale with a generic Solingen 1822 type sabre. Note the lenghth of the 1854 grip and the butt cap. Also the grip cross section of the French sword vs the Prussian 1822 (US 1840). Also the only 1822 image I have handy and it is a late one.

While the 1854 era swords did occasionally turn up mounted on the earlier blades, the true 1854 form will not have the asymmetrical point.

The Prussians did refit captured swords and we could be seeing a composite in its own time.

Cheers

GC

Here is an older thread from SFI with Jean Binck showing both an 1816 and 1854 for comparison. Alos another image better showing the blade tip on an 1854.
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...ely-long-sword

My dragon is of the "baby" length.

Cheers

GC

The AOL is 44", Blade 38 1/4", grip 4 1/4"

Thanks for the specs. Your blade is the same length as my 1854 dragon but your grip is a bit shorter than either the 1816 or 1854 examples in tha other thread linked. I am attaching Jean Binck's images of his 1816 and 1854 along with Wayne Branner's 1854. The branched guard would really determine grip length, so I am at a loss aside from other possibilities.

It is possible that was a private effort of a French made sword but the castings don't seem to gel quite right with the 1816 an 1854 examples posted here thus far.

Cheers

GC

4 1/4" is the leather covered section of the grip.

Yes, I caught the grip length listed. My 1854 dragon is about an inch longer in the hilt overall. It is a smidge over 46" in the scabbard, toe to peen (and five pounds 4 ounces, these really are beastly). Shown below in an old photos with some spadroons and a repro Patton sword. The spadroon grips are just about four inches.so maybe your's really isn't that far off the mark.

The 1854 carabinier coming in with a blade a full meter, as does the 1816 cuirassier (per Jean Binck).

Cheers

Here is another good thread about the differences between an 1816 and 1854. As well, discussing remounted Napoleonic era blades.
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...7-French-AN-XI

Cheers

GC