1780 heavy Cavalry Officer Sword

[Jim McDougall]

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards. In my earlier post with similar hilt and banded rayskin grip the dragoon sword has an lionhead, and is attributed to Kinman, with Drury (this would be Dru Drury Jr.likely).

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In the 1790s, a number of blades were procured by the Prince of Wales from Solingen for placement on sabers for his officers of the 10th Hussars. These had the stepped back point and talismanic motif described. In about 1807 he designed a new hilt with silver POW feathers in the langet, and this is believed to be one of those early sabers, a total of 27, with the order going to Prosser in London.

There were possibly a total number of 44 of these produced (Dellar), before the new 1822 patterns came in.

These are the only two examples I have of this feature, which as I noted seems to be aligned with such blades on some 18th c Indian tulwars, and more dramatically on Ottoman pala (kilij).

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword. However I once had a M1796 officers light cavalry saber (with pre 1801 arms in motif) which was notably short as this example. It seems I had read somewhere that officers were not necessarily expected to engage in combat, with sword primarily to direct etc., however it is of course well known that typically officers did indeed engage.

Toward the naval end, this Wooley & Deakin 1796 type saber (the date for that pairing generally held 1801-1803) when I acquired it long ago was listed as a cavalry officers saber. I always questioned this as the blade was much shorter than usual.
I would note here I have seen other examples like this, with reeded ebony grip and brass mounts, and I became inclined to think of it as naval, in this same manner.
One example with same hilt was in Wilkinson (ref not available) and to Durs Egg, who was noted for supplying naval swords if I recall.

What I have noted about James Wooley is that he seems to have followed French fashion, as seen in his M1788 sabers in the pommel form, langets and the blades, 'montmorency' section. I would point out this brass hilt saber also reflects the blade with that cross section.

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards.

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword.

I think it likely this sword is from the 1790s, perhaps from a naval officer who saw some Indian service, thus aware of eastern yelman-designs.

But much of this is supposition. The peen appears well-aged, so I do not think its a modern composite of old parts. I think, as you said, it is most likely Drury made this piece with a Solingen blade, Thurkle eagle, and did the rest himself for private purchase.

The naval possibility is wholly due to the size and type of blade, very much like a non-regulation officer cutlass. We saw them in the US Navy quite late as well, even post-regulation, but are very rare and desirable to collectors.

This piece was listed in a French auction as a British cavalry sword, which after your comment does make me wonder. The blade is far far too short for actual battle service and is designed to be a battle blade, so I do find this very unlikely. Though the size of the basket tells us it was made for a small man, my hand will not fit in it at all.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Cheers

[Hotspur]

Langham's research shows it would be 1802ish, as the only time Drury listed as his majesty. A goldsmith, etc. What I believe to be a similar situation is my rather plain saber but fire gilt.

A great sword shown here! I have also seen rougher castings.

I was struck by a sidebar of design and style. I would be remiss not to mention Speltz's drawings. Some annotations are now wrong but he was working with known knowledge at the time and supplied appendices and a bibliography.

https://archive.org/details/stylesofornament00speluoft

So, my Thurkle, and an 1821/45 ('69 Wilkinson) I had to have. Plenty of half baskets got fancy. Even Edward Popham and his kastane saw a lot of styles. photo from the Royal Armouries

Cheers
GC

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Langham's research shows it would be 1802ish, as the only time Drury listed as his majesty. A goldsmith, etc. What I believe to be a similar situation is my rather plain saber but fire gilt.

This Langham's source? https://swordresearch.org/SwordSearc...pDtbWf2fHH2Rgs

This listing says 1792- don't see anything specific about "to his majesty."

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by JT88

This Langham's source? https://swordresearch.org/SwordSearc...pDtbWf2fHH2Rgs

This listing says 1792- don't see anything specific about "to his majesty."

You have to click the blue circle i in the right hand corner and you get this

[JT88]

Good stuff, thanks! That sure does narrow it down. Although I think I've seen some other pieces online labeled as such and given a different time.

[Bryce]

G'day Jack,
I think your sword is probably older than 1792. There were several Drurys and I would place yours closer to 1780 than 1790. It looks like an infantry officer's hanger of the type that would normally have a lion head. I wonder if it has been regripped and the eagle head added later on? The blade certainly looks older.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Hotspur]

A five baller for Jim. I swear it must have been for the Knights of Columbus!