1780 heavy Cavalry Officer Sword

[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

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jack,
I think your sword is probably older than 1792.

Hi Bryce,
Thanks for the post. I've found no other Drury's specifically in the timeframe he had the status of "Cutler to his majesty" and in the Strand location.

I agree the style is of earlier infantry hangers, but as pointed out, by the 1790s, these had gone out of style, and the infantry were under regulation.

The peen is old, and the gilt uniform in the few places it is not worn. This sword has seen some heavy wear to the gilt. So I'd call it a period composite.

My naval hypothesis only derives from the period it comes from, as naval officer swords were still not under regulation. Some officers did have cutlasses made, although not common. The eagle head is a bit of a scratcher; while not common in the Royal Navy at this point, it is still possible. Or perhaps a US Naval officer had a British sword made? Possible. Everyone seems to conclude it is a Thurkle-made eagle head.

We can only point to specific pieces of this sword and give date ranges. The rest is all conjecture. The blade is excellent; it reminds me of the French "Sartine" style cutlasses. It was attained out of France, not that means anything.

Cheers

Edit: the blade is incredible, the entire reason I purchased it.