|
17th December 2023, 06:59 PM | #1 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
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 |
|
18th December 2023, 04:49 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 498
|
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 |
18th December 2023, 07:28 PM | #3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
This listing says 1792- don't see anything specific about "to his majesty." |
|
19th December 2023, 05:19 AM | #4 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 498
|
Quote:
|
|
19th December 2023, 03:29 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 52
|
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.
|
30th December 2023, 10:24 PM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 186
|
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 |
2nd January 2024, 08:10 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 52
|
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. |
|
|