Sword Identification?

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
... The M1845 French infantry sword has a quill point style blade which is very different from the posters blade. ...

My 1845 quill pointed Frenchy for illustration:

[Radboud]

Thanks for posting your sword Kronckew, out of interest would it be possible posting a photo of the blade with a ruler showing the profile at the 24 inch mark?

The French m1845 I had the opportunity to measure had a 77cm blade, the posters is 60cm so it’s some half a foot shorter. If, and I mean that is as possibility not a statement of fact, it has been shortened then the quill point of the m1845 is irrelevant.

[Jim McDougall]

Radboud, that was my comment mentioning pirates, and intended only to note the regions I was considering as possible for this composite piece referring to the historic pirate connections and entirely with respect to Pirate Lady's intriguing psuedonym.
Obviously I did not intend to imply this is a pirate weapon, nor anything to do with buried treasure.

I do appreciate your ratiocination and well described detail on the Blucher sabels which does seem applicable to the guard, and good observations on the blade as well as the markings. I am inclined to agree on the numbers as placed possibly being manufacturers assembly related as unit markings tend to include other letter indicators along with the numbers.

However it does seem that maritime weapons do sometimes simply carry numbers, whose meaning has long since been lost. On some British cutlass blades (M1814), some have simple numbers such as 24 or 27 etc. Not sure what these numerics mean.

Thanks so much for the elucidation, and reminder about Occams Razor (I didnt even have to look it up!) Your wisdom and guidance in the discussion of weapons being investigated is admirable and most helpful, guess we're never too old to learn.

[werecow]

The peen is very clean compared to the rest of the sword and looks quite recent. So either the assembly is recent or the sword has been re-peened in the not too distant past.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by werecow

The peen is very clean compared to the rest of the sword and looks quite recent. So either the assembly is recent or the sword has been re-peened in the not too distant past.

Hi,
It looks like someone has cleaned an area to reveal the numbers and in doing so has rubbed part of the peen. The peen does have an area of patina left so I still don't think the assembly is too recent.
Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Attached photo of a Silver Hilted Hanger C1775, a French Petits Montmorency C1778/82 (I.D Musee De L'armee), an M1845 French Infantry sword. The posters sword blade has a large fuller extending all the way to the tip and the smaller fuller terminating approx 2/3rds of the down from the hilt similar in all ways to the Silver Hilted Hanger shown. In the Petits Montmorency blade the large fuller is much wider and terminates before the tip, these features are also evident in another Montmorency blade I have. The M1845 has a small fuller which extends to the tip therefore if a cut down blade of this type was used the small fuller would also extend to the tip which it doesn't do on the posters blade. The 1845 blade is also actually relatively straight which to me doesn't equate with the mild curve on the posters blade.
I hope this shows a bit more clearly my thinking re the blade.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
It looks like someone has cleaned an area to reveal the numbers and in doing so has rubbed part of the peen. The peen does have an area of patina left so I still don't think the assembly is too recent.
Regards,
Norman.

It’s something that bothered me about the peen earlier. The area around the end of the knuckle guard should exhibit less pitting than the rest of the guard. Since it would originally have been covered by the pommel cap and less exposed to the elements. Now that I look closer, it does look like the metal is marginally cleaner than the rest. However the bad lighting on the picture makes it difficult to be conclusive.

At least the pitting inside the No. 13 appears to be consistent with the surrounding metal so it is likely original to the blade, re-enforcing that it’s a manufacturers’ mark.

I agree with Werecow, the peen is significantly brighter than the surrounding area (as is the brass insert) and I don’t see any signs of polishing around it to suggest the area has received any additional cleaning.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Radboud

I
I agree with Werecow, the peen is significantly brighter than the surrounding area (as is the brass insert) and I don’t see any signs of polishing around it to suggest the area has received any additional cleaning.

Hi,
I still think someone has tried to reveal the the numbers more clearly by cleaning as the proud areas around the numbers have lost their patina but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps the poster could clarify as to whether they got the piece like this or they attempted to see the number better. Where the tang button is slightly below the level of the backstop it still has patina. It seems obvious that this sword has been constructed from disparate elements but whether to deceive or to use is anyones guess. I reckon though that if assembled to deceive it was a poor choice of guard. Many of the German states used this type of guard throughout the 19thC and into the 20thC for Artillery/Cavalry swords etc., although the later ones almost always seem to have plenty of stamps for I.D. To choose a recognisable guard style that does not match the period of the blade seems odd if to deceive was indeed the aim so perhaps it was cobbled together for use, who knows.
My Regards,
Norman.