# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  US Naval Officers Swords 1872 to 1942

## T. Graham

This is the first outline of a series of articles that I hope to submit for magazine publication. *All rights are reserved*, but I hope that members of this forum will contribute.

The 20th Century Model 1852 US Naval Officers (USNO) sword has been ignored by all sword reference books; possibly because their modest value does not make them worthy. I think it is necessary to promote the modest valued swords that most of can afford.

 About 1935 US sword importers and distributors stopped importing swords from Germany. This is, I think, because the Solingen makers were major supporters of the Nazis. Thus the "Made in USA" marked swords; all of which were produced by the Lilley-Ames Co. (L-A) , Columbus OH, the only surviving US sword manufacturer.

The DAMN picture manager will not put them in the correct order. Can this be fixed?

Photo 5 shows five very different USNO's swords. Since I know of no Specific designation, I have created my own; from left to right they are:
1. Type I FSG with fish skin grip. Likely a special order for Gaunt Uniform Co., NY. Note: the pommel is a separate piece from the knuckle guard and the counter guard is the M.C. Lilley pattern.
2. Type I PG with round plastic grip. The knuckle guard and pommel are separate and the counter guard is the Lilley pattern.
3. Type II slightly angled flat side plastic grip. The knuckle guard is separate from the counter guard is the Lilley pattern.
4. Type IV has more angle on the flat side grip. The knuckle guard and the pommel are one piece and the counter guard is the Ames Pattern.
5. Type V has an even greater bend with a flat sided plastic grip,one piece knuckle guard and pommel with an Ames pattern counter guard.

Pictures 4 and 6 show more detail.

Picture 3 shows the only real difference between a Lilley and Ames hilt. This applies to all their production. Note: Karl Eickhorn, Solingen Germany patterned their USNO hilt from the Ames pattern.

Picture 2 details the type IV and V 

Now I want everyone to closely examine photo 1; this shot has the pommels in the same order as picture 5.
Quiz, one of the pommels if different, which one, how and why.

The answer and and more about the L-A's USNO sword in a couple of days.

----------


## T. Graham

I am amazed that no one has answered the quiz.  Should I continue this thread?

----------


## Ralph Grinly

OK..I'll make a guess..photo 1..the rightmost sword..the eagle on the pommel is facing right, the others all face left ( not totally sure about the 4th sword..guessing to the left)

----------


## James Brown

About 1935 US sword importers and distributors stopped importing swords from Germany. This is, I think, because the Solingen makers were major supporters of the Nazis. Thus the "Made in USA" marked swords; all of which were produced by the Lilley-Ames Co. (L-A) , Columbus OH, the only surviving US sword manufacturer.



Mr. Graham 
  Your above statements need a little adjustment.
1. The Solingen makers were for sure Importing complete swords and sword parts into (at least 1939-40) and I will have to check my Company files as it could be later.
2. Supporters of the Nazis. Yes Eickhorn sure was in the right circles but in the end this had little to do with it...Again Information from my company files.
3. Eickhorn sold many blades to Lilley and others marked GERMANY on tang only.(In the letters this was all spelled out in there orders. This was done for import reasons and marked on the tang so when assembled either the Germany name would not show or they ground it off. 
  I will try to post a picture of a page in my files.  It is a Christmas Card from Meyer DEC. 1937
I have thousands of pages of Eickhorn factory papers...
Regards: James

----------


## Glen C.

As always, everything you put up has been informative to me but I often have nothing to contribute.

Except maybe

_The DAMN picture manager will not put them in the correct order. Can this be fixed?_

Frustrating at best sometimes, I agree. However, if you click on the paperc;ip after you have uploaded images, you can place the thumbprints inline with the text and order them in the context you want (insert attachment via the paperclip icon). The other method with the system is to build an album at SFI and dthe copy&paste the links with the img tags already in place. 

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/album.php

Alternately, outside sources for hosting images allow a greater flexibility. I often just use www.tinypic.com if I don't want to bother with my Opera albums.
http://my.opera.com/3sails/albums/

Cheers

Hotspur; _now I need to go back and learn what you posted_

----------


## James Brown

Took a quick look at a few files.. Meyer stopped for war Sept. 1939 Regards: James

----------


## James Brown

> Took a quick look at a few files.. Meyer stopped for war Sept. 1939 Regards: James


What I mean to say is Meyer stopped buying from (Eickhorn) in Sept. 1939 until after the war.

----------


## T. Graham

> OK..I'll make a guess..photo 1..the rightmost sword..the eagle on the pommel is facing right, the others all face left ( not totally sure about the 4th sword..guessing to the left)


 You are correct. In 1941 the US Navy in its infinite wisdom decided that the eagle on buttons and sword pommel caps, currently facing to *his*  left, the sinister side, will face to the right. It has also been been mentioned that the German sword and button eagles faced to the left. Because of this change, the German Navy was not able to infiltrate the US Navy.
 I wonder what this change cost the tax payers? After all, those admirals and captains has to travel to meet and then generate a lot of paper to make this change. (Did someone push my skeptical button?)
Does anyone know of a good reason for this change?

----------


## James Brown

After looking in the Eickhorn Lilley file I found that between 1935 and 1939 Lilley bought 1000s of sword blades from Eickhorn...
While I'm not sure if Alexander Coppel later known as Alcoso Company was a big player in export at this time. ( The company was for sure one of the top 5 in sword manufacturing in Solingen)  It is known that the Coppels did not survive the war because of there religion, but the company did under management of a relative by marriage. There is a book written in German about this..The company name has been sold and is still making shears. I know this is off subject.    Do you have any feedback at all on these posts T. Graham?? Just trying to keep things straight..
Regards: James

----------


## George Wheeler

James,

I have seen a few copies of the correspondence between Meyer and Eickhorn concerning the purchase of swords and these letters are great primary source material.  I recall one series of letters between them where Meyer stopped buying from Eickhorn at the start of the war and the correspondence was very friendly with both parties hoping to continue their business collaboration after the end of the war.  Of course, they did just that and Meyer once again bought Eichorn made parts and M1902 US Army Officer Sabers after the war.

Tim,

You might want to point out that the pommel eagle facing either sinister or dexter is really just a rule of thumb for dating these US M1852Navy Officer Swords.  Some of the early pommels can face either way... particularly the imported ones.  Never say never as most of these rules are not carved in stone.

----------


## James Brown

George: 

   You are correct that letter was dated Sept 1939, Some of the files were done in duplicate and sometimes you may see a copy of a letter for sale...The person I bought them from years ago was not totally honest about selling all the files and he sold a few ( duplicates) he had left on e-bay. Regards: James

----------


## George Wheeler

James,

Yes, I saw some of this correspondence that was sold by Manion's Auction some time ago.  I am pretty sure that is where I saw the Meyer letters.

George

----------


## T. Graham

The Mansfield, Ohio Civil War show is over and we can get this thread back on track. The very interesting "German" connection needs a separate thread. I picked up an interesting m1902 that relates. But let us put that aside for now and get back to " Made in U.S.A." L-A USN sword.

These swords are usually easy to take apart. Just unscrew the pommel cap, remove the nut and apart it comes. The grip may need a tug. Re-assemble in reverse order, but do not over tighten the nut, it may need to be adjusted to get the pommel cap to set with the eagle up. That nut is usually not very tight. A socket driver and a light touch is all you need. If the knuckle guard is still loose, take it apart and bend the top curve up ever so slightly and then reassemble. 
Pictures 1 and 2 are the type I FSG with fish skin grip. Do you see the fish skin grip seam and the 'Lilley' pattern on the counter guard?
The Type I PG and the type II did not readily want to come apart and I do not think there any useful information there. To take them apart requires leather covered channel locks to pop the pommel cap loose.
Picture 3 is the Type IV with the one-piece knuckle guard/pommel and picture 4 is the type V. Both have the Ames type counter guard. To dis-assemble these may require a slight bending of the knuckle guard. When you re-assemble let the nut pull things together. Do you see the change in the eagle?
*
Do not try to dis-assemble any other USN hilt, they are very different. This includes the German ones that seem similar*

I just noticed that there isn't a type III. Please forgive the error. Maybe I could assign that designation to the Coast Guard versions. Does anyone want to see them?

Picture 5 shows the only scabbard difference is the method of fastening the mounts to the scabbard. The scabbard on the left is found on the type I PG, II, IV and V. Note the 'German' type headless screws on each side one the 'edge'. The Type I FSG scabbard has the pan head screw on the leather seam side. Sometimes these screws are a Phillips head. This is correct on any L-A sword. L-A quality control was based on the individual ability of the assembler, polisher, etcher etc. L-A was cranking out a lot of swords in the pre WWII period.

Are more photos of these swords wanted?

The German import swords were first to use the steel lined and plastic scabbards with the headless screws and the screw on pommel caps. I can start a thread on the pre WWI and pre WWII German and English imports, pre WWI and WWI period US made if there is interest.

----------


## George Wheeler

Excellent information on an often overlooked sword.  The photos are very telling.

Do you know when the plastic scabbard bodies were first used?  I presume post WWII with the metal bodies being generally pre-WWII?

----------


## T. Graham

I have Horstmann marked, plastic scabbard. USNOs made by Eickhorn; which I would date around 1930. The only way to notice them is the lack of a seam and decorative molding. It appears to be a form of Bakelite cast or injected molded, very thin. I am amazed that it was not broken. The example shown has a 'crack' along it. I think there is a reinforcing material under the smooth coating. I'll bet there are German market swords with this type of scabbard.
There were post WWII German USNO's with fiberglass lined leather scabbards.
Note the 'painted fish skin grip. This was found on the less expensive Ames WWI swords.

The between the wars swords are a thread of their own.

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

Here are a couple of post 1955 Wilkinson drawings of the USN Hilt and scabbard mounts.

----------


## T. Graham

Moderator, I am thinking that it may best to change the name of this thread to 'US Naval Officers Swords 1872 to 1942'. I can add a lot to a thread named as such.

----------


## George Wheeler

> Moderator, I am thinking that it may best to change the name of this thread to 'US Naval Officers Swords 1872 to 1942'. I can add a lot to a thread named as such.


Done!

----------


## Dmitry Z~G

For me personally the vast majority of the later USN swords are of little interest, unless they are marked with the  officer's name, which can lead to interesting historical anecdotes. The sheer abundance of these swords, coupled with the thin blade, the near-identical etched decorations...none of these help with collectability.
I have a sword of a USN officer that served in the Russian North during the intervention in the Russian Civil War, which is interesting to me on  a personal level. The sword itself is not interesting as an object,  being a typical thin-bladed,  generically-etched variety. 
That being said, I'm not critiquing or looking down on anyone who collects these swords, just offering my perspective on why and why not.
Anything of age can be a collectible...it's good for the preservation of the object, at least.

----------


## T. Graham

I recently picked up a 'budget' USNO sword. The interesting lack of usual features make this a unique variation. 
The grip is a smooth plastic, possibly celluloid and the scabbard mountings lack the the 'knot' bands. The un-plated blade is just barely etched.
I was able to determine that it was made by Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie. and it is marked 'Germany'.
Likely made for a naval cadet program before WWI.

----------


## George Wheeler

Now that is an interesting variation.  Certainly a low budget import sword.  I notice that the top and middle suspension bands have been reversed and that now puts the sewn seam of the scabbard toward the front.  The bands look to be glued in place rather than stapled in the typical German manner.  They did not spend a lot of time or money making this one.

I like it.

----------


## T. Graham

Thanks George, Because of the heavy pitting on the point; the necessary refurbishing will justify fixing the scabbard, assuming I can get it apart. I did not notice that the scabbard was backwards. 
I have other Imported USNOs if there is interest.

----------


## T. Graham

Lilley-Ames applied a varnish to this series of USN swords. As you can see it has to be removed. The grip embossed strip of the top one had to be replaced with wire of the same type as that used on the earlier versions of these swords. I have no idea where you could get this embossed strip.
Removing this finish requires a solvent and elbow grease. These swords come apart easily so the only time consuming part is the soaking and rubbing. I have an exhaust fan by my work bench. Otherwise this should be done out side. I am going to try a paint stripper on the bottom one; it should work faster.
The next decision is weather to apply a clear lacquer coating to inhibit tarnish. 
I am sure there are some comments.

----------


## George Wheeler

"...what to do?  I am sure there are some comments."

Of course there will be opinions and comments.  I have come to the conclusion (speaking for myself alone) that all patina does not necessarily have to be removed.  All patina is not bad in my eyes.  Over the years I have changed this opinion and come to this position after cleaning a lot of swords.  Anyway, I tend to look at the amount of the finish I am looking at and how unattractive it is to make a cleaning decision.  I certainly will remove active rust or crud to stabilize the condition of the sword.  Cleaning is not restoration.  

Let's look at your second sword.  If this is the remains of the original varnish finish it appears to be over 50% there.  While it is certainly dull it is not spotty or unattractive in my eyes  Well over my % benchmark at around 90% it appears from the photographs.  I would leave it.  I would leave it because I know what a re-finished sword looks like.  You have one shown just above it.  

Just my two-cents worth of opinion... since you asked for it.   :Wink:

----------


## Dmitry Z~G

Not long ago I had a gorgeous Civil War period Ames M1852 sword that had almost 100% of its original varnish remaining on the hilt and the scabbard mounts. Underneath that varnish was all of its original gilding. I decided not to remove the varnish, which has darkened with time and acquired a somewhat mottled look, but protected all of the gilding. I am sure the sword's new owner appreciated that.

----------


## T. Graham

Consider this; if you offered two swords one with a cruddy original applied finish that would not have been applied, had the maker known the later consequences, or one with the original plating undamaged by a cruddy finish?
Patina is a natural oxidized coating, bad vanish is bad varnish. When fine paintings are restored, the first thing done is to remove the old yellowing varnish. later a new vanish is applied.

----------


## George Wheeler

> Consider this; if you offered two swords one with a cruddy original applied finish that would not have been applied, had the maker known the later consequences, or one with the original plating undamaged by a cruddy finish?
> Patina is a natural oxidized coating, bad vanish is bad varnish. When fine paintings are restored, the first thing done is to remove the old yellowing varnish. later a new vanish is applied.


You are absolutly right that it is generally easier to sell a bright and shiny sword than one with age patina.  But, are you going to sell it?  I understand your point and it is a point well taken.  I guess it really comes down to a matter of esthetics.  If you like it better with the varnish removed then by all means remove it.  As I say, I have come to this change in viewpoints over the years so I have been there and done that, as they say.  

George

----------


## Dmitry Z~G

In my opinion this case is not that different from a musket with the stock having the old varnish that time had turned dark and blistery. If one removes the old varnish and re-coats the stock with a new finish, the value of the musket will drop, perhaps dramatically. Granted, this sword is nowhere close to the price of a valuable musket, but the analogy still applies.
By the way , the old paintings...I've read that the near-ubiquitous practice  of removing the old varnish has come under scrutiny lately. 
For example, take the classic cars that are being sold at auction now, that look like they came off the assembly line yesterday. Current generation of collectors has come to realize that if the old cars look like...old cars, it's not terrible, and in fact is more desirable than an old car made look like a new one, with the original paint stripped, seats recovered, parts re-chromed, etc..

----------


## T. Graham

This British made USN officers sword was created by Joseph Starkey of Conduit St, London for the uniform tailor Gieves of Gieves & Hawkes. It has several features that are unique when compared with USA made Naval Officer's swords of WWI vintage. At least I think it is WWI vintage.

1. The pommel cap eagle is facing right instead of left and is pinned on instead of the 'bottle cap' method used by Ames and Lilley. (This is the same as on two Starky swords I own, one of which is dated 1899.) This predates the 1941 regulation on how the eagles face. I suspect that since the the eagle etch on the blade faces right, Starky followed suit with the pommel eagle.

2. The shape of the grip is very different.

3. The blade is twice as thick on the back and the etching resist was hand applied instead of the transfer method.

Overall this is a very high quality sword. Because it is not marked England, it may have been purchased by an individual US Navel Officer stationed in England. The condition shows almost no use.
Can our UK friends add anything to this sword description?
Is there interest in my posting my Starkey swords? They are somewhat different.

----------


## Ken A.

Hi,

I am new to this forum so I want to say Cheers to all. I also want to thank this forum community for the vast amount of information you have compiled here.

I would like to ask a question that seems to fit into this thread. I am a WWII military collector, but recently purchased a USN sword. There are a few "issues" that I am uncertain about so I wanted to ask the experts. This sword is stamped Jacob Reed' Sons. It has the name R.Y. Matthews engraved on the blade. What I find puzzling is the lack of the fish skin grip. Someone painted the grip black with a smooth material underneath. It is wrapped in silver wire instead of the common  golden wire. I am afraid that this might be a "put together sword".  I was hoping to remove the pommel as shown in the images here, but it seems to be all one piece.( maybe crimped on) Perhaps after looking at some photos someone could help me determine era and if this is a correct sword. Thanks in advance

----------


## T. Graham

Ken, I have added some additional info on your original thread. I will post some more examples here later.

----------


## T. Graham

This pommel cap is called the 'pop bottle' type and is pressed on. The eagle was cast with a shallow sleeve around it, which was driven into a recess in the pommel. To remove it will require lifting the sleeve up and in the fashion of opening a pop (to us mid-westerners or soda to the rest of country) bottle. Some are on tighter than others and need to be peened back into place; but most are on pretty tight.
I doubt they were ever meant to be disassembled. This cap method was used by both M.C. Lilley Co. and Ames Sword Co. during WWI and later.  I have in my collection a pre WWI Weyersburg, Kerschbaum Cie for Horstmann with a  bottle cap pommel. (orange background) This example Has the Horstmann Philadelphia mark in a simple rectangle not the later 'garter'. More on this later.
The German makers first used the screw on pommel caps just before WWI and Lilley started using them in the 1930's. This link shows an Eickhorn made sword from the mid 30's with a screw on cap and a plastic scabbard. 
This M.C. Lilley Co. pommel was not, all that well attached. What is really amazing is that it was not lost. This sword is complete,  but its general condition may cause it to be source of parts.

----------


## T. Graham

About 1935 Lilley-Ames started producing the "Made U.S.A." series of US military swords. the USN versions copied some of the German makers details such as the threaded pommel cap, leather over steel scabbard and the small set screws that positioned and locked the scabbard mountings in place. The type I can be found using the above method or the earlier brass cap screw on the back side. The WWI version used a brass rivet on the back side.
Below is a type 4 L-A sword, discussed in more detail at the beginning of this thread. Note the 'set' screws on the top and bottom edge of the scabbard mounting. The threaded pommel cap is obvious, but note the unique tang nut.

----------


## George Wheeler

Tim,

As usual excellent photos and detailed information for Ken,

----------


## T. Graham

> This pommel cap is called the 'pop bottle' type and is pressed on. The eagle was cast with a shallow sleeve around it, which was driven into a recess in the pommel. To remove it will require lifting the sleeve up and in the fashion of opening a pop (to us mid-westerners or soda to the rest of country) bottle. Some are on tighter than others and need to be peened back into place; but most are on pretty tight.
> I doubt they were ever meant to be disassembled. This cap method was used by both M.C. Lilley Co. and Ames Sword Co. during WWI and later.  I have in my collection a pre WWI Weyersburg, Kerschbaum Cie for Horstmann with a  bottle cap pommel. (orange background) This example Has the Horstmann Philadelphia mark in a simple rectangle not the later 'garter'. More on this later.
> The German makers first used the screw on pommel caps just before WWI and Lilley started using them in the 1930's. This link shows an Eickhorn made sword from the mid 30's with a screw on cap and a plastic scabbard. 
> This M.C. Lilley Co. pommel was not, all that well attached. What is really amazing is that it was not lost. This sword is complete,  but its general condition may cause it to be source of parts.


Go back a page, half way down, to see the Eickhorn sword.

----------


## T. Graham

Because I started at the end of the period we are discussing; I thought it was time to go to the beginning.
This could be one of the earliest of 1852/72 USN officers swords. Features include:
1. Through tang right through the eagle breast
2. Hand applied etching resist
3. This example has a quill backed blade similar to the Model 1841. See picture  showing this sword blade and a M1841 blade. I have not seen another like it. Was Ames using up surplus blades made from the M1841 or another sword?

I suspect that this sword was made by Gaylord and private labeled for Ames. 
*Moderator, I am unable to load pictures. Internal server error*

----------


## James Brown

Looking in my Eickhorn factory files I do have a Lilley Ames file.  In checking the dates and discussions the Lilley company had with Eickhorn it is very eye opening and looking at the (source documents) it is easy to see what was going on behind the scenes.. Ordering sword blades  through 1939 also still receiving quotes on complete swords.. 
    Part of  a letter dated Feb. 16 1938 from the Lilley Ames Company   [QUOTE  BECAUSE OF THE HIGH EXCHANGE RATE AND THE HIGH COST OF GERMAN BLADES WE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO MANUFACTURE OUR OWN BLADES,AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW. QUOTE]   Other invoice dated August 27 1938   125 U.S. Marine Corps Sabre Blades   Nov. 2nd 1937  U.S. Navy sword blades 500.
    So what I find from source records is this..The date (about 1935 "Made In U.S.A." Series) is early or possible some swords have German blades as the date is at best 1937 or early 1938 by the letter they wrote.(As before this date there was strong export orders )  I believe by what I have seen in the source records and the very specific instructions on how Lilley wanted the blade tang only marked Germany (very easy to grind off after being imported) that many of the Made U.S.A. swords in Fact may have German blades on them. (Some of this was marketing)..Lilley-Ames continued to order sword blades into 1939...Posting one page as I will be doing a future reference on this..  The page posted shows a  order totaling 1000 U.S. Sabre blades dated Feb. 15 1936
Regards: James

----------


## T. Graham

Is there a reason I get the *internal sever error* when I try to up Up load pictures?

----------


## Glen C.

It works as of now? I am using the manage attachments below the text area, not the landscape icon but I'll try that too.

----------


## T. Graham

> It works as of now? I am using the manage attachments below the text area, not the landscape icon but I'll try that too.


How do I use the text area?

----------


## Glen C.

> How do I use the text area?


Above the text window area  is a little landscape icon in the editor toolbar. Click that and either paste an image url or upload a file from your drives. This will let you place a thumb in context of the text. Work in the text entry to try all the controls. if you don't place the cursor when using the tool, a thumb will happen in a string of text  arrgh!

Alternately you can put the thumb below text
 


or above text with a caption (this one selecting text size) 

As mentioned in the past, there are yet other options. Build an album here http://www.swordforum.com/forums/album.php by clicking Community above and selecting albums. Create the album, select the image and copy the url with the BB img /img tags. Then place them where you might. These are posted as a full image.



If having an issue with placements in the original attachment manager, you can delete them one at a time and insert them  in that strip below where you want to. Again, it is a matter of practice using the tools.  Renumbering or renaming your own files can keep a string of images getting jumbled using that thumb strip placement at the bottom of posts. The toolbar icon or forum album linking, or outside hosting will guarantee sequencing and placement. If you are not seeing the toolbar, make sure your forum settings are allowing the full editor option.

Honestly, I often find it as easy to use tinypic for a few images but if wanting to archive on this board, either work with the thumb system or build an album here to link from, thus displaying full images instead of thumbs.

Cheers

Hotspur; _I can't apologize for the board's FAQ, as the mechanism is ill defined_

----------


## T. Graham

> Because I started at the end of the period we are discussing; I thought it was time to go to the beginning.
> This could be one of the earliest of 1852/72 USN officers swords. Features include:
> 1. Through tang right through the eagle breast
> 2. Hand applied etching resist
> 3. This example has a quill backed blade similar to the Model 1841. See picture  showing this sword blade and a M1841 blade. I have not seen another like it. Was Ames using up surplus blades made from the M1841 or another sword?
> 
> I suspect that this sword was made by Gaylord and private labeled for Ames. 
> *Moderator, I am unable to load pictures. Internal server error*


Well I out smarted the picture manager. These were named Ames 1870; but when I changed the name to a group of random letters it worked.

----------


## T. Graham

Recently pickup this presentation Sword made by Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie., Solingen, Germany. As with most Ames presentation grade USN's the fancy details are in the leather over metal scabbard. I would date it either side of 1930.
The inscription is unusual because the Gothic letters are engraved not etched. It reads: 
"Presented to G? I? Douglas by the Chief Petty Officers of Sub. Div. 17". Maybe our crack research team can find out something about him.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Tim,

I also recently acquired a M1852 officer's sword whose scabbard decorations, at least on the top two mounts,  appear to be a plainer version of yours.  The top munt of my sword has an engraved fouled anchor above the carrying ring, and two bands of oak leaves below the carrying ring.  The middle mount has bands of oak leaves above and below the ring.  The drag mount, however, differs from yours in that it has a dual row of oak leaves on the top and a nautical knot on the face.  I believe this sword dates from about 1910.  It belonged to Rear Admiral George Maus Lowry who won the Medal of Honor for his actions as an Ensign during the USN's capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1914. It is marked on the obverse ricasso “MADE EXPRESSLY/FOR/F.J. SCHMIDT CO.”; below this the blade is etched with a panel with the owner’s name “G. M. Lowry U.S.N.”.  The reverse ricasso has a bronze plug marked “PROVED” around a fleur de lis, all within a star of david with dots in the angles of the star.  Would appreciate your thoughts on who may have manufactured this sword.  It has what you identify earlier in this thread as the Ames-style hilt.  The blade has no maker or place of origin marked.  Although I usually associate the bronze "proved" plug with English makers, I undestand some German manufactures copied it as well.

Dick Schenk

----------


## T. Graham

It has a German look. I need a photo showing the hilt from above or below. It was custom ordered with added decoration. Schmidt sold Ames swords during WWI. Ames deluxe swords were a bit different. This is a good one.
Below is a deluxe Ames for Schmidt. The decorative bands and anchor on the scabbard were applied with a die.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> It has a German look. I need a photo showing the hilt from above or below. It was custom ordered with added decoration. Schmidt sold Ames swords during WWI. Ames deluxe swords were a bit different. This is a good one.
> Below is a deluxe Ames for Schmidt. The decorative bands and anchor on the scabbard were applied with a die.


Here are a couple more views of my M1852 Navy hilt:

----------


## T. Graham

Based on the hilt details, it was made by  Karl Eickhorn.

----------


## Daniel Long

I have a circa.1852 naval officer sword from Ralph's in Newport

----------


## Daniel Long

information on sword is nonexistent help please

----------


## T. Graham

Hello Daniel. Photos would help, but I suspect you *may* have a ca WWI sword made by Ames Sword Co., Chicopee, MA or The M.C. Lilley Co., Columbus OH. Swords , uniforms etc were purchased by officers from retailers located in large cities or near naval bases. Newport RI city directories may help find Ralph's.

----------


## Daniel Long

I was under the impression that a right facing eagle on the pommel dated it to after Pearl Harbor and the blade appear    to be polished stainless steel.All the etching seems to be correct with a white gilded shark skin handle.The sheath is leather with the dolphin motif.
I wish had digital camera capabilities but I don't it looks similar to the sword already seen in this thread

----------


## T. Graham

A 1941 pattern sword pommel (see the Lilley-Ames type IV-b above.) will have the eagle facing to*its* right, or the observer's right. If the blade is marked 'stainless', it dates after 1960. Does a magnet stick to the scabbard with the sword removed?

----------


## Daniel Long

oh duh.its 1941 the eagle is facing left.it's not marked stainless and the inside of sheath is leather.just about every business in Newport is named Ralph's for some reason but no Ralph's Inc.

----------


## T. Graham

OK, the eagle facing to its left, and leather only scabbard is WWI.

----------


## Daniel Long

okay cool what do think the value is

----------


## Daniel Long

are you a collector

----------


## Daniel Long

I sent photos in a text my number is 2144340104

----------


## T. Graham

> okay cool what do think the value is


Daniel, Values cannot be disused on the forum. You may private message me. But without good pictures the is no way to know the condition.

----------


## Daniel Long

okay i'm sorry.I was a bottle of wine in and excited to finally find out some good information on it.I've had it for several years without success.Thanks for your expertise.Truthfully it's priceless to me.

----------


## T. Graham

Here are a couple of interesting M1852/74s 
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...g-higgins-usn/
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...ntation-sword/

----------


## Ken A.

Hi,
I have been away from the forum for a while, but as I re-visit this thread I want to than all that have posted the in depth information provided here. After my first "mistake" with this type of sword, I recently purchased one that I believe is correct. I know that this is a common sword, but it is one that I could afford. I would appreciate any comments or observations. As the sword has not arrived yet I have included a link to the item that was listed on the popular auction site. http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-WWI-Era-N...vip=true&rt=nc . I am not quite sure how to condense a link as you folks have done, so I apologize for the lengthy info.
Regards,
Ken

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Hi,
> I have been away from the forum for a while, but as I re-visit this thread I want to than all that have posted the in depth information provided here. After my first "mistake" with this type of sword, I recently purchased one that I believe is correct. I know that this is a common sword, but it is one that I could afford. I would appreciate any comments or observations. As the sword has not arrived yet I have included a link to the item that was listed on the popular auction site. http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-WWI-Era-N...vip=true&rt=nc . I am not quite sure how to condense a link as you folks have done, so I apologize for the lengthy info.
> Regards,
> Ken


Your sword appears to have belonged to Clayton Smith Clark who was commissioned from Annapolis on 1 June 1934.  The sword was likely purchased about that time.  He was medically retired as a Commander on 30 Sept 1947.  He was born on 7 Dec 1910 in Lanesboro, Pennsylvania

----------


## Ken A.

Hi Richard,

Thank you for the response ind information, I sincerely appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, how do you go about researching info. on the persons name inscribed on the sword
Regards,
Ken

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Hi Richard,
> 
> Thank you for the response ind information, I sincerely appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, how do you go about researching info. on the persons name inscribed on the sword
> Regards,
> Ken


Ken,

For Navy and Marine officers I look two places for a quick check.  First I check the "Registers of the Commissioned Officers of the United States Navy
and Marine Corps"  for the probable years during which the officer might have served.  You can find links to most of these official Navy lists at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/USN/Naval_Registers.  I then check ancestry.com, a geneological data base which contains extensive military and other records on millions of individuals. (This is a subscription fee-for-service site.)  In addition to these, you can always google the name - that often turns up interesting info as well.

Dick

----------


## T. Graham

> Hi,
> I have been away from the forum for a while, but as I re-visit this thread I want to than all that have posted the in depth information provided here. After my first "mistake" with this type of sword, I recently purchased one that I believe is correct. I know that this is a common sword, but it is one that I could afford.
> Regards,
> Ken


 Ken, This is a nice example and you got it for a reasonable price. It was made by Karl Eickhorn, Solingen, Germany and obviously dates to the mid 1930's. Look at the pommel from above; is there a little screw under the eagle? The tarnish spots can be removed, they are not patena.

----------


## Ken A.

Hi Richard,
Thank you for sharing the information on research. It will be very helpful. I wasn't aware of the website you sited.

Mr. Graham, thank for your reassuring comments. The sword has not arrived yet, but I will check the pommel when it arrives. Perhaps you could explain the safest why to remove the tarnish spots and some general cleaning suggestions. Should I try to repair the dents in the drag (if this is even possible) or leave it alone . Do you find the German imports to be of better quality than their USA counterparts?
Best regards,
Ken

----------


## Ken A.

> Ken, This is a nice example and you got it for a reasonable price. It was made by Karl Eickhorn, Solingen, Germany and obviously dates to the mid 1930's. Look at the pommel from above; is there a little screw under the eagle? The tarnish spots can be removed, they are not patena.


Hi Mr Graham, 

You were correct about the pommel. The sword arrived today. Its is in very nice condition. There a couple of tiny black spots on the engraving on the blade,  otherwise the blade is perfect. The pommel does have a small screw located below the eagle ( in the ring of stars).  The sword  retains much of the gilding, but I would like to remove the tarnish without harming the gilding.  I apologize for my question about quality regarding countries of manufacture. I realize now that this was a rather controversial question and therefore withdraw it. I look forward in hearing from you regarding the significance of the screw in the pommel and cleaning suggestions.

I would like to wish you and all forum members a peaceful Christmas season.
Best regards,
Ken

----------


## Ken A.

Hi,

I wanted to share some photos of the mounted sword that I have put in my WWI display.

----------


## George Wheeler

A very good use of space Ken.  I am always looking to squeeze another inch or two out of my wall space for a display.

----------


## Ken A.

> A very good use of space Ken.  I am always looking to squeeze another inch or two out of my wall space for a display.


Hi George,
 Nice to hear from you and thank you for the comments. I wanted to ask if displaying the sword with the sword knot attached have any negative affect on the brass finish.

I hope you had a nice Christmas holiday and are enjoying your weekend.
Best regards,
Ken

----------


## George Wheeler

Ken,

I have quite a few sword knots on swords and they have not suffered any problems.  You might get a verdigris problem with a leather knot that gets moist but the bullion Officer knots don't have that issue.  They also look nice on the swords.

----------


## Ken A.

> Ken, This is a nice example and you got it for a reasonable price. It was made by Karl Eickhorn, Solingen, Germany and obviously dates to the mid 1930's. Look at the pommel from above; is there a little screw under the eagle? The tarnish spots can be removed, they are not patena.


Hi, You stimulated my curiosity when you asked about the pommel with the " little screw" below the eagle. I did not see this example in any of the other examples that you posted. Which makes me wonder what (if any) is the significance of this screw.

----------


## T. Graham

> Hi, You stimulated my curiosity when you asked about the pommel with the " little screw" below the eagle. I did not see this example in any of the other examples that you posted. Which makes me wonder what (if any) is the significance of this screw.


That screw is found  on swords made by Eickhorn and it will keep the pommel cap from unscrewing off. The USNs by Lilley-Ames do not have it and the pommels are often missing. That is deadly damage.

----------


## Ken A.

> That screw is found (I think) on swords made by Eickhorn and it will keep the pommel cap from unscrewing off. The USNs by Lilley-Ames do not have it and the pommels are often missing. That is deadly damage.


Hi  Mr. Graham,

Thank you for reply and information. I was just looking at a book that I loaned from the library " German Swords and Sword Makers". It's impressive to see the long lineage of the Eickhorn family's involvement with swords.
Best regards and Happy New Year!

----------


## T. Graham

In the beginning of the 20th Century the were actually four American sword makers. We all know The Ames Sword Co. and The M.C. Lilley Co., but The Pettibone Brothers MFG Co. and Henderson-Ames also made 1852/72 Naval Officers swords.

Henderson-Ames (1893-1923) was major supplier to lodges and other fraternal groups.

This is Henderson-Ames USN has some unique features. The tang is the through type, peened over the pommel cap. Before WWI, both Lilley and Ames both went with a threaded tang and nut covered with a 'bottle cap' pommel. The scabbard mountings have a decorative band and the blade has a unique etching pattern. 

There are likely 100 Lilley and Ames WWI period swords for every one of these.

----------


## T. Graham

The Pettibone Mfg Co., (1871-1900) after 1900 The Pettibone BROS. MFG., (1900-1976) Cincinnati Ohio, was an importer, mostly from Weyersberg, Kerschbaum Cie., and assembler of swords often using WKC components.
The of the USN shown, one is Pettibone marked and the other private labeled for S. J. Abrams, Long Beach and San Pedro California.  Unique on Pettibone's is the blade etching pattern and the simple, engraved decoration on the scabbard mounts.

These are just as uncommon as the above Henderson-Ames swords.

----------


## T. Graham

These are often encounter on feeBay and described as Spanish American War or what ever the lister thinks it may be. These 1905 versions are not rare, because any officer commissioned into the regular US Navy had to have one. This set has a 1930ish Eickhorn sword, the belt plates are the 1905 pattern. The loose buttons were intended for the dress white uniform. As I understand it (and my wife will confirm that I am often wrong,) Reserve Officers did not need these and they were not required during WWI. I also think they were not required after about 1935. The original owner Frank L. Barrows has not been researched. So, if your are offered one do not get two excited and pay to much. I wore the epaulets on my Civil War officers uniform, but I was afraid they would get snagged so went back to the straps.
Our sister forums has pictures of officers in full dress.
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...consideration/

----------


## T. Graham

How to determine the type of US Navy officers belt plate you have.

In 1876 the Navy changed the plate to one piece or false two piece pattern. This type of plate is used today.

The 1876 pattern has an eagle facing to its left and across.

The 1905 pattern has the eagle facing to its left and up.

The 1941 pattern has the eagle facing to its right and up.

It is the eagles right or left, not yours.

This rule also applies to the non-regulation commercial plates.

----------


## T. Graham

Here are examples of the non-regulation, commercial plates. These were used by navel militia and cadet programs.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Tim,

Here is a different one for you.  It is a M1852/72 Navy officers sword which was retailed by R.D. Crane & Co., New York, and apparently made (the blade at least) by Abraham Kuller of Solingen  his walking bear sign is stamped on the obverse side under the proved slug.   There is a large presentation panel etched with the inscription Presented to Robert Delze, Carpenter/U.S.N. by Employees of C.&R. M.S./NAVY YARD, N.Y.  MARCH, 1905.  I have no idea who the recipient was, but suspect he was either a member of the NY Naval Militia (established in 1891) or a civilian; I checked the Navy Registries for 1904 to 1906 and could find no officer named Robert Delze or Robert Delze Carpenter.  I am equally ignorant as to the identity of C.&R.M.S.  

What is interesting about this sword is the hilt.  At first glance it looks like what you identify earlier in this thread as a Lilley style, but there is a major difference, i.e. there is no U.S.N.  scroll on the guard.  A less obvious difference is the additional floral design on the bottom outer band of the guard near the quillon.  The rest of the sword and its markings seem fairly standard for the period.  

Ive not seen this variety before.  Have you?  Do you think this might be a variant M. C. Lilley product?  I have seen a number of M. C. Lilley swords, primarily fraternal organization swords, with blades marked with the Kuller walking bear.

----------


## Richard Schenk

I forgot one photo, the one showing the Kuller walking bear mark:  

Attachment 144352

Also note the tang is preened on top of the pommel rather than having a pommel cap.

----------


## George Wheeler

Richard,

I wonder if it is related to the Revenue Marine Service?  Perhaps Customs & Revenue Marine Service prior to their consolidation with the Lifesaving Service morphing into the Coast Guard?

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I wonder if it is related to the Revenue Marine Service?  Perhaps Customs & Revenue Marine Service prior to their consolidation with the Lifesaving Service morphing into the Coast Guard?


I doubt it.  In 1905 the Revenue Marine Service operated under the name of the Revenue Cutter Service and had their own sword - it was identical to the Navy M1852/72 Officer sword except the scroll on the guard read "USRCS" vice "USN".



Also the Kuller blade is etched "USN".

----------


## T. Graham

I would like to address the above two swords  because the have some similarities. First, both were made The M.C. Lilley Co., Columbus Ohio and the hilt details prove this. Lilley imported components from Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie. (WKC), Solingen, Germany. The "critter" mark was used on WKC export components; Kuller went out of business in 1880. WKC did and still does make USN officer swords, but they have different hilt details. There are examples of WKC swords on previous pages.
Features to note: the presentation sword has a through tang, so 1905 predates the standard WWI, "bottle Cap" pommel. I would like to see more photos of the USRCS sword: does it have a through tang?
Both swords have knots; I would suggest removal,as their rough surface will polish off the gold finish. USRCS did not use US Army sword knots. 
These are the kind of USN type swords to go after. I covet them.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I would like to address the above two swords  because the have some similarities. First, both were made The M.C. Lilley Co., Columbus Ohio and the hilt details prove this.   
> 
> *I had thought this might be a Lilley hilt - has a similar appearance.  I had never seen a Lilley hilt, however, without the "USN" scroll on the guard or with that extra floral decoration on the bottom outer branch of the guard.  Have you seen these on other swords?  Just how common/uncommon is it to find a M1852/72 with no "USN" on the guard?*
> 
> Lilley imported components from Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie. (WKC), Solingen, Germany. The "critter" mark was used on WKC export components; Kuller went out of business in 1880. 
> 
> *I know Bezdek says Kuller went out of business in 1880, but I take his info with a grain of salt - have found a lot of errors in his info such as these dates in the past.  I had not heard WKC used a mark identical to Kuller's on their export components.  This would seem strange unless they perhaps purchased or otherwise acquired the rights to the mark somehow.*
> WKC did and still does make USN officer swords, but they have different hilt details. There are examples of WKC swords on previous pages.
> 
> ...


*The USRCS sword came with the M1902 Army full dress knot attached.  It appeared to have been there a long time, but is obviously not correct.*

----------


## George Wheeler

I wanted to resurrect this thread to discuss a Coast Guard sword that I recently picked up.  I believe that Tim had commented on USCG swords but we have not posted any yet.  I will try and get some photos of my sword up as soon as possible.

At any rate, my sword is an early USCG Officer sword of the "WWI" type that Tim describes.  It was made by Lilley and the ricasso has the earlier etched "Made by M.C. Lilley & CO. Columbus Ohio" (without "The" preceeding M.C.) along with the large etched proof star with a Lilly flower in the center as well as between each arm of the star.  It has the earlier "bottle cap" pommel with the eagle facing to it's left (the viewer's right).  The scabbard has a black leather covered metal body with the standard fittings and all components, including the blade, are marked with a matching assembly number of "70".  The straight blade is etched with "N.L. Edwards" and the only Coast Guard Officer I can find that matches is Nathaniel L. Edwards who is found on a list of USCG officers on active duty in 1944.  

We know the USCG swords can be no earlier than 1915 and WWI manufacture seems plausible from the early construction of this sword.  While Nathaniel Edwards could have served in WWII, perhaps as a "retread", but this seems an awfully long service time.  I wonder if I have my dates wrong or if there is another N.L. Edwards that I have missed?

George

----------


## George Wheeler

Here are some additional photographs of the blade etching.

----------


## Glen C.

My short term memory has been getting worse but even sharp at times.  I had meant to add this to the discussion some time ago, with a Thurkle marked sword.  Saved from Ebay, posted by one of our west coast members.

*This is a genuinely magnificent example of the US Model of 1852 Naval Officer's sword. It was made by Edward Thurkle, sometime prior to 1899. It is in gorgeous condition- clean enough that with a touch of shoe polish on the minor scratches on the scabbard, it could be carried today. However, it definitely dates to the years prior to the Spanish-American War. 
Along with being in superb condition, this sword has some extra features that make it even nicer: each scabbard mount has additional embellishment, of what is sometimes referred to as the "admiral's pattern." 

There are large bands of oak leaves on each mount- two each on top and middle, one on drag. Additionally, the rings that hold the hanging rings are done in rope-work pattern, to match the knots on the mounts. The gilding on these mounts is virtually perfect. The sword hilt has very heavy decoration- cast more deeply than one normally sees. Additionally, the grip, which twists in the opposite direction as is normally found on US swords, has very nicely done triple wire wrap. 

The blade is nearly mint, and has the maker's name and address on one side of the ricasso: E. Thurkle, Soho, London. The other side has the proof plug with the "T" for Thurkle in the center, surrounded by acid etching. The majority of the blade is plain, but retaining 99 % + of its original polish. There are 5 minute freckles, otherwise it would be mint. 

The sword is of a size that would be appropriate for the Civil War, but was post-Civil War. The blade is 15/16 of an inch wide at the ricasso. The sword is 36 1/2 inches long, and the blade is 30 inches long.

In all probability, this sword was owned by either a flag officer, or an officer on staff in London. It epitomizes the sword maker's art, and is as handsome a model 1852 as one can find.*














Cheers

Hotspur; _not the greatest pictures but he usually shares a mess of them_

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I wanted to resurrect this thread to discuss a Coast Guard sword that I recently picked up.  I believe that Tim had commented on USCG swords but we have not posted any yet.  I will try and get some photos of my sword up as soon as possible.
> 
> At any rate, my sword is an early USCG Officer sword of the "WWI" type that Tim describes.  It was made by Lilley and the ricasso has the earlier etched "Made by M.C. Lilley & CO. Columbus Ohio" (without "The" preceeding M.C.) along with the large etched proof star with a Lilly flower in the center as well as between each arm of the star.  It has the earlier "bottle cap" pommel with the eagle facing to it's left (the viewer's right).  The scabbard has a black leather covered metal body with the standard fittings and all components, including the blade, are marked with a matching assembly number of "70".  The straight blade is etched with "N.L. Edwards" and the only Coast Guard Officer I can find that matches is Nathaniel L. Edwards who is found on a list of USCG officers on active duty in 1944.  
> 
> We know the USCG swords can be no earlier than 1915 and WWI manufacture seems plausible from the early construction of this sword.  While Nathaniel Edwards could have served in WWII, perhaps as a "retread", but this seems an awfully long service time.  I wonder if I have my dates wrong or if there is another N.L. Edwards that I have missed?
> 
> George


Did a quick check on ancestry.com.  Your sword would seem to have belonged to LCDR Nathaniel Linwood Edwards, born 15 June 1901 in North Carolina and died 23 March 1974 in Chesapeake, Virginia.  He first enlisted in the Coast Guard on 15 July 1924 and retired on 1 September 1948.  The 1920 census shows him working as a boilermaker at the Navy Yard in Norfolk, VA.  In 1930 he was listed as a mechanic in the Coast Guard in Richmond, NY, and in 1940 he was a Chief Warrent Officer with the Coast Guard in Marietta, Ohio.  In 1947 He was transfered from Marine Inspection duties in San Francisco to Marine Inspection in Miami where he retired the following year.

Based on the above bio data, it would appear Edwards was promoted to Warrent Officer sometime in the early 1930s, and that is probably when he bought this sword.  

As for the sword itself,  I find it very strange.  The M. C. Lilley company hadn't used the name without the "The" since the 1880s, and this sword is obviously much newer than that.  There is also the double "& CO" in the etching.  Is it possible this was a knock-off by some foreign maker stealing the M.C. Lilley name?

----------


## George Wheeler

Glen,

Your Thurkle made sword is really outstanding.  Still a big heavy style sword but with such nice detail.  A good example of a British made sword for the American market.  I passed a similar British sword up many years ago and have regretted it ever since.

I have noticed that most US swords have 13 wraps of grip wire (for the original colonies I presume) while your British sword has less twists.  Is the scabbard leather or does it have a metal lining?

----------


## George Wheeler

> Did a quick check on ancestry.com.  Your sword would seem to have belonged to LCDR Nathaniel Linwood Edwards, born 15 June 1901 in North Carolina and died 23 March 1974 in Chesapeake, Virginia.  He first enlisted in the Coast Guard on 15 July 1924 and retired on 1 September 1948.  The 1920 census shows him working as a boilermaker at the Navy Yard in Norfolk, VA.  In 1930 he was listed as a mechanic in the Coast Guard in Richmond, NY, and in 1940 he was a Chief Warrent Officer with the Coast Guard in Marietta, Ohio.  In 1947 He was transfered from Marine Inspection duties in San Francisco to Marine Inspection in Miami where he retired the following year.
> 
> Based on the above bio data, it would appear Edwards was promoted to Warrent Officer sometime in the early 1930s, and that is probably when he bought this sword.  
> 
> As for the sword itself,  I find it very strange.  The M. C. Lilley company hadn't used the name without the "The" since the 1880s, and this sword is obviously much newer than that.  There is also the double "& CO" in the etching.  Is it possible this was a knock-off by some foreign maker stealing the M.C. Lilley name?


Dick,

Many thanks for the lookup of Nathaniel Linwood Edwards on Ancestry.  I thought this must be the guy but the timeline threw me a bit.  Joining the Coast Guard in 1924 makes sense.  A long serving Officer to be sure.

I was intrigued by this sword myself... which is why I bought it.  Since it had the earlier Lilley maker mark I too looked closely at the etching and noticed the following:  First, the lack of "The" in front of "M.C.Lilley" and the double "& CO" as well.  To me it appears that the etching template slipped slightly in this box and that is why there is a double image of "& CO".  This makes sense as this is the end of the etching template and would be more susceptible to slipping.  Clearly, this is the earlier maker marking on this acid resistant template.  Second, I also liked the etched proof marking with a Lilly in the middle of the star.  A neat proof marking incorporating the Lilly play on words with the central flower device.  Third, The etched flag on the top of the mast is blank without the usual "USN" in the central horizontal stripe.  "USN" would be inappropriate while "USCG" would be too long for this space so it appears that they modified the etching template to change the flag.  Fourth, the "U.S.C.G." etching in the ribbon is uneven.  It appears to me that they again modified the template to remove the "N." and add "C.G." to the ribbon.  Once again this makes sense as this was a newly adopted sword in 1915 when the Coast Guard was created from the other existing agencies.  

So, the sword itself seems to be the same as the Lilley made USN sword shown by Tim in post 32.  I suspect that Lilley modified an existing older USN etching template to create this new USCG blade etching.  Of course the Edwards name would have been custom etched at the time he bought the sword.  My thought now is that an early Lilley etching template (with the early maker name) was modified for the new Coast Guard sword in 1915.  It continued in use until Edwards bought the sword or it was simply a NOS sword or blade that not sold until Edwards needed a customized sword.  

Here are a few shots of the scabbard showing the metal liner and distinctive gilt fittings.

----------


## Glen C.

Sorry George, it was a picture file only that I had culled for posterity when first seeing this thread.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Dick,
> 
> The etched flag on the top of the mast is blank without the usual "USN" in the central horizontal stripe.  "USN" would be inappropriate while "USCG" would be too long for this space so it appears that they modified the etching template to change the flag. 
> 
> I suspect that Lilley modified an existing older USN etching template to create this new USCG blade etching.


I think you are probably right about Lilley having modified an existing USN etching templete to fit the needs of a USCG blade.  I doubt, however, that it was a templete left over from the early 1880s before they added the "The" to the company name.  It would hsve been about 60 years old when your sword was made.  It seems more likely that in modifying the templete to change "USN" to "USCG", etc, they somehow damaged the top of the template containing the maker's name and address, and so made a new piece to replace that section, and in doing so forgot to add the "The".  Note the lettering appears a bit crude, sort of like the "CG" on the USCG banner.

Ref the flag on the mast:  Their solution on your sword was certainly better than what they did for my USRCS blade as shown in post #83 above, i.e. just leaving the "USN" unchanged.  

Dick

----------


## T. Graham

Blade etching. It was easy to create a new transfer plate with USCG or anything else on it. 
Hilt markings: the foundry had several white metal patterns which could be modified with USCG or USRCS or anything else.

----------


## George Wheeler

Thanks Tim.  I did notice that there was a lot of hand work punch marking on the hilt.

----------


## T. Graham

Recently I pick up this USN M1852 but when I received it, I noticed something odd about it. In all ways but one, it is just like most of the Civil War M1852 swords. Look at it carefully and see if you can spot the difference.
Note: the pommel eagle is facing to its right, but that is not the mystery. What you are looking for is not at all obvious. There is a hint in the title.
 I will delve into the mystery tomorrow.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion of the dates of Lilley-style swords marked "MADE IN U.S.A.".  Initially the suggestion was 1939, but subsequent posts suggested a date more like the mid-1930s.  

I wonder if it might not be earlier than that.  My parents acquired the below-pictured sword and sword belt back in the early 1960s at either a flea market or garage sale.  The sword has a Lilley style hilt and a blade completely unmarked except for the words "MADE IN/U.S.A." stamped over the star of Damascus on the riccaso. (_Correction: un-maker marked - it has the standard etched designs._) The sword belt has a left-upward facing eagle plate and is marked "MADE BY/THE LILLEY CO/COLUMBUS OHIO" stamped into the leather under the belt plate.

The name "The Lilley Company" was only used between 1925 and 1931 when the name of the company was changed to Lilley-Ames.  Although it is impossible to prove whether the sword and sword belt were both acquired new at the same time, the circumstances suggest they were.  In that case, the "MADE IN U.S.A." mark likely dates from the mid 1920s to early 1930s.  What do you think?

----------


## Richard Schenk

Incidentally, the scabbard is leather, not leather over steel.  This also suggests a relatively early date.

----------


## T. Graham

> Recently I pick up this USN M1852 but when I received it, I noticed something odd about it. In all ways but one, it is just like most of the Civil War M1852 swords. Look at it carefully and see if you can spot the difference.
> Note: the pommel eagle is facing to its right, but that is not the mystery. What you are looking for is not at all obvious. There is a hint in the title.
>  I will delve into the mystery tomorrow.


I have been negligent in my duty. The blade is just under an inch wide. This may be the first of the 1872 pattern.

----------


## Gene Henriksen

I am new here and have one purpose in posting: I inherited my uncle's World War II US Navy sword. He was commissioned in May 1941. I had admired it since I was about 6 years old. My cousin recently died and I was able to obtain the sword plus my uncle's ribbons, Cmdr's insignia, his bronze star, etc. The part of the handle that was originally white is now very dull. The brass shows signs of Brasso being left on it years ago. The bottom 8 to 10 inches of the scabbard it missing. I want to conserve it and pass it on to my grandson who is enamored with all things WWII.  After Christmas, I will take it to The Mariner's Museum here in Newport News, VA to discuss it with their conservators. 

Is the old all-leather scabbard worth restoring? Can they be replaced? Is there someone who can properly clean and restore the blade and handle?

Sorry for lack of proper terminology but this is my first adventure into swords.

Gene Henriksen
(The USAF did not issue swords to us officers)

----------


## T. Graham

> I am new here and have one purpose in posting: I inherited my uncle's World War II US Navy sword. He was commissioned in May 1941. I had admired it since I was about 6 years old. My cousin recently died and I was able to obtain the sword plus my uncle's ribbons, Cmdr's insignia, his bronze star, etc. The part of the handle that was originally white is now very dull. The brass shows signs of Brasso being left on it years ago. The bottom 8 to 10 inches of the scabbard it missing. I want to conserve it and pass it on to my grandson who is enamored with all things WWII.  After Christmas, I will take it to The Mariner's Museum here in Newport News, VA to discuss it with their conservators. 
> 
> Is the old all-leather scabbard worth restoring? Can they be replaced? Is there someone who can properly clean and restore the blade and handle?
> 
> Sorry for lack of proper terminology but this is my first adventure into swords.
> 
> Gene Henriksen
> (The USAF did not issue swords to us officers)


Gene, Assuming you uncle bought a new sword it would be one like those at the beginning of this thread. I also assume that the leather covering on the steeling liner is what has deteriorated. This is a problematic repair and answering these questions maybe helpful.
Is this sword personalized with your uncles name?
Is there any of the original leather remaining?

The posting of pictures will help.

----------


## Gene Henriksen

> Gene, Assuming you uncle bought a new sword it would be one like those at the beginning of this thread. I also assume that the leather covering on the steeling liner is what has deteriorated. This is a problematic repair and answering these questions maybe helpful.
> Is this sword personalized with your uncles name?
> Is there any of the original leather remaining?
> 
> The posting of pictures will help.


The sword is not personalized but does say USN. This was post-Depression and I doubt he wanted to spend money on engraving. The eagle's head on the hilt looks to the eagle's left (viewer's right). The blade stated Made USA and appears to have a star of David behind it.

----------


## T. Graham

[QUOTE=Gene Henriksen;1224826]The sword is not personalized but does say USN. This was post-Depression and I doubt he wanted to spend money on engraving. The eagle's head on the hilt looks to the eagle's left (viewer's right). The blade stated Made USA and appears to have a star of David behind it.

It is the common Lilley-Ames type IV shown at the beginning of the thread. I think the scabbard is beyond repair and I would not bother to do anything but oil or wax the blade.

----------


## Gene Henriksen

Thank you sir, I appreciate the answer and your time.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I wanted to resurrect this thread to discuss a Coast Guard sword that I recently picked up.  I believe that Tim had commented on USCG swords but we have not posted any yet.  I will try and get some photos of my sword up as soon as possible.
> 
> At any rate, my sword is an early USCG Officer sword of the "WWI" type that Tim describes.  It was made by Lilley and the ricasso has the earlier etched "Made by M.C. Lilley & CO. Columbus Ohio" (without "The" preceeding M.C.) along with the large etched proof star with a Lilly flower in the center as well as between each arm of the star.  It has the earlier "bottle cap" pommel with the eagle facing to it's left (the viewer's right).  The scabbard has a black leather covered metal body with the standard fittings and all components, including the blade, are marked with a matching assembly number of "70".  The straight blade is etched with "N.L. Edwards" and the only Coast Guard Officer I can find that matches is Nathaniel L. Edwards who is found on a list of USCG officers on active duty in 1944.  
> 
> We know the USCG swords can be no earlier than 1915 and WWI manufacture seems plausible from the early construction of this sword.  While Nathaniel Edwards could have served in WWII, perhaps as a "retread", but this seems an awfully long service time.  I wonder if I have my dates wrong or if there is another N.L. Edwards that I have missed?
> 
> George


In a recent thread asking questions regarding the M1852 Navy Officer sword, Glen C. referred us to this old thread.   In reviewing it, I was reminded of our discussion of your USCG sword with the seemingly anachronistic makers mark Made by MC Lilley.  We were all rather puzzled why a sword made after 1915 wouldnt include the word The before M. C. Lilley since that was the formulation the company had used for marking its products since the 1880s.  A number of explanations were posited, but most seemed to focus on it being the result of an error made during the repair or modification of an older etching template.  Last year I acquired a similar sword.  Although an obviously different etching template was used for my blade, it also deleted the word The from the companys name.  With at least two examples using this formulation, it would appear this was not an error and for whatever reason the company intentionally deleted the The in marking these swords.  There is another related issue.  I had dated my USCG sword as pre-1925 because during the 1925 to 1931 timeframe  the company was named The Lilley Company and so marked its products.  However in reviewing this old thread I am reminded that based on his service record, the officer named on your sword probably obtained it in 1930.  Perhaps it was a case of NOS, but who really knows.

----------


## George Wheeler

Thanks for the update Richard.  It is always good to know of another sword with the same markings.  So, not a orphan after all.

George

----------


## Richard Schenk

We haven't had a M1852/72 Navy Officer's sword come up in a while so I thought I might show my new acquisition.  I received it as part of lot with a Marine NCO sword.  It is an older sword, last quarter 19th century I would guess, from the UK retailer Joseph Starkey of Conduit St, London. It was obviously an up-scale example with the extra embellishments, e.g. the raised oak leaf and acorn bands around the scabbard mounts.  One thing different on this is the pommel cap,  It was not the screw-top nor the bottle-cap type but rather one with a screw on the side to hold it.  The eagle was also a bit different from most of its time. i.e. it faces to the right and stands on a sphere anther than a coil of rope.  It is in rather good condition but the ray skin grip is quite dirty,  Any suggestions for cleaning ray skin?

----------

