# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  US 1872 Staff NCO Sword.

## George Wheeler

Gentlemen:

I picked up a US 1872 Staff NCO sword today and I am looking for a picture from the Ogden color plate series showing this sword in wear by Staff NCOs.  If you have access to one of these plates I would appreciate you posting it here so I can copy it.  

I seldom see this sword for sale and I was happy to find it at a local area militaria show.  These swords are almost identical to the 1872 S&F Officer swords with the following exceptions:  The NCO grip is black leather instead of sharkskin or shagreen and it was worn in a frog instead of on slings.  Some photos show the standard 1872 regulation Officer sword being worn by Senior NCOs on slings but I am looking for a photo of this one in wear in a frog.

George

----------


## Sean Scott

Nice find!

----------


## George Wheeler

> Nice find!


Thanks Sean.  I cleaned the sword up a bit and put a little black polish on the leather grips.  The grips came out great with just a bit of damage to the scuff marks remaining visible upon close inspection.  I already had the Watervliet Arsenal made frog for the sword so all I had to do was put them together.

I also found a photo of an Ordnance Sergeant wearing the S&F Officer sword but not the regulation Staff NCO sword.  I suspect that he could not find the proper sword and elected to wear the Officer sword on slings for his photograph.  It could well be a photographer's prop instead of his sword too.  

Still looking for the Ogden color plate picture showing the sword in wear in a frog.  I hate it when you know something exists but can't seem to find it.

George

----------


## George Wheeler

This sword is rather obscure.  Peterson missed it when he did his basic work and subsequent authors have failed to mention it, or illustrate it, in their books on American Swords as well.  

I put together a little montage from period military outfitter catalogs showing this NCO sword.  First is the circa 1877 Horstmann Brothers and Company catalog showing the new 1872 regulation Officer and Staff NCO swords.  Last are a couple of pages from the Ridabock & Company catalog showing the same swords.  Notice that Ridabock would simply sell the officer a new nickel plated scabbard with three suspension rings to meet the new regulations so one did not have to buy a completely new sword.  The NCO Staff sword is also shown as late as 1895 in the Raymold uniform and Equipments catalog so it was still regulation at that time.  Notice that the 1840 Sergeant's sword (still worn by line NCOs) was still offered as regulation and that the knight's helm pommel swords were still offered for Militia Sergeants in the catalogs.

----------


## M. McWatters

Hello George,
I'll try to send you a pic of mine tonight.  It's got the 1840 NCO style throat on the scabbard and the crossed rifles on the guard, but mine has a sharkskin grip.

----------


## M. McWatters

Here's the picture of mine for comparison.  The drag is the same as on the standard post-CW M1860 staff officer sword.

Mike

----------


## George Wheeler

> Here's the picture of mine for comparison.  The drag is the same as on the standard post-CW M1860 staff officer sword.
> 
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for posting your example.  These swords are few and far between in my experience.  I have seen scabbards like yours that sort of combine aspects of the 1840 regulation NCO sword with those of the 1872 regulation plated steel scabbards.  Minor variances that are to be expected, IMHO.  I also think that the sharkskin grip could also be expected as an enhancement.

My caution would be that this sword is essentially an 1860/1872 regulation Staff & Field Officer sword in a NCO scabbard with a frog stud instead of two bands and three suspension rings.  Your scabbard looks perfectly right to me but I would normally carefully check to make sure that an officer scabbard had not been converted to use a frog stud by looking for old holes from a lower band on it.  

Does your sword have an etched or plain blade?

You know,  I just noticed something that I had not before.  Your eagle, and mine, have an extra wreath surrounding the eagle.  My S&F Officer swords do not have this surround that sort of reminds me of a later Warrant Officer eagle & wreath insignia.  I wonder if that is unique to these NCO swords or simply another guard variation that I am not familiar with seeing?

George

----------


## M. McWatters

Hello George,
Mine is etched.  The scabbard has only had this mount, but there's another thing to point out about the NCO swords.  In the Ames catalog reprint, these have crossed guns on the guard instead of Roman lightning bolts.  Both yours and mine have this feature.

----------


## T. Graham

Another neglected are of US sword collecting is the 1860 pattern NCO sword. These were never regulation, but were popular with militia, National Guard and cadet programs. The best place to start this is with the Ames Sword Co. catalog, where numerous examples are illustrated.
Criteria for this category:
1. Hilt should be base on the M1860 pattern with variation in the knuckle guard and lack a "spring and fall" (folding guard).
2. Scabbard should have a frog hook. Though I am sure some militia NCO's wore swords with rings on the scabbard.

I will add four more photos in the next part of the thread.

----------


## T. Graham

More Ames Catalog pages.

I would prefer a larger readable picture.

----------


## T. Graham

This NCO sword was: "Presented to Sergeant Conrad A. Dieterich, Co. B, 7th Infantry, N.G.N.Y., August 12" 1912."
Made by the Ames sword co. and retailed by Henry V. Allein & Co., New York N.Y. The grip is celluloid tortoise shell and the scabbard has a Springfield M1873 sword tip/drag. The blade etching is a generic Ames pattern with Sgt Dieterich's name applied.
This post 1900 photo is correct for the sword, but may not be Sgt. Dieterich.
.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Scabbard should have a frog hook. Though I am sure some militia NCO's wore swords with rings on the scabbard.


I would be more positive about NCOs wearing this sword in a ringed scabbard.  In the Ames catalog page you illustrate, both the swords with hooked scabbard (501) and with ringed scabbard (502) are identified as "Sergeant" swords.  Although I can't lay hands on one right now, I know I have seen period photos with NCOs wearing the ringed scabbard version.

To me it seems the most definitive differentiating features are the use of crossed rifles on the knuckle guard and the lack of the - what would you call it? reinforcing bar? - between the counter-guard and the cross guard.

----------


## T. Graham

Good point Richard. Do you have one? If so, post it here. I will look to see if I do.

----------


## George Wheeler

Guys,

Here is an earlier discussion of this sword that may be of interest.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...light=1872+nco

It was believed to be a Staff NCO sword at this time.  It also contains the photo of the NCO wearing the regular Officer style sword with a three ring scabbard that you were thinking of Richard.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Guys,
> 
> Here is an earlier discussion of this sword that may be of interest.
> 
> http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...light=1872+nco
> 
> It was believed to be a Staff NCO sword at this time.  It also contains the photo of the NCO wearing the regular Officer style sword with a three ring scabbard that you were thinking of Richard.


Thanks George - I had forgotten about the earlier thread.  I had also forgotten about your observation that another difference between the Staff NCO sword and the officer version is the wreath around the eagle on the front counterguard.  Was it ever established this was a consistent feature on all examples and not just the two discussed in the old thread?  (Tim, is there a such a wreath on your example?  Can't quite see in the photos.)

Farrington tells us this was never a regulation sword.  He certainly did a lot of research and I really have no good reason to dispute the matter. I find it odd, however, that there is such consistency in design among so many makers/retailers (Ames, Horstmann, Riddabock, Allien) over such an extended period of time without there ever having been a regulation or other authoritative directive establishing a standard.  Conceivably the sword industry could have got together and come up with the idea for a new sword which they then tried to market, but this doesn't seem likely.  Did one or more State militia/National Guard bodies come up with this design and define it in their own non-Federal uniform regulation(s)?

----------


## T. Graham

Here is another view of the sword above. I think Ames set the design standards and the other makers, assemblers, importers and distributors followed suit.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Here is another view of the sword above. I think Ames set the design standards and the other makers, assemblers, importers and distributors followed suit.


     - I see your sword also has the wreath.  I guess we can probably add that as a distinguishing feature.

     - I'm not sure based on what we know now we can say Ames set the standard and every one else followed.  Who was first?  In George's thread, he posted a Horstmann catalog listing from 1877.  Does anyone have an earlier Ames example or reference?  If I read the inscription on your sword correctly, it is 1918.  It would be great if we could get photos of more examples, especially ones with inscriptions or are otherwise dateable.

     - I also wonder whether Ames or any of the other companies would have just decided on their own to come up with an entirely new class of sword, i.e. a "Staff NCO Sword", which had never existed before, unless some customer had requested it.  By "customer" I'm not referring to an individual NCO who wanted something different - an individual NCO would never be permitted to shed his approved M1840 NCO sword for something different on an individual whim.  The "customer" would have to be some military element which decided they wanted something different to distinguish their staff NCOs.  Which element would that be?  If not the regular Army ordinance folks, some militia/NG element?

----------


## Richard Schenk

Here are a couple shots of a Staff NCO sword with a scabbard with three carrying rings.  Impossible, of course, to know for sure this was the original scabbard.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Sorry about the bottom "attach images" shot in above post.  I tried to edit it out but it just won't delete.  I have no idea how it got there in the first place.

----------


## George Wheeler

Richard,

You know... if you squint your eyes you can see what looks like a wreath on the guard of the Staff NCO sword shown in the first circa 1877 catalog shown in my earlier thread on this sword.  While it is difficult to tell much from drawings as opposed to photographs the guards on the Officer sword and the Staff NCO sword are different.  There is clearly no wreath depicted on the line drawing of the Officer sword while there is something depicted on the Staff NCO sword guard that appears to be a wreath.  

I think you may have hit upon something here.

George

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Richard,
> 
> You know... if you squint your eyes you can see what looks like a wreath on the guard of the Staff NCO sword shown in the first circa 1877 catalog shown in my earlier thread on this sword.  While it is difficult to tell much from drawings as opposed to photographs the guards on the Officer sword and the Staff NCO sword are different.  There is clearly no wreath depicted on the line drawing of the Officer sword while there is something depicted on the Staff NCO sword guard that appears to be a wreath.


George,

I did the requisite squinting to examine the Horstmann 1877 catalog entry and I see what you mean - there does seem to be something there which may be a wreath.  While looking for the wreath I noticed something else of interest.  There does not appear to be a counterguard on the drawing of the NCO sword while one is clearly indicated on the officer version.  This would seem to indicate lack of a rear counterguard was an early feature of the Staff NCO sword and likely significantly predates the economy Officer S&F swords made with no rear counterguards. 

Dick

----------


## T. Graham

[QUOTE=Richard Schenk;1221641]Here are a couple shots of a Staff NCO sword with a scabbard with three carrying rings.  Impossible, of course, to know for sure this was the original scabbard.

Richard, This fits the category as an Ames no. 502 shown above in the Ames catalog pictures. But was it made by Ames? Keep in mind that Gaylord was the primary commercial sword maker from about 1867 to 1881. I will post some Gaylords to compare with. Close up photos of the scabbard mounts may have some clues.

----------


## T. Graham

I believe this is a Gaylord/Ames made and private labeled for The M.C. Lilley Co. ca 1882. According to Bezdek the “The” in The M.C. Lilley Co. was added after the death of Mitchell C. Lilley in 1882. At this same time Gaylord was merged into the Ames Sword Co. I have other Gaylord swords marked M.C. Lilley, without the “The”. This could be its own thread.
It would come under the Ames catalog as a no. 500 sword in a 501 scabbard.
Features of note: the Gaylord style of blade etching and the hand applied retailer mark,  the blade makers knights head mark which could be WKC or just Kirschbaum before the 1882 merger with Weyersburg forming WKC.  However, the twisted wire grip would have been an extra feature for a Gaylord produced sword. The scabbard has a simple flanged throat typical of Gaylord.
Regarding the etching; the leafy branch pattern is from the Gaylord “hand” and is also found on Ames, Springfield (see Harrington) and others. Transfer plates have been made with this style and still exist at the now closed Ames Sword Co., New London OH.
Always keep in mind that sword makers are an incestuous lot.
The photo came with the sword and I have no doubt that they belong together. He is carrying it with the frog hook attached on the inside. This type of suspension would be easy to make and would allow an easy swivel for the “draw and return”.
Almost forgot, this fellow's name is Alva Snyder.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Features of note: the Gaylord style of blade etching and the hand applied retailer mark,  the blade makers knights head mark which could be WKC or just Kirschbaum before the 1882 merger with Weyersburg forming WKC.


Did WKC continue to use just a knight's head and/or just a king's head after the merger?  I had thought they used both heads side-by-side.  This is rather important because I had always used the presence of a single head mark as dating criterion.  Although existing on-hand stock with single heads might have been used to assemble swords post-1882, in general I thought the single head would fix the date of a sword as not much later than 1882.

----------


## T. Graham

I have seen both and single knights heads. Those marks are a topic in themselves.

----------


## George Wheeler

Tim,

Your photograph is indeed of another Staff Sergeant (Ordnance Sergeant) according to his chevrons.  Neat photo!

George

----------


## T. Graham

I think Gaylord swords are more interesting than the Ames or Lilley equivalent. This has to one of the earliest of this type. It is marked Gaylord on an Ames 500 type sword, but with a leather scabbard. Note the hand applied etching resist. There is a W.C. on the side of the blade opposite the eagle.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Maybe a bit off subject, but this and the sword pictured in post #15 raise a question in my mind.  Both swords appear to be officer swords in NCO scabbards.  Neither of them, however, have the rear counterguard expected on M1860/72 S&F swords.  I have always associated this variation with late-date, most likely turn of the century, economy swords made for militia officers and fraternal organizations. The maker/retailer addresses on such swords are generally consistent with such late dating.   These two swords, however, especially the Gaylord, appear much earlier than that - early to mid 1880s.  This leads me to ask just when these no rear counterguard-swords were first produced?  Were they intended for use by commissioned officers, or were they always intended for use by staff NCOs and/or fraternal organizations?

Also, any idea what "WC" stands for? Some school?

----------


## T. Graham

[QUOTE=Richard Schenk;1221772]Maybe a bit off subject, but this and the sword pictured in post #15 raise a question in my mind.  Both swords appear to be officer swords in NCO scabbards.  Neither of them, however, have the rear counterguard expected on M1860/72 S&F swords.  I have always associated this variation with late-date, most likely turn of the century, economy swords made for militia officers and fraternal organizations. The maker/retailer addresses on such swords are generally consistent with such late dating.   These two swords, however, especially the Gaylord, appear much earlier than that - early to mid 1880s.  This leads me to ask just when these no rear counterguard-swords were first produced?  Were they intended for use by commissioned officers, or were they always intended for use by staff NCOs and/or fraternal organizations?

Good question Richard, The "spring and fall' (s&f), Ames' name for the folding counter guard, required considerable labor to fit on to the hilt; eliminating it reduced  cost. An Ames 505 line officer sword, AKA a regulation M1860, with the the s&f, retailed for $15. The 504 had all the same features without the s&f and retailed for$14. A dollar was a days pay for some people. The next level down was the 500 which lacked the s&f, the lower grip band and had a leather grip and retailed for $9.75. As for when the "budget" sword came into use, I think demand started around 1872, as I have never seen one without a nickle plated scabbard. There were more swords made for the American market after the ACW the before or during. But keep in mind that 95% were not real weapons. The demand was for lodges and various military associations.

As for the "WC"; it was were a way of recognizing the important duties of the Water Closet attendants or W...Cadets. Your guess is as good as mine.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> As for the "WC"; it was were a way of recognizing the important duties of the Water Closet attendants or W...Cadets. Your guess is as good as mine.


The "Water Closet" expansion did occur to me as well - sort of analogous to the GAR swords etched "Officer of the Day".

Your above Gaylord sword made for the M. C. Lilley Co looks remarkably like the M1860 S&F you just sold on eBay.  The only differences were the eBay sword had a Federal shield etched just above the riccasso instead of cannons and the retailer's name was dry needle engraved vice etched.  I would guess the two were contemporaries, probably 1882 or 1883.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> You know,  I just noticed something that I had not before.  Your eagle, and mine, have an extra wreath surrounding the eagle.  My S&F Officer swords do not have this surround that sort of reminds me of a later Warrant Officer eagle & wreath insignia.  I wonder if that is unique to these NCO swords or simply another guard variation that I am not familiar with seeing?


I had thought the wreath was unique to NCO swords - had never seen it on an officer's sword - until I recently came across this Pettibone M1860/72 with a June 1898 presentation to Capt George Reed, Co. A, 1st Volunteer Tennessee Infantry.



No sooner had I saw that than I noticed this example from the M.C. Lilley Co:



I still think these are the exceptions that prove the rule, however.

Here is another anomaly I found, i.e. an officer's sword retailed by George Harding of Boston without the reinforcement bar between the counterguard and the knucklebow, something usually only seen on Staff NCO swords.



Too bad we can't merge this thread with Tim Graham's recent thread - would be nice to have all the info on M1860 SNCO Swords in one place.

----------


## George Wheeler

_"Too bad we can't merge this thread with Tim Graham's recent thread - would be nice to have all the info on M1860 SNCO Swords in one place."_

Actually, we can merge the two threads Richard.  And... here you are.  Both threads merged together for the sake of clarity.

George

----------


## Richard Schenk

> _"Too bad we can't merge this thread with Tim Graham's recent thread - would be nice to have all the info on M1860 SNCO Swords in one place."_
> 
> Actually, we can merge the two threads Richard.  And... here you are.  Both threads merged together for the sake of clarity.
> 
> George


Great - much better.  Thanks.

----------


## Richard Schenk

I had never had one of these staff NCO swords but wanted to examine one in the flesh, so when one recently came up for sale I bought it even though I think I paid about $50 too much for it.  Here it is:

Attachment 144988

In examining this sword, I see a number of differences between it and the M1860/72 officer version of the sword. 

     - First, there is no indication any of the brass fittings were ever gilt.  Although it is possible the original gilt has just all been worn off, you would expect to still find traces in protected areas if it had been originally gilt.  See photos below. 

     - The knucklebow has not been pierced for a knot.  Some early M1860 S&F officers' swords also have unpierced knuckle bows, but post-1872 examples have this feature.

     - The grip is leather covered.  The S&F officer version usually has sharkskin grip covering although leather is sometimes used.  I have never seen an NCO version with sharkskin.

     - The counterguard differs from the officer version in that it lacks the branch between the counterguard and the knucklebow and there is a laurel wreath around the federal eagle.  There is no rear counterguard.  Although most officer examples have either fixed or folding rear counterguards, some do not.  I do not believe I have ever seen an NCO version with a rear counterguard.  The first photo below is of the Staff NCO counterguard, the second a M1860/72 S&F Officer sword.



     - Instead of the classic thunderbolt usually seen on S&F swords, the knucklebow on the Staff NCO sword is decorated on the obverse side with a stand of three stacked mustkets with a canteen and rucksack.  The reverse shows two US flags on poles crossed over liberty cap-topped pike with a federal shield.




     - The blade on my NCO sword is diamond in cross section and totally unmarked and unetched.  This does not differentiate it from the officer version which are sometimes similarly unmarked and unetched.  NCO swords are often etched.

     - The scabbard of my NCO sword seems identical to the usual S&F Officer version with three carrying rings with the exception that the brass fittings do not qppear to have ever been gilt.  It is unmarked except for a small "15" stamped into the top reverse side of the scabbard.  The plating on the body of the scabbard seems quite thin - almost looks like it was tinned vice nickle plated.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I had thought the wreath was unique to NCO swords - had never seen it on an officer's sword - until I recently came across this Pettibone M1860/72 with a June 1898 presentation to Capt George Reed, Co. A, 1st Volunteer Tennessee Infantry.
> 
> No sooner had I saw that than I noticed this example from the M.C. Lilley Co:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think these are the exceptions that prove the rule, however.


I have just acquired another M. C. Lilly M1860/72 S&F sword, this one a presentation-grade sword with fancy pierced gilt brass scabbard mounts which also features a wreath around the eagle on the front counterguard.  Perhaps this was a standard design on Lilley's S&F swords.  Do other members have examples which would support this theory?

----------


## T. Graham

The M1860/72 is being covered here. http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...taff-and-Field

----------


## T. Graham

This Ames 501 was retailed by Ridabock and "Presented to Color Sergt A.B. Aschemoore by the Members of of Co. F 8th Battln N.G N.Y. December 30th 1907". It has a tortoise shell, celluloid grip.
This type of sword was made until 1941. Do you want to see more?

----------


## Richard Schenk

> The M1860/72 is being covered here. http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...taff-and-Field


Sorry about that.  I wasn't really trying to hijack the thread.  The connection was we were discussing the features which differentiate the staff NCO version of the M1860 from the officer version.  One of the suggested differences was the wreath around the eagle.  The point of my post was that although this appears to be the general rule, some S&F officer swords did feature this wreath, and if they were standard on Lilley products, they might not be as unusual as I thought.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> This Ames 501 was retailed by Ridabock and "Presented to Color Sergt A.B. Aschemoore by the Members of of Co. F 8th Battln N.G N.Y. December 30th 1907". It has a tortoise shell, celluloid grip.
> This type of sword was made until 1941. Do you want to see more?


Nice sword.  I note the mountings appear to be gilt.  Was this just because this was a presentation piece, or did SNCO swords commonly have gilt mounts?  If the latter, was this always the case or are gilt mountings an indication of later dates?  There is an analogous situation with M1859 USMC NCO swords.  Early examples were made with plain brass mountings.  Later examples, including most if not all post-WWI versions, have gilt mountings.

If this model was still being sold as late as 1941, was it still being used by National Guard units that late?  Your example shows they were still current in the NGNY as late as 1907, but I would be surprised if they were still current in the 1920s/30s and right up until WWII, but who knows?  Are there other dated presentation examples or photos showing their continued use at late dates?

----------


## Richard Schenk

Here's a picture of a NY 13th Infantry soldier with what appears to be a M1860/72 Staff NCO sword and frog.  The sword is probably a studio prop since the soldier appears be a private and thus would not likely be authorized to wear a Staff NCO sword.

----------


## T. Graham

This is an interesting variant of the type. Made by Gaylord using 60 components but removing all the cast in decoration. It has an interesting "minimalist' feel, but who was it made for.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> This is an interesting variant of the type. Made by Gaylord using 60 components but removing all the cast in decoration. It has an interesting "minimalist' feel, but who was it made for.


A truly strange looking sword - never seen anything similar.  I would guess some fraternal group, but usually fraternal groups if anything added decorations, not eliminated them.  Was the counterguard cast in the down-turned position, or was it bent down post production?

----------


## T. Graham

I think it was bent over, likely at the factory, because heat would would have been required to anneal the brass.

----------


## T. Graham

This period tin type has two senior militia NCOs with Ames, catalog no.500 swords and eagle belt plates. Ca. 1870-80's.

----------

