|
Post by Afoo on Nov 11, 2015 5:16:37 GMT
So I just picked up a Brazilian 1880 pattern sword (no pictures yet, but original auction site is here: www.ebay.ca/itm/301776627272?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT). What drew me to this sword was the fact that it resembled the 1889p British sword. The 1899 is appealing because it is unusual and under-appreciated, and the Brazilian version is even more so. Its got a fullered Wilkinson blade, but with a longer, narrower grip to encouraged the use of the open grip and place a greater emphasis on point work - very much the missing link between the 1885p and the 1908 needle. Very neat. What has got me scratching my head though is that you would expect the Brazilian sword to be a copy of the British 1899 - at the time the British military was well regarded and an inspiration to many forces around the world, whereas Brazil was restricted to being a local power at best, with limited military heritage and martial tradition. However the date of the pattern seems to suggest the opposite, with the Brazilian version preceding the 1899 by almost two decades. All the Brazilian swords I have seen of this pattern were manufactured by A.C. of Solingen, so perhaps this design was first thought up by the German forges, who eventually pitched it to the Brazilians, and eventually to the British. Either way, just a bit of a re-think with regards to the design process behind the British 1899p. I will try to get some pics and stats of the Brazilian one later this week.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Nov 11, 2015 7:52:19 GMT
Very nice Afoo. Looking forward to the pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 11, 2015 9:03:12 GMT
What drew me to this sword was the fact that it resembled the 1889p British sword. The 1899 is appealing because it is unusual and under-appreciated, and the Brazilian version is even more so. Its got a fullered Wilkinson blade, but with a longer, narrower grip to encouraged the use of the open grip and place a greater emphasis on point work - very much the missing link between the 1885p and the 1908 needle. The British 1853 through to 1890 grips are too short for the thumb-along-grip fencing sabre grip (unless you have small hands). The 1853 through to 1882 all have 5" grips, and the 1885 and 1890 5 3/8". Then the 1899 jumps to 6 5/8", to accommodate that thumb. Indeed, the link between the swords that are proper swords, and the lances with sword hilts.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 12, 2015 0:00:29 GMT
What drew me to this sword was the fact that it resembled the 1889p British sword. The 1899 is appealing because it is unusual and under-appreciated, and the Brazilian version is even more so. Its got a fullered Wilkinson blade, but with a longer, narrower grip to encouraged the use of the open grip and place a greater emphasis on point work - very much the missing link between the 1885p and the 1908 needle. The British 1853 through to 1890 grips are too short for the thumb-along-grip fencing sabre grip (unless you have small hands). The 1853 through to 1882 all have 5" grips, and the 1885 and 1890 5 3/8". Then the 1899 jumps to 6 5/8", to accommodate that thumb. Indeed, the link between the swords that are proper swords, and the lances with sword hilts. Not to disagree, but with size 11 hands I can choke up my under grip and force a sabre open hand to work. However it is easy to loose the heel of your hand from the butt of the sword and goodbye control. ( These enlisted service sabers have no pommel.) Do like the taper of the blades and how they cause the sword to handle.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 12, 2015 1:11:34 GMT
SO, I got some better pictures of it today. The grip is ~5.5 inches long along the bottom, which tracks with Timo's data. Matt Easton says that there is a problem of the grip slimming down the hands, but I just dun see it. I mean, its not a *small* grip, but its not ridiculously large either. Gloves and the checkering on the leather does help. Maybe I am wrong, but his video on the 1899 made it sound like your hand would be swimming in space, but its really not the case. Also bear in mind that my hands are relatively small, and I am not wearing leather gloves. I find that the narrower grip makes it more controllable in both open and closed conformations. The blade is very thick for the first 2/3 - starting off at a hefty 8mm at the base. That said, the end does flatten to a very spatula-like point. This gives a PoB of 5.5 inches. (The 1880p is on the left. The right is my CS 1830 for comparison) Here it is next to the CS again. More pictures of the guard and the markings. Overall, quite pleased. It appears to be in good shape, and it would go well with my other South American swords.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 12, 2015 1:51:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 12, 2015 3:12:41 GMT
AH, sorry. Miss-read your previous post. The thinner grips on the Brazilian make it look like the 1899. That thing most definately has massive grips, and its guard is no slouch either.
Would it be incorrect to say that the 1880 seems to be a mix between the 1885 and the 1899 then? The smaller grip does encourage the open grip a bit more, but it has yet to extend to the huge proportions of the 1899.
I have yet to weight it, but it should be lighter. The blade is the same length and appears to have similar dimensions, but the guard and grip is smaller
edit: I took a look at my 1885, and the grip measures 5 inches on the dot, so the 1880 is a *bit* of am extension
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 12, 2015 14:11:32 GMT
Mine comes in at 1.08kg, or 2.4 pounds. The guard on the 1880 also appears thinner than that of the 1899, which could contribute to the missing 100g.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Nov 13, 2015 0:44:58 GMT
Nice find!
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Nov 17, 2015 5:33:08 GMT
I can kind of see where they were going with the 1899 and it's ridiculously long grip. It's nice to have a choice of "posting" (grabbing the sword by the pommel) for a bit of extra length, or grabbing it up to the guard for a fast-handling hack 'n' slash melee.
However, I'm not sure how well that would stand in real life. Having soldiers switch sword grips doesn't seem like a simple, straightforward, soldier-friendly training doctrine. Additionally, from my fencing experience, it's quite easy for your hand to slip up the grip when there's no guard stopping it. And that's using modern (rubberized) grips and gloves. Imagine trying to stop bare hands from riding up a worn leather grip... especially if you're campaigning in India or the Sudan and thus your hands are a bit sweaty. I recall reading somewhere that my reasoning was echoed on the field but it's late and I can't be bothered to find the references.
|
|