|
Post by Afoo on Dec 4, 2015 4:22:13 GMT
So, between myself and bfoo2, we have a collection of three confirmed Argentine sabers (they have the national crest on the front of the guard, so their country of issue is quite indisputable). Two of them are the 1889 model officer sword with the pipeback blade, and one of them is the troopers version, also with a pipeback blade. Two of them (the trooper's and one of the officer's) are from WKC Solingen, whereas the second officer's is un-marked. Thus, we have a modest range of swords from Argentina, covering two different models with (presumably) two different manufacturers. Despite these differences, all three swords have an "A" stamped onto the spine of the blade, as shown below As such, this leads me to suspect that this "A" corresponds to some sort of service marker for Argentine swords. All our positively ID'ed Argentine swords have it. Moreover, we have a British 1885p sword that was made by WKC on contract, which does NOT have this "A" stamp, leading us to conclude that it is indeed an Argentine specific stamp, and not a WKC-associated stamp. However, I am unable to find any information online that corroborates this theory. As such, I am wondering if anyone had any information about this marking, or if anyone has any evidence, either of Argentine swords NOT having this mark, or non-Argentine swords which do. The reason I ask this is because I bought an 1852 pattern Prussian sword from Dave Kelly ages ago. It has no military markings, but does have that same "A" stamp on the spine. Its a wonderful little thing and still remains one of my favorites. However, I have not been able to figure out much about its origins. Was hoping that this "A" stamp would at least shed some insight as to where it came from and what its story is
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 4, 2015 5:56:09 GMT
Normally in that place should be the year of issue stamp with a small makers mark underneath. On mine it says: FW under crown with 59 under that and the inspection mark of the forge under that again. For German Army issue this is standard procedure, no exceptions. I have looked for the A mark in the German Sword Makers book, but no luck. So, I guess it is an German export inspection mark or an Argentinian import / quality inspection mark. I think the latter. Since the A mark is in a difficult to reach spot, one may conclude that the blades were marked at the forge before the sabres were assembled. So the Argentinian state / Army had some inspectors running around the forges safeguarding the quality of their orders. Seems logical. Anyway, following this line of reasoning, your '52 is not a Prussian Army issue sabre, but an Argentinian Cavalry sabre made by any of the great German forges. Cannot read the text on the ricasso, but I think the first letter is W, so that would be Weyersberg?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 4, 2015 17:59:24 GMT
Normally in that place should be the year of issue stamp with a small makers mark underneath. On mine it says: FW under crown with 59 under that and the inspection mark of the forge under that again. For German Army issue this is standard procedure, no exceptions. I have looked for the A mark in the German Sword Makers book, but no luck. Dave speculates that this could have been a Police sword - would German police swords have had the same type of markings as the military ones? (ie: year and reigning monarch). Bfoo2 has my book on German sabers, so I cannot verify. I recall that they do show a 1852 similar to mine (rubber grips, hatchet point instead of the more typical spear point), which was identified as being Argentine issue due to the national crest stamp on the guard. Unfortunately, they do not show any pictures of the spine of that particular sword (or not that I recall) Anyone else have mystery swords with this A stamp?
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 4, 2015 19:51:29 GMT
What is the text on the ricasso? As the two Argentine sabres have the exact same A, then your M1852 should be Argentine too. I have the German sword makers book and all markes are listed. The A is not one of them. Again, I think it is an Argentine inspection stamp. All three are stamped in the same spot also. All parts and there are quite a few, of my Prussian M1852 have inspection marks. Yours only the A. Cannot miss. Police sabre it is not. I am quite sure. As your M'52 is clearly a Cavalry model and is listed as such in the Eickhorn catalogue and in that same catalogue no Cavalry sabres are mentioned as ,,also for the Mounted Gendarmerie'', the case is quite clear. Police had their own models. As in France I might add. The only model that I know as ,,also for Gendarmerie'' is the Hessian M1854, which is a Mounted Infantry Officers sabre that much later in its life was handed down to the Hessian Gendarmes. You may want to have a look here: www.deutsches-blankwaffenforum.de/index.php?s=f29d9b2ab2989ff6dc549e93a5404b18
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 4, 2015 20:44:44 GMT
The Ricasso of the 1852 and my two 1889's have the Weyersberg Kirschbaummakers company stamp, so A should not be the manufacturer. The blade is only around 32 inches and quite lightweight - feels more like an infantry sword than a cavalry saber at any rate. See the last column. Maybe an artillery sword - similar to the British 1822?
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 4, 2015 21:09:44 GMT
I compaired my M1852 / 59 with yours and the numbers are quite the same. The ricasso on yours is a bit longer than on mine, that is all. If you think this feels like an Infantry blade, you compair it to the CS's. Now you know the difference between a real Cavalry blade and the replica version. The M1852 was one of the best ever until they changed the blade to pipe back. Now you know why and also how a good blade should be build and feel. It reveals the CS's for the klotzes that they are. A good Cavalry blade should be an extension of your arm, not a weight on your arm impairing your moves. One should be able to work it for hours at a time if the need arises. Also, it must be able to give devastating blows. To get these two extremes together is the high art of sword making. The Germans nailed it with this one. Welcome to the club.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 4, 2015 23:42:11 GMT
True, but under 33 inches seems a bit small for cavalry no? Maybe for light cavalry, though it doesn't have enough curve and weight to make it a slasher. Here is another picture showing the entire sabre this time. Its from my old review of the CS repro. The under-sized guard is quite evident PS: thanks for all your help so far - very informative.
|
|
|
Post by Pogo4321 on Dec 5, 2015 4:41:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 5, 2015 6:45:55 GMT
If I recall correctly, you got two of them together. How are they? Always curious about those funny short swords, but the lack of fuller on one side is a bit strange.
Was WKC the only company to make swords for Argentina in the late 1800's and onwards? Every time I see an Argentine sword its either WKC or unmarked.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 5, 2015 8:34:04 GMT
I would say the oversized guard of the CS is quite evident and the stick like grip. The CS hilt sags downward whereas the M'52 has a nice round bowl and an ergonomic grip which makes for better control. The French Montmorency style blade was aimed at the solution of the age old conflict between the stabber tribe and the slasher tribe. This style could do both. I suggest you take bfoo outside and have a go at him with the M'52, in the name of science of course. I can assure you the results will be spectacular. It is my impression that you are stuck with the idea that Cavalry blades must feel like heavy brutes. That is because the CS sabre tought you to think that way. Of course there are Cavalry blades around that are even heavier than the CS, though with much better handling and balance, so one is not really aware of that. Take the Italian German made M1856 for instance. That is a horse cleaver for sure. Build big and thick, but designed in such a way that even those puny Italians could handle it with good results over a long time. Also the Austrian from about the same time comes to mind. Heavy, table smashing brute, but still it has better balance than most replicas. That is the problem with replicas. They have the little details wrong and the difference between a good blade and a so so blade can be that 0.8 mm less thickness at that particular point on the blade. CS and Co do not have time for such finesse. They want to sell and do not have the expertise nor the inclination or the budget to spend two years develloping a good blade. Sometimes however they succeed in a way, but I am under the impression most of that is sheer luck. The next model is a clunker again. The blades of old and I am only really aware of this now that I a have a number of the things at hand, were designed to perform certain tasks. The French M1822 could do this and that better than the M1854, but the M1854 was needed to do stuff the M1822 could not do. And so on. But whatever the task, the blades had to be enigeered in a way that performance was optimal without having the troops fall of their horses exhausted because they were working with inferior tools. It is about saving energy. There is so and so much energy in this trooper. Now, how can we make something that doubles or triples the sought after effect of that energy for the duration of lets say 4 hours. We invest time and outfits on this bloke and have to pay him too, for pete's sake, so we want maximum return. This may sound obvious, but it really gets to you when you have the opportunity to handle a wide range of antiques. I hope you do not mind me rambling on a bit. I like to write and think at the same moment, especially early in the morning.
Edit: Luneschloss comes to mind. This in answer to your latest post.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 5, 2015 16:17:50 GMT
Its not so much the handling that gets me, its the overall size. I have a few original cavalry sabers as well - the 1867 Swiss, 1880 Brazilian I posted about earlier, an 1885p British and the 1889 Argentine troopers sword. While these generally handle wonderfully, they are still much larger than the 1852. The 1852 meanwhile feels more similar to the Czech V 24 (??) Dave Kelly has this picture showing my 1852 (second from top) next to a bunch of others. From the image and the stats table, the WKC 1852 seem to be shorter by almost two inches compared to the bottom example (32.25 inches vs 34). I do very much agree with your assessment. They are good fun, and I like being able to take them out and wave them around without fear of damaging them, but the handling is just not the same. Its also hard to justify because, with enough patience, you can find original swords for similar price as the higher end CS and Universal replicas....
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Dec 5, 2015 16:36:40 GMT
I suggested that your 1852 was a civil service sword because of the lack of heft to the blade. 32 inches is also not a standard length blade for mounted troops; 34-36 is more usual, even in third world situations. I originally bought it because I had four pipeback m1852/79 and had never handled an M1852 backsword/saber.
As this is South American service we should aim the spotlight into the night sky (the one with the P inset ) and see if Pinotte is reading his sky mail any more...
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 5, 2015 17:42:50 GMT
Four pipeback 1852's? Am super envious of you right now
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 5, 2015 17:43:57 GMT
,,I suggested that your 1852 was a civil service sword because of the lack of heft to the blade. 22 inches is also not a standard length blade. '' Shouldn't that be 32'' ? Maybe your right about the civil service. There are no regimental marks it seems. Though it seems strange to me those would carry Cavalry hilts. Cavalry types were rather fierce where unproper, in their elite view, use of their gear was concerned. Could be a private buy. Germany was exporting all kinds of sabres for the civilian market world wide. Those would be slightly different from the regulation Army models, or quite over the top. I have one of the latter: Circa 1872, with military style pipeback blade. This one was for the British market.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Dec 5, 2015 18:43:38 GMT
Four pipeback 1852's? Am super envious of you right now I wouldn't be if I were you. I have a few for historical/analytical purposes. Technically 90% of their breed were utter failures. They bark all nite, bring ticks and fleas in the house, and leave waste matter behind the living room furniture. Officer swords have to exert some energy to be fencible. Most enlisted swords were percussive and nose heavy. Kaiser Willie II decided the lance was the primary cavalry weapon of ALL horse (except the guards kurassiers). The Argentine is the exception. One pipeback that would make John Prosser proud.
|
|
|
Post by Pogo4321 on Dec 6, 2015 2:19:26 GMT
If I recall correctly, you got two of them together. How are they? Always curious about those funny short swords, but the lack of fuller on one side is a bit strange. Was WKC the only company to make swords for Argentina in the late 1800's and onwards? Every time I see an Argentine sword its either WKC or unmarked. Good memory. Yeah, ebay auction for the pair. I quite like them. They are very solid, sturdy feeling swords. Not too heavy and not too light. Strange thing is someone went to some effort to file off most of the original markings--why , I don't know. Been meaning to write up a report on 'em. Maybe during winter vacation.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 6, 2015 2:47:51 GMT
It was tradition (or regulation - not sure) that the national crest of Argentine swords and edged weapons be removed prior to decommissioning. It is very rare to find examples which still bear the undamaged crest.
How is life with a fuller on only one side? Never certain how I would feel about those in person. Is it not odd? Does it unbalance the sword?
|
|