Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Aug 27, 2016 17:46:56 GMT
Bataille de Reichshoffen. 6 August 1870. By Morot. A lot has already been said about the Bancal, so I can keep it short for once. All info will be in the notes. I bought this one in France. The condition was VG already, but it still took me two weeks to get it right. Normal people go to beaches at times like this. I did once, long ago and discovered beaches are full of sand. I did not like that. Also the sun burned me and everything smelled of sun blocker, French fries and dead fish. So I scraped away for two weeks under a tar paper covered attick roof with the sun burning down on it. Yes, I am an idiot. But a happy one. I like this more than the M1822 LC. Though the Bancal is long and quite heavy, the feeling when handling is direct. Even though the tip is a long way away, you know where it's at. Not so with the M1822 LC. For me that is. That one always gives me the feeling I lost contact with the pointy bit. The Bancal may be wobbly, but it is much favoured above the M1822 LC. Sure, direct, reasonably fast for its size and a great reach. I am a Bancal man. Isn't she a beauty? The antique sword knot came from Ebay. Bikini clad ladies do not stand a chance against this. Manufacture Royale de Chatellerault August 1833. Stamps on the knuckle bow. Weapon number 46. Stamp under the beak. No picture of the ricasso marks. They are W and B. I forgot to make one. Scabbard number 91 and a rooster mark on the knob. So no match. I do not care. It fits like a glove. 24 on the drag. Inspection stamp? And again a rooster stamp. Now on the second knob. How very French. The next installment will be about the Officers version of the Bancal. Cheers. Notes. swordscollection.blogspot.nl/2012/02/french-heavy-cavalry-1822-pattern.htmlThis gentleman has some collection! Beautyful pictures too. users.skynet.be/euro-swords/Bancal1822net.htmRun this one through Google Translate. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/47659/french-heavy-cavalry-saber-imperialArticle by Dave Kelly. It touches on the Bancal. He has many more interesting things to say about it in other posts. Go and look for them please. The numbers: Blade thickness: 11.5 at ricasso - 8.5 at POB - 6.5 Half way - 2mm at 1" from the tip. Blade width at ricasso: 30 mm. Blade length: 98 cm. Weight: 1255 grams for the sabre. Weight total: 2211 grams. POB: 13 cm.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Aug 27, 2016 19:33:05 GMT
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Aug 28, 2016 6:52:41 GMT
That's right!
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 29, 2016 0:59:29 GMT
Another amazing sword from history given the TLC it deserves. I would trade that for any woman in the beach wearing a bikini except perhaps my wife. Hahaha! Or Pia Wurtzbach. Still, beautiful! Any pics of the VG condition before being given the final touches?
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Aug 29, 2016 4:42:50 GMT
Thanks for the complement. Here are some of the seller's pictures. Forgot how blue they are. Pepper all over and one thick black patch on the scabbard. In hand it looked much better. The blade had some pepper too but nothing seriously wrong. Even on the bad pictures you can see it was shiny. The ricasso looked quite clean with sharp lines. The ricasso and the tip can be problem areas, but nobody had been fiddling with this one. That is important. Sometimes it is more work to undo attemps at pre sale cleaning than repairing actual damage. I have much worse blades that turned out beautiful after some work. The scabbard did not have dents. Dents are a serious negative for me. So, to me it looked like a VG hidden behind bad pictures.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Aug 29, 2016 14:41:09 GMT
Happy days are here again!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 16, 2016 18:32:50 GMT
Sorry for the revive. I know that the 1822 LC was shortened in 1882. Did the same thing happen to the remaining 1822 Line Cav swords in service at the time?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 16, 2016 19:33:38 GMT
Sorry for the revive. I know that the 1822 LC was shortened in 1882. Did the same thing happen to the remaining 1822 Line Cav swords in service at the time? The blades weren't shortened, but they were remounted on 1882 type hilts, which meant shortening the tang a bit. I haven't seen one with a carbinier 39 inch blade mounted on them, just the Dragoon blades.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 16, 2016 19:40:34 GMT
Sorry for the revive. I know that the 1822 LC was shortened in 1882. Did the same thing happen to the remaining 1822 Line Cav swords in service at the time? The blades weren't shortened, but they were remounted on 1882 type hilts, which meant shortening the tang a bit. I haven't seen one with a carbinier 39 inch blade mounted on them, just the Dragoon blades kk. I asked because I saw this listing from someone whom I believe we are familiar with, and was wondering what the story was. I am guessing an officer wanted to keep his old blade but conform to the current regulations, but not sure if that is a plausible story. Blade is cut down by ~5cm. www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?118296-French-Bancal-Officer-Sword-1822-82
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 16, 2016 19:48:49 GMT
This is/was a standard Military practice, to allow an heirloom blade of an ancestory to be used. Wow, 1823 blade. I got 2 LC cav officers sabres right now. Don't need, but sorely tempted. I'm surprised he's letting it go at that price, as it re fairly spotless.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 16, 2016 19:58:03 GMT
You can pick it up, and you can sell me one of your LC's!!!
Am tempted (obviously, otherwise I would not have posted here) - if everything is tight I may go for it. He is selling an 1854 hand lance as well - may try to make an offer on the two
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 16, 2016 22:35:12 GMT
I've got a ton of 1822s. While this Bancal is very tempting, so are the three I already own. I have 4 LCs; 2 Offs and 2 enlisted, don't have every variant and don't feel a need to.
Your old enough (if not rich enough ) to take this on yourself. The sword is in Canada. Why would you want me to buy it? That means crossing borders twice!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 16, 2016 22:41:45 GMT
Because if you buy it, that means I won't be tempted to myself!
Also because I have bought so much from you already - hoping you will start a loyalty program sometime soon and I can rack up the points
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 18, 2016 21:43:28 GMT
I got it :P Its curious. I will have to do some comparisons at home with my 1906 collection. I have yet to handle an actual 1822LC, so I cannot make that comparison. I do have an 1860/1906 which is unusually light (2.3 pounds), which I presume approximates the LC to a degree The 1822 Bancal, especially in its current, shortened guise, reminds me a lot of the 1860/1906. The weight is the same (2.4 pounds) and balance is similar - maybe an 1-1.5 inches closer but on such a sword it does not make a huge world of difference. In terms of swinging around and waving, its similar enough - its better but not what I would call categorically different. As Uhlan mentions in his post though, swinging your sword around is for the impetuous LC troopers. Line cavalrymen are more....civilized. As such, the Bancal really excels in point control. Much easier to bring in light and keep on target than the 1860. The reduced curvature helps a bit, but a lot of it is i the subtle details - the grip, and the balance. The 1 inch difference in PoB is not that apparent when slashing, but when giving point it helps a lot. The massive 1cm thick spine gives confidence, and even my lightly built (compared to the troopers) officer version flexes less than the 1860 despite the reduced weight. Also, that guard......what a work of art EDIT: I just compared it to my 1906 collection and have some thoughts. I hope to roll this into my 1906 bit which I am writing, but here are some more thoughts in the meantime. The 1822 is much lighter relative to the 1906 than I had previously stated (my initial impressions were done at work, where I did not have my 1906 collection ready. Also note that the 1906 I have is already on the light side of the spectrum. PoB is 4.75 inches, which puts it almost 2 inches back from the 1860/1906. Weight is the same plus or minus 0.2 pounds. The fullers on the 1822 are much wider than those on the 1906/1860. The base of the blade is also much thicker at 10mm vs 8.5, which helps shift the balance back. Despite the better balance on paper, my main handling impression from before still holds true - while the 1822 bancal balances closer to the hand than the 1860/1906, the benefit this provides to slashing movements is less than you would expect. This is is not a slashing sword like the 1822 LC. Where you do see the most benefits are in terms of point control. This is much easier to control than the 1906 due to the balance, as well as the reduced curvature of the blade. I guess my point is that, on paper, this is comparable to an 1822 (similar weight and PoB). In practice, its handling properties reflect its intended purpose. This also highlights my main grief about the 1906. It feels sloppy. Not in that it handles bad, but just - I don't know what to do with it. It lacks direction in its design. And not in the sense that it is a compromise cut and thrust blade - I like the Brit 1885, the Swiss 1867....all those are compromise designs in their day as well, but they were designed from the ground up to fill that cut and thrust function. The 1822 LC was (presumably) designed to be a cutter, and the 1822 bancal to give point. The 1860/1906 feels like it was designed not to fill a given battle-need, but to fill an administrative requirement. Its a design driven by the need to shave a specific number of grams off the 1840 cav sabre first and foremost. Here it is next to the Ames 1906 (top) and an 1883 LC re-mounted on an 1896 hilt (thanks to Dave for this one) Comparative view of the blade thickness View down the blades, showing the huge difference in fuller size. The 1906 looks like such an unkempt mongrel next to these two
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 19, 2016 8:29:01 GMT
Very interesting reading. I am a Bancal man myself. That means I, with the full length Bancal, have full point control. The M1822 LC, again at full length, feels sloppy to me. What I called,, vague ''. Like I do not know where the tip is exactly. I see it, but do not feel it. The Bancal is more prone to twisting of the blade in the cut because it is not as wide as the M1822LC. The latter feels much more sure in the cut to me. The Bancal blade twisting is the old complaint of the troopers who actully had to work with that sabre. All in all, for me, the Bancal feels ,,right'' and I much prefer it to the M1822.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 19, 2016 17:17:22 GMT
That's a beautiful sabre, how fast did it arrive? It seems very shortly ago that you mentioned it
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 19, 2016 19:39:38 GMT
I bought it from an old forumite who lives 200 km from me. Shipped Monday and arrived the next day :P Uhlan - Thanks for all the useful literature. It played a considerable part in the decision to get this one. In your post about the 1822 Bancal officer sword, you mention that the "2nd tier" swords has been shortened to 92.5 cm. What exactly do you mean by "second tier"? I assumed that the ones issued after the great 1882/1883 shakeup were cut down to meat current specifications. I know this happened to the M1822 LC, but have yet to find direct evidence for this happening to any of the Bancal's inherited into service. Was that what you meat by 2nd tier? Also, interesting to note that your officer weighs much less than mine. Curious Link to your most excellent article on the 1822 Line cav officer: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/48905/french-m1822-cavalry-officers-sabre
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 20, 2016 5:29:54 GMT
Always a pleasure to be able to help out a bit. Some models came in three lengths: The M1822 trooper had first tier- 97.5 cm, second tier 95.5 cm and third tier 92.5 cm, according to l'Hoste. Second and third tier blades have a shortened foible and this will impact handling. So, if one wants to know how an M1822 troopers feels and handles, one has to go and get the full length blade.The problem with l'Hoste is that his format in giving the facts is not constant, so he does the tier thing on the M1822, but neglects to tell us if the Bancal had this system too or not. I do not think the Bancal came in three lengths. It is HC after all, but it would have been better if he had stated such. Less confusion. Officers were quite free to choose a blade and the length of it according to their tastes and needs, so Officers sabres ( blades) are never to be seen as a standard, though and it sounds crazy, some models, like the Bancal, had a standard Officers blade. Other then the regulation after 1850 thereabouts when Staff insisted that the blades came from Klingenthal to get a grip on the quality, Officers were quite free to hook up any blade with the Officers hilt. Not that the regulation helped very much. I have a few Officers blades from Klingenthal that are below par compared to the troopers quality and some even have the infamous airpockets in the steel, which I never have seen in a troopers blade. Maybe I stumbled upon something: Officers with low budgets went to Klingenthal direct and could get blades with some problems for cheap. Others with better budgets went to Manceaux and let them handle the order. I have yet to see a Manceaux sabre with problems as described above. After all Manceaux had a name to uphold and Klingenthal was on the way out, in decline and back to doing kitchen cutlery for the ladies. Chattelerault had taken over and from what I see in my small collection, so do not take any of this as gospel and from what I see on the net, Chattelerault made far better stuff. Blade steel quality, grinding, polishing, everything shouts ,, better!''. The M1822 was made until 1923 it was, or 1931? Anyway, this last batch went to Poland. I do not think the M1822 got a shorter curved blade as the new standard perse. From what I see there are lots of full length blades around, though the times were confused. Lost war, Third Republic, lots going on and looking for new models everywhere. Prussians who took lots of weapons back to the Fatherland, very interesting, but you get M1854 with M1816 hilts etc. Or M1822 with 90 cm blades. In short, the armouries seem to have been cleared out in a scramble to get things done for a while after 1871. That is my impression, which could be way off from reality, of course. The new Officers model came in 1882, had a small grip made from bone and a small hilt, a new funky blade and the one ring scabbard. Officers could have the new hilts on old blades, old hilts on new blades, whatever their fancy. Troopers had the standard M1822, until the 1882 took over, but this process took its time. Also the design took a long time to get perfected, or in this case screwed up. My Dragoon from 1880 has the new 1882 blade already, but it is far better, thicker and stiffer than what turned out to be the new standard troopers M1882 blade. It still had the two ringed scabbard too.
The all new troopers M1822 / 1882 had according to l'Hoste a 87.5 cm long straight blade with a leather covered grip. The Officers variant had the same blade but a horn grip. The grip and the hilt of the Officers was much smaller than the old M1822 Officers hilts. The Bancal had a standard length of 97.5 cm and a leather covered grip. The Officers variant had a STRAIGHT blade with the same length as standard. This so called Officers standard model is quite hard to find and so quite expensive. I have an Officers Bancal with a shortened CURVED (troopers?) blade of 92.5 cm long. Goes to show that Officers did do their own thing. Also note the fact of the 92.5 cm length, which is precisely the third tier in the M1822 LC system. Stuff like this leeds to confusion if the source, in this case l'Hoste, does not say whether there was a tier system for the Bancal or not.
To conclude I would say that Dave Kelly has a Petard and so, I presume, has much more detailed information. Though l'Hoste is a must have and luckely is quite cheap, someone with the Petard is probably much better off, fact wise, but one has to pay relatively serious money for that priviledge, which I rather prefer to invest in a new sabre. I hope this helps some.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 21, 2016 4:18:03 GMT
The Officers variant had a STRAIGHT blade with the same length as standard. This so called Officers standard model is quite hard to find and so quite expensive. I have an Officers Bancal with a shortened CURVED (troopers?) blade of 92.5 cm long. Goes to show that Officers did do their own thing. Also note the fact of the 92.5 cm length, which is precisely the third tier in the M1822 LC system. Stuff like this leeds to confusion if the source, in this case l'Hoste, does not say whether there was a tier system for the Bancal or not. Just to be clear - yours is a shortened 1822 Bancal troopers sword (and not a shortened 1822LC blade). Looks that way in the pictures but wanted to be sure. Thanks again for all the help. I am inclined to believe that mine is like yours - custom ordered blade that was made for the 2nd tier length. Pablo sold it to me as an 1822/1882 bancal. I presume the 1882 is in reference to the single ring scabbard, though I could not rule out that the blade had been modified to fit a new scabbard. Your response makes me much more confident. In either case, it is a nice piece and I am happy with it. The more I handle it, the lighter it feels. I suspect that this is simply due to me having more confidence in the sword. When I first get a sword I am super cautious about damaging it or putting stress on the grips....but the more I hold it the more comfortable I get with it and the more I trust it. When I started collecting I figured my focus would be on German blades. Goodness forbid I start going French!
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 21, 2016 11:10:35 GMT
,, Goodness forbid I start going French! ''
This an Anglo Canadian hangup? 8-)
One of my favourite books is ,, Solomon Gursky was here '', by Mordecai Richler. For me as an outsider a good insight into social mores/structure of Canada. Very, very, funny too.
|
|