|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 23, 2017 7:35:36 GMT
PLEASE READ THE NEW ONE THIS ONE MAY BE INACCURATE
NEW LINK HERE
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Nov 23, 2017 22:58:19 GMT
Excellent write up. Gives me more appreciation for a sword I never considered my taste.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Nov 23, 2017 23:11:56 GMT
Do you know the weight?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 24, 2017 0:51:34 GMT
I believe it's about 2 pounds 4 ounces, I haven't got a scale handy to weigh it.
Also, in the spirit of thanksgiving I took a hunt of turkey that had some cartilage in it, strapped it to a water bottle and whacked it. Clean and effortless, if not weird to do lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 13:21:36 GMT
You'll need this books.google.com/books/about/The_Ordnance_Manual_for_the_Use_of_the_O.html?id=wwY6DT2Sc_cCThe sword section is telling and describes much the same proofing we see from other countries. Bending over a form. The contoured grip what we see on a lot of the French officer cavalry swords of the period. A slightly straighter blade than the M1840, the light blade is narrower and has a rounded vs flat spine. The 1872 cavalry officer swords with yet a narrower blade. Watch out for any reported as trooper versions with the narrowest blade and simple hilt. Those will typically be found to be from the old Bannerman pile of composites. A final niggle is that technically, there was never an M1860 designation. Simply regarded by Ames and the ordnance board as the light and then in the 1906 switch to steel hilts, just regarded as the old civil war model (never described as the M1860). The M1860 designation then a modern term that may have begun in use during the mid 20th century. Nice overview and piccies. Thillmann can kiss my butt.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 26, 2017 15:49:55 GMT
Nice write up and I like the pictures. What is the PoB?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 26, 2017 18:35:08 GMT
@edelweiss I've heard of the M1860 designation being a very modern invention, but I didn't think that recent. I had assumed sometime before the 1890s for some reason. The book looks interesting, just downloaded it (woo free stuff!) and I'll give it a read in a few. Incidentally I quite dislike the M1872, I think it looks like a famished orphan, And most of the ones I've seen seem to have very damaged hilts. Quite a bit cheaper than the civil war swords though. I quite like The grip, not overly bulging like some German swords, but not a straight slope like the Mle 1822. Shame Windlass screwed up when they reproduced it. Nice write up and I like the pictures. What is the PoB? The point of balance is at just about 6 inches. Despite being decently far out though, it's very easy to control the point and point it where it needs to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 20:13:48 GMT
There are many dozen similar free books throughout the 19th century (including Confederate). So much of modern publication simply recants what is in the old books and as more and more become available. it is amazing how hard some of the 1950s-2000s authors have had to work on digging.
I chide Thillmann over a real semprini in one of his books that I'll giggle about for decades. He could have left at least one page unpublished. Granted, on the edge of his familiarity.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 27, 2017 20:11:42 GMT
Nice writeup!
I was always curious how the 1906 compared to the 1860 - I heard rumours that the guard on the 1906 was built a bit lighter, but your numbers seem to suggest otherwise.
IIRC you also had an 1822 - how do the two compare?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 27, 2017 22:49:41 GMT
Nice writeup! I was always curious how the 1906 compared to the 1860 - I heard rumours that the guard on the 1906 was built a bit lighter, but your numbers seem to suggest otherwise. IIRC you also had an 1822 - how do the two compare? Compared the 1822 it's an Infantry Officers sabre, much lighter and quicker in the hand. I find the grip to also be much more comfortable to hold, it feels like it's more adaptable than the sloping 1822. Out of the two I'd rather fence or use the 1860 in combat. Tl;Dr, the 1822 feels somewhat cumbersome when directly compared the 1860. Both want to move in hand, the 1822 feels like it moves forward more, the 1860 feels like it has more mass to the back of it. @edelweiss - I hadn't known about there being so many free resources, I'll start trawling through them once I finish the Regulation book. Very interesting stuff to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 12, 2017 16:24:14 GMT
As an update, I've cleaned off the brass hilt with brasso, and believe I've found a candidate for the maker. I'll post pics when I get off work.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 13, 2017 6:52:43 GMT
As promised, here is my crackpot theory for who made this sword and when it was made, based on the the inspector mark "JH". Also some pics. As can be seen in this picture comparing an Ames inspection mark to my own sword, it is identical. Note that since I couldn't quite get a clear pic of the marking due to lighting, it looks somewhat like there is a dot between the J and H. This is not so. The JH marking is for either John Hannis (1862) or Joseph Hannis (1838-1862)(their are other names attached to the JH marking, however they are not relevant to this sword as the dates fall out the sprectrum) which means the word was created between 1858 and 1862. It is important to note that there are two variations of this marking, J.H., and JH. Which means to me at least, that the two inspectors had two different markings. According to this pistol dated to 1838, it would seem that "JH" is for the earlier Joseph Hannis, which would denote my sword to Joseph Hannis, and between the dates 1858 and 1862. Apparently however, Ames produced no 1860 style cavalry sabres in 1862. Which narrows down the years to 1858 and 1861. Given that swords made in 1858 are quite rare, it would find it unlikely that my sword dates that early. Having the numbers for sword production by Ames by the years would be of excellent help here. Adding to this, the Ames sword Co markings were noted for being partially rubbed off by the scabbard throat alone, at least on the inside side of the blade ricasso. Wide, but shallow. The true enigma comes from the outside side of the ricasso, where two small parts of the marking remain. After looking at every other US based and import sword dating styles, I can't find any that have the date as high the two markings are. Going from 1858 - 1859 - 1861 we can see that 1859 (inspected by JH, separate from the one with JH on the pommel) has particularly shallow marks, and some deviance in the US stamp. To me, the remnant on my sword looks the most like the top section of an 8. In short, I suspect from 1858 to 1861. I don't know anything else, and to my knowledge Joseph Harris wasn't an employee of other companies, at least in terms of inspecting swords during the American Civil War. Here are some nice pictures now.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 13, 2017 7:03:50 GMT
I hope you all enjoy my rapid slide into insanity lmao
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 13, 2017 7:18:19 GMT
Good detective work I guess. Nice blade too. Did you do that?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 13, 2017 14:33:47 GMT
I didn't, it came to me like that. Haven't had time to do any real sword cleaning yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 15:41:51 GMT
The company mark and arsenal mark (Hannis) regard a likely 1864 dating, not 1858-1861 The light cavalry swords preceding the 1864 swords is contained within a scroll background. It is those markings often worn away, as the scroll mark was applied in a rolling die. This Ames mark was in use until at least 1863 and my nco shown below from 1864. For whatever reason the blade inspector's marks were removed. The likely reason to fool one way or another. It is rare to see those obliterated and as obviously sanded off. Hannis was inspecting until 1864, see Hickox (a bargain book selling for the price of a pizza) www.amazon.com/Collectors-Guide-Contract-Military-Weapons/dp/1877704113The company block lettering resumed as the die became less that usable on the cavalry blades from late 1863 to the last 1865 deliveries. We are looking at only a short number of contract production years for the light cavalry, so obviously an early sword seems desirable but when a bargain pops up and being considered a real treasure, question heavily why a rare sword turns up with marks "rubbed off" vs the other possibility. Parable, I had bought a vintage Puma knife a couple of years ago that went for a low retail price. Giddy in anticipation, I then see on receipt that the serial number had been not so cleanly ground off. There were really only two reasons to do that. One ownership but the the other, and more likely to hide the true age. As I bought it as a user, it was no more than a minor blow but now a knife I cannot sell with true provenance to dating. More later and I'll revisit Hamilton's Ames History book re marking but enjoy it for what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 16:29:23 GMT
www.horsesoldier.com/products/identified-items/2823www.horsesoldier.com/products/edged-weapons/swords/13893If you don't have Harold Peterson's old testament yet, another requisite book for American swords. Others such as Thillmann, highly regarded for ACW period swords. Those were just two 1860 dated swords that pop up quickly, showing the scroll mark. Another with the date scrubbed off speculated as 1865 but really not likely. Relicman shows an 1858 with the block lettering but again, the marking type resumed late in production www.relicman.com/weapons/Weapon6610.htmlNote the differences and also that many "nice" reproductions have a similar mark to the one you show. As the Ames 1858 mark shows a different font, has all lines of text alinged, wonder about that. My conclusions may vary with general consensus but dimes to dollars, your sword is an older reproduction and was once marked U.S. ADK 1862, the dreaded mark showing up on today's offerings. Then again, I might be wrong. A minty sword with no scabbard and with dubious (to me) markings. Your mileage may vary. Sorry. Addendum, Mike McWatters good pages show the late block letters mark formed in a slight arc, found on the late lc swords www.angelfire.com/wa/swordcollector/marks/page1.htmlAn 1864 dated lc Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 13, 2017 17:42:04 GMT
Well that's depressing to me Maybe someday I'll get my hands on an original Ames with the markings and try to compare the sword as a whole. Or rent one mwahaha. In the original sellers pics there was a scabbard, the throat being very visible. Seller denied it and I assumed it as sold separately. Shoot, I had really thought it was real. All the little subtleties of the hilt and blade lines seemed so exact compared to pictures. I suppose someone should notify the fellow who runs americanswords.com that his inspector data is off for JH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 21:02:47 GMT
Simon Rycroftt aka americanswords.com is a current and active member of SFI (currently pushing a calendar with shots of his stuff). Hickox clearly lists Hannis active marking castings until at least 1864. If Simon is taking the data from somewhere else, I do not know. As inferred earlier in this thread, even us experts make mistakes or interpret information differently. Both Mark Cloke of Old Swords and Simon have egged me on to work on pages for them and from my own perspective, a bit of added work load for me. What information I have come across in books actually pales by work in other's publications but at the same time, those with even larger libraries are simply not looking through them carefully. My specialty is eagle pommel swords and I'll spend a lot of my life on the study but in the meantime, pages like McWatters have been in my bookmarks since 1999 so I have obviously gone beyond the thin veneer of internet searches. The same period of time found me visiting Jean Binck's pages, vikingsword and Stein's Japanese index. If one ism really interested, there are a lot of resuorces to absorb. myArmoury, etc, smiths boards, on and on.
Anyway, I have a lot of discussions off the board with Simon and he is quiet approachable but busy on his own path. He put up an eaglehead pommel page, emailed me, asked for critique and then asked to manage it for him. Wait a minute, ya know? I was extremely flattered but at the same time working on my own knowledge and files. Cloke similarly but we lost track while he is raising a family. Some day I may publish something but reaped from my own efforts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 1:07:08 GMT
I wanted to just briefly revisit this one to say that you may well have an old sword. You may well even have a real Ames that was overmarked by someone. (1) In your first post to the thread, one can see a number on the knuckle bow near the pommel. None of the reproductions I have ever seen have such. I do however see such numbers on unmarked imports, my generic "wristbreaker" has such a number. JH on the pommel though often see on repros and as easily stamped as letters we see on the blade. (2)the Ames stamping side appears to have been mauled with some pretty deep scratches that seem to be under the stamping. Otherwise the stamped letters would show having been scratched through. I don't know what to think of the obverse side but it does look scraped to me. There is only so much one can judge from pictures. Inspected blades should show a US above the inspector, then the date below. Whatever is showing looks as high up as a US should be. There definitely something within a rectangle there and one could hope it was not a modern import made in mrk (3) the period Ames grips have a very brown hue to them. I cannot determine the true hue of your's but something to consider. So, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. Considering the guard number, which was probably just a batch number, I'll change my vote from old reproduction to a possibly and spuriously remarked import. The more I look though, the more curious it seems. Then again, I might be full of it but the Ames mark just reads bogus to me and the scraping and scratches look purposeful to me. No way around those facets. Import/repro, I just dunno but try to enjoy what looks like a fairly well made sword.
|
|