|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 2:55:51 GMT
Alright, so I recently got this sword in and I'm a bit confused about it. It seems to be in the middle size wise, not as wide as the usual ones I see online, but larger than the piquet weights I see as well. It feels nice in the hand, not too light feeling and a decent heft. The grip excluding the ferrule measures 3 and 7/8ths, including the ferrule is 4 and 1/8th. Point of balance is at 5 inches, and at the base, middle, and once inch from tip the thickness is - 9/32nds, 3/16ths, and just about 1/16ths. Length of the blade is 32". Any help would be greatly appreciated, Looking online apparently Selby Portsmouth was a sword retailer from 1845 to 1863, with Selby dying in 1853 and his widow running it until 1863. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 3:05:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 3:42:05 GMT
There is also a very faint marking on the spine that looks like it was once this
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 13, 2018 5:02:42 GMT
I suspect this is a piquet weight sword - the width of <1 inch is a bit small - especially since the "pokey" 1897 comes in at 1.1 inches. Piquet weight swords were custom made - I do not know if there were any regulations which governed their dimensions. In theory this means you could have a huge range of dimensions, depending on what the officer wanted. If you look at John Denner's website and search "piquet", you get a few examples. The last one is a Piquet weight 1857 Engineers sword, but you wouldn't necessarily know that just by looking at it. www.denner.ca/weapons/british_cnd_swords/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 5:31:49 GMT
I had suspected as much, that and with the micro grip, my thumb butts up against the guard plate which is something I don't experience often with fighting antiques. Time for it to leave my hands then. Already had the description for fleabay written up. I had found amother thread that said the regulation for fighting patterns was 7/8ths of an inch at the PoP, and then sometime like 1 and 1/8ths wide at the ricasso. Falls short in the latter category but also really doesn't have much profile taper. Thanks for the reply. The denner site is uber helpful.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Mar 13, 2018 6:17:14 GMT
The scabbard seems... non-regulation. The obviously square drag makes me uncomfortable Do you have pictures of the blade itself? Something seems a bit off. I had a Piquet-weight 1897 and the PoB was around 2 or 3 inches. I have a hard time seeing a rather nose-heavy 5 inches. On the other hand, as Afoo said, there was plenty of variation so I could be mistaken (also comparing 1845 to 1897...) My concern is that someone might have planted a repro blade (along with the scabbard) onto an antique hilt. My Mark-I eyeball test for piquet-weight is to see whether the blade is narrower than the grip. If it is, it's probably piquet. This test only goes one way only though- just because it ISN'T narrower doesn't guarantee that it's the full-sized version (or spare the trouble and just ask the seller)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 14:27:23 GMT
The blade is narrower than the grip, and also yeah I agree about the scabbard that it's strange. I've seen one like it before but I don't think it was a repro, it does a brazed seam.
There's a photo of the taper in the spoiler tab, I'll get a photo of the whole blade in after work.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 14:57:51 GMT
Another theory I had is someone could have ground the flat of the edge down, but this would have had to be done in the same period that it stopped being taken care of.
I don't really think it's a repro, wouldn't a fake go for the more expensive Wilkinson?
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Mar 13, 2018 18:54:09 GMT
Based on the photos, it looks like a fighting sword and not a picquet weight sword. The scabbard looks like it came from a P1831 General Officer's Sword ("mameluke hilt"). Piquet weight swords are VERY dainty. The blades are very light and narrow and can be a bit whippu. The hilts are SMALL! The examples I've had have grip that are just barely big enough for my medium sized hands. The guards are usually quite thin and prone to bending and breaking over time.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 20:03:45 GMT
Based on the photos, it looks like a fighting sword and not a picquet weight sword. The scabbard looks like it came from a P1831 General Officer's Sword ("mameluke hilt"). Piquet weight swords are VERY dainty. The blades are very light and narrow and can be a bit whippu. The hilts are SMALL! The examples I've had have grip that are just barely big enough for my medium sized hands. The guards are usually quite thin and prone to bending and breaking over time. Out of curiosity do you have any measures for a normal size fighting example? I'm surprised at how small the hilt is, as nearly all my other swords have larger hilts.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 13, 2018 20:09:37 GMT
Also thanks for the reference for the scabbard. I tried looking online but couldn't find any dating references.
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Mar 14, 2018 0:01:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Mar 14, 2018 3:22:52 GMT
Based on the photos, it looks like a fighting sword and not a picquet weight sword. The scabbard looks like it came from a P1831 General Officer's Sword ("mameluke hilt"). Piquet weight swords are VERY dainty. The blades are very light and narrow and can be a bit whippu. The hilts are SMALL! The examples I've had have grip that are just barely big enough for my medium sized hands. The guards are usually quite thin and prone to bending and breaking over time. AH THAT"S WHERE IT COMES FROM! I thought it looked familiar...
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Mar 15, 2018 18:34:27 GMT
I took some measurements of a few fighting swords in my collection: 2 P1845s and 2 P1827 Rifle Officers' Swords.
Standard P1845: width of blade at ricasso 1 1/8", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" Patent Solid Hilt P1845" width of blaade at ricasso 1 1/4", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" P1827 Rifle Officer's Sword 1: width of blade at ricasso 1", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" P1827 Rifle Officer's Sword 2: width of blade at ricasso 1 1/16", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2"
The sword with the shortest grip in my collection of Victorian swords is a P1821 Royal Artillery Officer's Sword and it has a grip length of 4" (incl. ricasso).
Compare those measurements to the picquet sword measurements provided in the myArmoury link:
It is not quite 3/4" wide at the ricasso and it weighs a full pound less than the service sword. Your sword may be smaller and lighter than the average, but it is still bigger and heavier than a picquet sword. Matt Easton has sold several swords in the past six months to one year that were smaller and lighter than the regulations called for, but were heavier and bigger than picquet swords. I believe at least one of these examples was service sharpened and was clearly intended for battle. Yours be be one of these small fighting swords.
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Mar 15, 2018 18:47:23 GMT
The C>>>>------>P mark is for the center of percussion.
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Mar 15, 2018 18:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 15, 2018 19:23:17 GMT
The C>>>>------>P mark is for the center of percussion. Woah! I had thought it was just some decor. That's really cool actually, Why don't more swords have that?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 15, 2018 19:52:45 GMT
I took some measurements of a few fighting swords in my collection: 2 P1845s and 2 P1827 Rifle Officers' Swords. Standard P1845: width of blade at ricasso 1 1/8", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" Patent Solid Hilt P1845" width of blaade at ricasso 1 1/4", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" P1827 Rifle Officer's Sword 1: width of blade at ricasso 1", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" P1827 Rifle Officer's Sword 2: width of blade at ricasso 1 1/16", grip including the ferrule 4 1/2" The sword with the shortest grip in my collection of Victorian swords is a P1821 Royal Artillery Officer's Sword and it has a grip length of 4" (incl. ricasso). Compare those measurements to the picquet sword measurements provided in the myArmoury link: It is not quite 3/4" wide at the ricasso and it weighs a full pound less than the service sword. Your sword may be smaller and lighter than the average, but it is still bigger and heavier than a picquet sword. Matt Easton has sold several swords in the past six months to one year that were smaller and lighter than the regulations called for, but were heavier and bigger than picquet swords. I believe at least one of these examples was service sharpened and was clearly intended for battle. Yours be be one of these small fighting swords. Thanks! Wish I hadn't listed it up for sale now though. Thanks for all the help, have it all saved in my notes and it's going to be a great treasure for later adventures. That would explain the nicks near the CoP very well then.
|
|