Italian Experimental 1909 Sword - part 1
Aug 22, 2018 2:16:48 GMT
Post by Afoo on Aug 22, 2018 2:16:48 GMT
This will be a quick post - bfoo2 is the keeper of our Italian sword collection, and I hope that we can one day do a compilation album for the whole lot (part 2). That said, I figured I would post my quick thoughts on the weapon in question while its in my possession.
Italian 1909 Experimental (top). Prussian 1889 (bottom)
Background
I first became aware of this sword in an SBG thread last year - ironically from a source posted by bfoo2. I could not find much about it. Asides from the one source mentioned (bygone blades - link), there is nothing on the web. This dearth of reliable information on Italian swords in general is quite noticeable. While some print material does exist, they are out of reach for most of us - for example, I found Calamendi's history of Italian military edged weapons runs around $900 and I have neither the money to buy it, nor the time to hunt one down and have it translated from its Italian. victoriansword mentioned friend putting together book to address this. I have no clue what happened to that project, but I do wish them luck, and would be happy to donate any picture or images of this particular sword towards their endeavour.
That said, what I do know about this sword comes from the aforementioned page from bygone blades. If anyone has any information to add or other references which cost less than $900, please do let me know. From my limited source, the 1900/1909 was experimental, straight bladed weapon was designed in 1900 with a "ridiculously long blade". This was found to be, well, ridiculous, and it was subsequently cut down to give the 1909. The wording on the website is a bit ambiguous - it suggests that the Italian 1871 blade was re-worked to give the 1900/1909 pattern, almost implying that they were converted in a scheme reminiscent of the French 1822 tmre 1883. However, the Italian 1871 has a blade length of ~35 inches. My "shortened" 1909 also has a blade length of ~35 inches, meaning that the 1900 must have a bespoke blade, unless the Italians figured out how to conjure up additional steel from thin air. My 1909 also has a raised ricasso at the base of the blade, whereas bfoo2 tells me the 1871 (or at least his examples) do not. Finally, my 1909 has a channel or mini-fuller running along its spine - similar to what is found on the Chilean 1890 or Spanish 1907 sword, except on the 1909 the fuller starts at the guard and runs up, rather than starting at the tip. Not sure what the function of this is, but its darned cool. Again, the standard 1871 lacks this feature, making the 1909 an unlikely chop job. I should not that, since this was an experimental model, it is possible that some of them were converted 1871's, while later production examples were made de-novo
Ricasso of the 1909. Note how the blade starts off a uniform thickness, with the pipe-back emerging after ~1 inch. The 1871 does not have this - with the pipe back already being fully formed the moment the blade leaves the guard.
This lack of Tmre-ification to me is rather interesting, since the blade itself does look very similar to the 1871. Even the tip has a very similar profile, with the pipe-back transitioning to an almost diamond cross section at the very end
Tip of the 1909. Don't worry - the phosphate coating is just rubbing off - its not actually pitted or rusting
The guard looks almost identical to the 1871, as is the pommel cap, so perhaps some elements were cannibalized.
Again, according to bygone blades, these swords were made and issued for testing, though never went into "full production". This is consistent with both mine, and bygone blade's examples having an Italian proof mark and what appear to be serial numbers. Mine is serial 608 and his is 1552, suggesting a production range of at least 2000. Both of ours are from Serafino Gnutti (SFG marked), though I would be curious if there were other sites of production. Interestingly, the example from Bygone appears to have a blackened guard (albeit cleaned), and a bare steel blade. Mine appears to have had both the guard AND the blade completely phosphated.
Serial number and manufacturer mark. The proof mark (MA) is on top of the SFG markings.
Handling/Performance
As you have hopefully figured out by now, the 1909 is a straight-bladed pipe back sword. The blade is 35 inches long with a PoB of around 4 inches. Its no slouch - especially when laid against my Prussian 1889. The blade itself feels like a heavier version of my French 1882/1896. Point control could be good, but yet retains enough weight to parry with some confidence. Its not heavy enough to fill the role of a heavy cavalry pallasche, but its good enough in the age of khakis and pith helmets. EDIT: The sword weighs 2.33 lb. Not a heavy bruiser, but again no lightweight dress sword
I say that point control *could* be good because, well, its not - but that's not on account of the blade. Upon first glance, the most unique feature of the 1909 is the backwards canted grip. This seemed strange to me - in an era where forward leaning pistol grips *hem Prussian 1889 hem* are becoming more common, why go the other way?
Backwards angle of the 1909 grip compared to that of the KD 89 (front)
After handling the 1909, the answer became obvious (I think). I have never rode a horse, let alone gone to war on one. However, from my understanding, in a typical frontal cavalry charge the sword would be presented in the prime position, with the palm facing up, as demonstrated by these fine lads. In this context, the backwards cant of the 1909 would pull the tip down, allowing you to hold the sword on target a bit better. This is particularly useful when aiming for targets which are lower than you, which would be the case if you were trying to skewer non-mounted infantry.
For king and country
While this, erm, unique grip design lends itself well to frontal charges with the sword held above your head, it basically sucks for everything else. While the blade itself is decent for fencing, the angle of the grip makes point control difficult, and the tip is never quite where you expect it to be. They also removed the nice thumb tab you had on the 1871, which seems to be a step backwards when designing what is ostensibly a thrusting weapon. When in the hammer grip, the backstrap still bulges out in a strange position and makes it uncomfortable. That said, if I had to use this on foot, I would seriously debate hammering this thing rather than deal with my point always being a few inches higher than where I expect it to lie.
This brings me onto the discussion about hand-lances. I had a discussion with bfoo2 last night about this, so some of these ideas can be attributed to him.
The term "hand lance" is used on the forums to describe thrust-centric cavalry swords like the 1908, 1907, and 1913. While these swords were doctrinally used for frontal shock action on horseback much like a lance, they could also be employed to some effectiveness in other ways either on foot or on horseback. The 1913 is a decent cutter in a melee, while the 1908 and 1907 make good rapiers. I would argue that, by that definition, neither of those patterns are true "hand lances". A hand lance is something like the French 1854, as its so large and heavy that it only really works in the frontal shock action. In other words, you have taken away the versatility of the sword and replaced it with the single purpose focus of a lance. By this definition, the 1909 is the most extreme hand lance of them all - it can only really be used effectively in one way, at the expense of all others.
I don't mean to say that the 1909 is *better* than the 1913 or 1908p in this role - its just that the 1909 can ONLY really work in this role, and nothing else. Think of it as a Toyota Celica. We call the Celica a sports car, not because it can out-race a BMW M3 on the road, but because it is so much more specialized for racing in relation to all other functions.
My apologies to anyone who owns a Celica
Long story short - the blade is good, but that handle makes it hard to use as anything other than a hand lance. As a result, handling is kinda meh. A missed opportunity. Several months late on the bitcoin bubble. However, this sword makes it up as a collectors item. From an aethetics point of view, it still retains the distinct Italian flair of the 1960 and 1971, but with some minor modern updates. That dead-straight pipeback blade tapers to a savage point, and makes my KD 89 look much more stubby and portly than it really is. Its just savage. Moreover, the 1909 it really just a cool bit of history. It represents a rather unique insight into the dying days of the sword - the mad experimentation undertaken by ordinance boards everywhere to try and find new relevance and meaning for a relic out of time.
Full pics here: flic.kr/s/aHsmmeckjd
Italian 1909 Experimental (top). Prussian 1889 (bottom)
Background
I first became aware of this sword in an SBG thread last year - ironically from a source posted by bfoo2. I could not find much about it. Asides from the one source mentioned (bygone blades - link), there is nothing on the web. This dearth of reliable information on Italian swords in general is quite noticeable. While some print material does exist, they are out of reach for most of us - for example, I found Calamendi's history of Italian military edged weapons runs around $900 and I have neither the money to buy it, nor the time to hunt one down and have it translated from its Italian. victoriansword mentioned friend putting together book to address this. I have no clue what happened to that project, but I do wish them luck, and would be happy to donate any picture or images of this particular sword towards their endeavour.
That said, what I do know about this sword comes from the aforementioned page from bygone blades. If anyone has any information to add or other references which cost less than $900, please do let me know. From my limited source, the 1900/1909 was experimental, straight bladed weapon was designed in 1900 with a "ridiculously long blade". This was found to be, well, ridiculous, and it was subsequently cut down to give the 1909. The wording on the website is a bit ambiguous - it suggests that the Italian 1871 blade was re-worked to give the 1900/1909 pattern, almost implying that they were converted in a scheme reminiscent of the French 1822 tmre 1883. However, the Italian 1871 has a blade length of ~35 inches. My "shortened" 1909 also has a blade length of ~35 inches, meaning that the 1900 must have a bespoke blade, unless the Italians figured out how to conjure up additional steel from thin air. My 1909 also has a raised ricasso at the base of the blade, whereas bfoo2 tells me the 1871 (or at least his examples) do not. Finally, my 1909 has a channel or mini-fuller running along its spine - similar to what is found on the Chilean 1890 or Spanish 1907 sword, except on the 1909 the fuller starts at the guard and runs up, rather than starting at the tip. Not sure what the function of this is, but its darned cool. Again, the standard 1871 lacks this feature, making the 1909 an unlikely chop job. I should not that, since this was an experimental model, it is possible that some of them were converted 1871's, while later production examples were made de-novo
Ricasso of the 1909. Note how the blade starts off a uniform thickness, with the pipe-back emerging after ~1 inch. The 1871 does not have this - with the pipe back already being fully formed the moment the blade leaves the guard.
This lack of Tmre-ification to me is rather interesting, since the blade itself does look very similar to the 1871. Even the tip has a very similar profile, with the pipe-back transitioning to an almost diamond cross section at the very end
Tip of the 1909. Don't worry - the phosphate coating is just rubbing off - its not actually pitted or rusting
The guard looks almost identical to the 1871, as is the pommel cap, so perhaps some elements were cannibalized.
Again, according to bygone blades, these swords were made and issued for testing, though never went into "full production". This is consistent with both mine, and bygone blade's examples having an Italian proof mark and what appear to be serial numbers. Mine is serial 608 and his is 1552, suggesting a production range of at least 2000. Both of ours are from Serafino Gnutti (SFG marked), though I would be curious if there were other sites of production. Interestingly, the example from Bygone appears to have a blackened guard (albeit cleaned), and a bare steel blade. Mine appears to have had both the guard AND the blade completely phosphated.
Serial number and manufacturer mark. The proof mark (MA) is on top of the SFG markings.
Handling/Performance
As you have hopefully figured out by now, the 1909 is a straight-bladed pipe back sword. The blade is 35 inches long with a PoB of around 4 inches. Its no slouch - especially when laid against my Prussian 1889. The blade itself feels like a heavier version of my French 1882/1896. Point control could be good, but yet retains enough weight to parry with some confidence. Its not heavy enough to fill the role of a heavy cavalry pallasche, but its good enough in the age of khakis and pith helmets. EDIT: The sword weighs 2.33 lb. Not a heavy bruiser, but again no lightweight dress sword
I say that point control *could* be good because, well, its not - but that's not on account of the blade. Upon first glance, the most unique feature of the 1909 is the backwards canted grip. This seemed strange to me - in an era where forward leaning pistol grips *hem Prussian 1889 hem* are becoming more common, why go the other way?
Backwards angle of the 1909 grip compared to that of the KD 89 (front)
After handling the 1909, the answer became obvious (I think). I have never rode a horse, let alone gone to war on one. However, from my understanding, in a typical frontal cavalry charge the sword would be presented in the prime position, with the palm facing up, as demonstrated by these fine lads. In this context, the backwards cant of the 1909 would pull the tip down, allowing you to hold the sword on target a bit better. This is particularly useful when aiming for targets which are lower than you, which would be the case if you were trying to skewer non-mounted infantry.
For king and country
While this, erm, unique grip design lends itself well to frontal charges with the sword held above your head, it basically sucks for everything else. While the blade itself is decent for fencing, the angle of the grip makes point control difficult, and the tip is never quite where you expect it to be. They also removed the nice thumb tab you had on the 1871, which seems to be a step backwards when designing what is ostensibly a thrusting weapon. When in the hammer grip, the backstrap still bulges out in a strange position and makes it uncomfortable. That said, if I had to use this on foot, I would seriously debate hammering this thing rather than deal with my point always being a few inches higher than where I expect it to lie.
This brings me onto the discussion about hand-lances. I had a discussion with bfoo2 last night about this, so some of these ideas can be attributed to him.
The term "hand lance" is used on the forums to describe thrust-centric cavalry swords like the 1908, 1907, and 1913. While these swords were doctrinally used for frontal shock action on horseback much like a lance, they could also be employed to some effectiveness in other ways either on foot or on horseback. The 1913 is a decent cutter in a melee, while the 1908 and 1907 make good rapiers. I would argue that, by that definition, neither of those patterns are true "hand lances". A hand lance is something like the French 1854, as its so large and heavy that it only really works in the frontal shock action. In other words, you have taken away the versatility of the sword and replaced it with the single purpose focus of a lance. By this definition, the 1909 is the most extreme hand lance of them all - it can only really be used effectively in one way, at the expense of all others.
I don't mean to say that the 1909 is *better* than the 1913 or 1908p in this role - its just that the 1909 can ONLY really work in this role, and nothing else. Think of it as a Toyota Celica. We call the Celica a sports car, not because it can out-race a BMW M3 on the road, but because it is so much more specialized for racing in relation to all other functions.
My apologies to anyone who owns a Celica
Long story short - the blade is good, but that handle makes it hard to use as anything other than a hand lance. As a result, handling is kinda meh. A missed opportunity. Several months late on the bitcoin bubble. However, this sword makes it up as a collectors item. From an aethetics point of view, it still retains the distinct Italian flair of the 1960 and 1971, but with some minor modern updates. That dead-straight pipeback blade tapers to a savage point, and makes my KD 89 look much more stubby and portly than it really is. Its just savage. Moreover, the 1909 it really just a cool bit of history. It represents a rather unique insight into the dying days of the sword - the mad experimentation undertaken by ordinance boards everywhere to try and find new relevance and meaning for a relic out of time.
Full pics here: flic.kr/s/aHsmmeckjd