|
Post by flintlock on Sept 3, 2018 18:42:35 GMT
Hello everyone I’m new to the forum and know very little about swords. I have been given the sword in the added attachments and I think it’s an 1899 British cavalry sword. The blade length is 32.5 inches which according to what I’ve read is a little short! I would welcome comments please do you think the sword is genuine, is the blade ok or if shortened any idea why. There are a lot of stamps on the sword and wondered if anyone could shed some light on their meaning especially the ones on the inside of the guard Any comments good or bad would be welcomed. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 3, 2018 18:58:23 GMT
Kind of looks like the tip has been cut down. It should have a spear tip if I have my knowledge right, not the strange sort of butterknife tip.
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Sept 3, 2018 19:49:34 GMT
Ha, and I was just finishing research on British sword stamps! Here's what the markings mean
2nd pic: ^ is the Broad Arrow meaning property of the Government EFD = Enfield maker's mark Crown 30 E = inspector's mark X = decommissioned material
3rd pic: '00 = issue/service date of 1900 Crown 25 E & Crown 75 E = inspectors' marks
4th pic: '99 = Model ID 1899 Crown 30 E = inspector's mark (again)
5th pic (if I'm reading these well): 8/00 = issue date August 1900
barred numbers = previous rack no. 5 L = 5th Lancer Regiment 616 = regt weapon no 616 (or it could be 6L6 but doesn't make much sense)
The scabbard should have the matching numbers and stamps if it is original to the sword.
Hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 3, 2018 20:35:46 GMT
Thanks very much Jordan, I agree all the photos i can see on the web show a pointed tip like a spear as you say.
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 3, 2018 20:39:45 GMT
Thanks Pino for your reply. Extremely helpful and interesting. I can’t find any markings on the scabbard. The x in the second picture means decommissioned you say, does that mean that the sword was no longer of use or damaged or just obsolete?
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 3, 2018 21:07:39 GMT
Same cavalry pattern swords were cut down (shortened) to produce infantry staff sergeant's swords. However, Robson's book says that new guards of the 1897 pattern were fitted. But he says the difference in length was only less than an inch. The blade's sure in good shape, aside from the wrong point, considering the rest of the sword and scabbard.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 4, 2018 3:17:08 GMT
Same cavalry pattern swords were cut down (shortened) to produce infantry staff sergeant's swords. However, Robson's book says that new guards of the 1897 pattern were fitted. But he says the difference in length was only less than an inch. The blade's sure in good shape, aside from the wrong point, considering the rest of the sword and scabbard. What you are speaking of here was the 1905p sword (link here --> www.google.com/search?q=1905+sergents+sword&oq=1905+sergents+sword&aqs=chrome..69i57.5045j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)The one you have is not a 1905. That said, some versions were shortened and cut down to make training weapons - I know this was done a lot for the 1885p, and those are somewhat common. I think Denner had a 1899p which was cut down in a similar fashion, but I am not 100% sure
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Sept 4, 2018 7:21:22 GMT
Thanks Pino for your reply. Extremely helpful and interesting. I can’t find any markings on the scabbard. The x in the second picture means decommissioned you say, does that mean that the sword was no longer of use or damaged or just obsolete? It just means it was officially retired from government service and sold as surplus on the private market. It may have seen heavy use OR have laid its entire life in storage; the reground tip may or may not imply damage and subsequent repairs. Impossible to say from these photos. PS. If the edge shows signs of repeated sharpening, that's a good indication that it actually was at least worn, maybe even used. If the edge is untouched and not quite sharp, like a butter knife, that means it's in factory condition and was never deployed in the field. If the edge is dull AND shows signs of work (unevenness, scratches, dents and bumps or hints of such being polished out), it was probably adapted into a practice weapon.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 4, 2018 8:43:28 GMT
Two things about the 1905 Staff Sergeants sword; one is that the grip is an oddity. They look like the regular grip for an 1895 infantry sword but have rivets, like the unmodified cavalry sword. The other is that it looks like the were provided with new scabbards, rather than modified scabbards that originally were for the longer blades. Today, they are identical with officer's swords but with plain blades.
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 4, 2018 8:56:57 GMT
Thanks bluetrain and Afoo for your replies. You say the blade is in good shape compared to the rest of the sword bluetrain. Would that suggest a fake or made up sword or is it ok? If there’s one thing I’m learning from my question is that I have a lot to learn and there’s certainly a lot of knowledge out there with you guys that you’re quite prepared to impart. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 4, 2018 9:06:03 GMT
Thanks for your reply MOK very helpful. The edge of the blade looks untouched It’s about 1/8 th of aninch near the guard tapering down to about 1/16 th near the tip. Do you think that’s a bit wide?
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Sept 4, 2018 10:15:07 GMT
Anything above 0" at the edge is very thick indeed for a sword designed to actually cut anything.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 4, 2018 10:41:09 GMT
Judging from photos posted here and of those for sale, it seems fairly common for the blade to be in better shape than other parts of the sword or scabbard, presumably because the blade is mostly protected by the scabbard. That's hardly always the case, of course. Scabbards, especially metal scabbards, are usually in worse shape than the sword, if the scabbard is still around.
It reminds me of the description of an antique sword that has been on display in some great hall for generations. The comment was that the condition of the blade was consistent with having been hung on a wall for five hundred years.
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 4, 2018 10:59:02 GMT
Thanks again to all. Now the six million dollar question, do you think the sword is genuinely a 1899 pattern, or a sword built of parts or an outright fake please?
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Sept 4, 2018 15:37:40 GMT
It is a genuine 1899, there is no known replica version of this model and the stamps/markings and overall worn condition certainly confirm authenticity. The tips were modified for training purposes as Afoo said but your specimen is not completely rounded and still has a hatchet tip which may indicate it could have been repaired either by an armourer during its service or tinkered by a collector later on in life. Better pics may help.
|
|
|
Post by flintlock on Sept 5, 2018 13:45:50 GMT
Thanks again Pino. I’ve added two new photos the first is looking down at the cutting edge of the blade.
|
|