Casual Comparison French m1822 LC Saber to US m1840 HC Saber
Dec 5, 2018 20:55:25 GMT
Post by pellius on Dec 5, 2018 20:55:25 GMT
The idea here is just to put one example of each side-by-side and take a casual compare / contrast look. I won’t get into much history because very comprehensive historical information on both swords is already kindly available on this site (and my knowledge is mostly based upon that information anyway).
I am not currently able to take measurements. At some point in the future, I’ll try to take some measurements and post them in an edit. The purpose of this, though, is really just a simple comparison by an untrained enthusiast.
A couple of notes.. These photos are just iPhone snapshots on a household table. While some of the apparent size difference between the swords is due to the camera point of view and perspective, there is an actual variance between the two that is quite noticeable in person. Also, as always, this is a learning endeavor for me. I may get things wrong and I’m happy to be corrected.
I broke it into two parts to respect SBG’s photo limit per post.
PART ONE
Overview of These Two Particular Swords
1840 top, 1822 bottom
1840 top, 1822 bottom
French m1822 LC
My French model 1822 light cavalry saber was manufactured June, 1824, in Klingenthal. It is in very good condition with no obvious damage or mistreatment. There are no nicks in the blade or guard. There is some black patina, but nothing too horrible. There are numerous very minor marks on the foible consistent with cutting and thrusting into a forgiving medium. Otherwise, the blade seems pristine.
Overall, the sword has been well cared for, and still rings when struck. Best I can tell, everything is still original, present and tight. I would note, though, that the peen is no longer a nice dish shape, but seems to have been center-punched. I’m guessing it has been “tightened up” or something, but I don’t know for sure. It came with the correct scabbard, but it is not marked in a way to confirm whether it is the original paired to the sword.
US m1840 HC
My US model 1840 heavy cavalry saber - the infamous “Wristbreaker” - was manufactured by W. Walscheid of Solingen. So, it is not one of the prized domestic examples. When I first bought it, I thought it was in pretty rough shape. After seeing a number of examples online, mine seems more middle of the pack. The hilt is just slightly loose - not so much that dry handling is unsafe, but it would need to be remedied before engaging in any serious swordsmanship.
This thing has seen some pretty serious use, with minor nicks along most of the blade. The foible is pretty chewed up, but still seems capable of confident engagement. As with many 1840’s, the blade sports a serious black patina, with finger marks so clear you could just about identify fingerprints. However, there is no red rust or pitting, and the hilt seems to be original and intact. Though not properly preserved in the modern sense, the sword overall seems to have been cared for reasonably well.
The scabbard looks absolutely fantastic, mostly because it is only about a year old.
Comparison of the Weaks / Foibles of the Blades
1822 top, 1840 bottom
The 1822 has a considerably shorter foible, with both fullers terminating much closer to the tip. The 1822’s secondary fuller is closer in length to the main fuller than on the 1840. The fullers are also much crisper on the 1822, making the 1840 look kinda washed out in comparison. Some of that may be a result of field use and sharpening of the 1840, since its fullers are a bit crisper near the forte. Even there, though, the 1822 has a cleaner crisper finish.
Overall, the 1840 has significantly more meat at the foible than the 1822. The blade is wider, and the taper to the point is more abrupt. My iPhone camera and plain household light makes it tough to see in the size-reduced photos, but a close examination reveals that the false edge of the 1840 actually swells at the tip. By contrast, the false edge of the 1822 is a “true” false edge, and seems capable of being sharpened. This results in an effective thrusting tip on the 1822, even in its current condition.
1822 foible profile
1822 false edge
1840 foible profile
1840 false edge
[End Part One]
I am not currently able to take measurements. At some point in the future, I’ll try to take some measurements and post them in an edit. The purpose of this, though, is really just a simple comparison by an untrained enthusiast.
A couple of notes.. These photos are just iPhone snapshots on a household table. While some of the apparent size difference between the swords is due to the camera point of view and perspective, there is an actual variance between the two that is quite noticeable in person. Also, as always, this is a learning endeavor for me. I may get things wrong and I’m happy to be corrected.
I broke it into two parts to respect SBG’s photo limit per post.
PART ONE
Overview of These Two Particular Swords
1840 top, 1822 bottom
1840 top, 1822 bottom
French m1822 LC
My French model 1822 light cavalry saber was manufactured June, 1824, in Klingenthal. It is in very good condition with no obvious damage or mistreatment. There are no nicks in the blade or guard. There is some black patina, but nothing too horrible. There are numerous very minor marks on the foible consistent with cutting and thrusting into a forgiving medium. Otherwise, the blade seems pristine.
Overall, the sword has been well cared for, and still rings when struck. Best I can tell, everything is still original, present and tight. I would note, though, that the peen is no longer a nice dish shape, but seems to have been center-punched. I’m guessing it has been “tightened up” or something, but I don’t know for sure. It came with the correct scabbard, but it is not marked in a way to confirm whether it is the original paired to the sword.
US m1840 HC
My US model 1840 heavy cavalry saber - the infamous “Wristbreaker” - was manufactured by W. Walscheid of Solingen. So, it is not one of the prized domestic examples. When I first bought it, I thought it was in pretty rough shape. After seeing a number of examples online, mine seems more middle of the pack. The hilt is just slightly loose - not so much that dry handling is unsafe, but it would need to be remedied before engaging in any serious swordsmanship.
This thing has seen some pretty serious use, with minor nicks along most of the blade. The foible is pretty chewed up, but still seems capable of confident engagement. As with many 1840’s, the blade sports a serious black patina, with finger marks so clear you could just about identify fingerprints. However, there is no red rust or pitting, and the hilt seems to be original and intact. Though not properly preserved in the modern sense, the sword overall seems to have been cared for reasonably well.
The scabbard looks absolutely fantastic, mostly because it is only about a year old.
Comparison of the Weaks / Foibles of the Blades
1822 top, 1840 bottom
The 1822 has a considerably shorter foible, with both fullers terminating much closer to the tip. The 1822’s secondary fuller is closer in length to the main fuller than on the 1840. The fullers are also much crisper on the 1822, making the 1840 look kinda washed out in comparison. Some of that may be a result of field use and sharpening of the 1840, since its fullers are a bit crisper near the forte. Even there, though, the 1822 has a cleaner crisper finish.
Overall, the 1840 has significantly more meat at the foible than the 1822. The blade is wider, and the taper to the point is more abrupt. My iPhone camera and plain household light makes it tough to see in the size-reduced photos, but a close examination reveals that the false edge of the 1840 actually swells at the tip. By contrast, the false edge of the 1822 is a “true” false edge, and seems capable of being sharpened. This results in an effective thrusting tip on the 1822, even in its current condition.
1822 foible profile
1822 false edge
1840 foible profile
1840 false edge
[End Part One]