Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 25, 2020 10:34:46 GMT
You do not have the image or do not want to share? So what exactly is your notion based on, apart from the grip that is. And I do not have the book. I have to bother someone for info from Calamandrei who may have more important things to do.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Feb 25, 2020 10:46:38 GMT
Intersting material, one 1819 hilt seems to match, but not the blade and the langets. I still have a little doubt that the fingered grip is original from 1819 and not a much later replacement. Still a riddle.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Feb 25, 2020 10:47:41 GMT
You have an image of this M1819? We all know about The Royal Sardinian Army. In a discussion one doesn't want to have to use these long tags. So Italian will do just fine in this context for now. Cheers. Isn't the hilt on yours the same as on the 1819 fort officer's sword in the illustration from Calamandrei that you posted? Like I said, that might be as close as you can get. Can't private purchase officer's swords get a little individual? I've sure run into that on gunto.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 25, 2020 12:38:39 GMT
I already explained above that Italian Officers were notorious for the personalisation of their sabres. We all know that. The point is that even the personalised sabres were based on a regulation model. The regulation model served, one has the impression, merely as a basic idea to be enhanced to ones taste. So, there must (could) be that elusive basic regulation M1819 out there. Was the M1819 a Light Cavalry sabre? Mounted Artillery? The latter at the time very much looked upon as a Light Cavalry branch? I have been delving everywhere these last 4 weeks, from Italian fora to the available catalogues from Czerny's and even Czerny's for some reason only shows the M1824 HC as oldest of the regulation models. Thus far at least. So, it is easy to drop the ,,Its an M1819 variant!'' in the middle of an ongoing discussion, but without proof an M1819 even existed (in regulation form) this brings us exactly nowhere. I say this, because Calamandrei in the pages Dave send me talks about a period mostly, 1819 - 1829. Not in specific (regulation) models like we see with the M1855 Officers for instance, but an assortment of sabres from a specific period. Not an M designation in sight as far as I can see. Maybe the first regulation model WAS the M1824 HC for all I know. That's why an image and documantation of this mysterious M1819 (whatever it was, Cavalry or Artillery) would be important evidence. Thus far nothing can be found. Only assorted Officers sabres swept into a sort of dustbin like time frame. That's why one can understand were the suggestion the sabre being a sort of souped up and turbo charched Prussian M1811 comes from. And why even Romania gets it. Cheers.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 25, 2020 13:45:05 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 16:31:18 GMT
Yes, descriptions and labels become a bit ambiguous. Particularly sellers that have only a vague idea or exposure to the material. RE the balled grips, the best collective examples are shared in Bezdek's 1812 offering www.amazon.com/Swords-Sword-Makers-War-1812/dp/0873649273A slim book that used to be available as an E book and has become somewhat unobtainium and often selling for more than a dollar a page. The photos are limited but the US American trade and maker data where most of Bezdek's works stand above many compilations of the information. Give me time and energy and I might get up some pages, as/for informational use. There are a number of other US books that show the evolution and most of the influences were still English and Germanic but as a stew, also other influences. Off the top of my head from my files, here are two British flank officer hilts that show three distinctive traits, while both swords individual in and of themselves. Not as distinctively "balled" you see the fewer number of wire turns of one and likely contoured cores. Some would still list these as derivatives of the 1796 form (not in my book). Sometimes first impressions are correct and spotting, learning from books invaluable. As soon as I would exclaim the extreme "balling" as unique to the US makers, someone would come along with other evidence but we can somewhat categorize stuff. Cheers GC
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 25, 2020 18:12:39 GMT
Early form of the later (German inspired?) pistol grip? If one looks at pistol designs of the period, these are not far off I think. I must say it is an ,,acquired taste'' kinda thing as they look rather off, but hey, if it works it works. These two are from the turn of the century? If so, grips like these might have inspired someone at the Royal Sardinian high command to introduce them there. As the financial situation of the RSA at the time was rather precarious at best, Cavalry for instance was at the beginning of the Italian adventure almost non existant as deemed too expensive, these balled grips may have saved some money. There was this trend over there to import just the blades and the scabbards from Solingen and do grip work, fitting and assembly in house.
Thanks very much for the book link.
Cheers.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 25, 2020 19:57:37 GMT
Dave just mailed me with the message that what is depicted on the pages are so called Fort Officers sabres. The interesting part is that in both the RSA and in America this function was performed by Artillery Officers. So, we're looking at Artillery sabres and this proves the seller of the sabre right, as a document and a belt buckle included in the package are related to the Artillery. The belt buckle for sure. As I was rather sceptical of a relation between the document and belt buckle and the sabre, as anyone can just hussle some stuff together to ,,enhance'' the desireabillity of merchandise, I did not include them into this search. The document seems to relate to a private in the Nizza Cavalry regiment, so here the relationship seems to be questionable at best. I hope you understand. As it turns out the function of Fort Officer is one performed by Artillery Officers both in America and the RSA it looks like, to me at least, there may have been more than a casual relationship between the two entities, balled grips included. I asked Dave whether he knows anything about that. Maybe Edelweiss can chime in too. I only know of the relationship with France. Not more than High School level that.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 25, 2020 21:38:34 GMT
Later we wanted Garibaldi to crush the southern rebels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2020 0:27:05 GMT
As in my first reply, I would disavow US involvement and even influence. Just as some write that the US m1902 was birthed of a marriage between the French 1882 and the Italian grips of their 1888, others will counter with the actual design parameters of the US m1902 (the discussion is elsewhere). Re; the two flank officer swords, yes, Napoleonic era. I had actually posted more of one of them in another thread and the cant to help bring the point in line. Others will show kukri, yataghan and others as an influence to the edge forward philosophy. We see the cant on several swords as a trend. The US 1812-1813 and 1818 contracts vary in the cant and part of that because Starr was outsourcing the bladesmithing with others filing the rough blanks. Another rabbit hole but the Starr letters and notes are in the Hicks book, which one might stumble on at a must have price. Mine was ex library and a bargain. www.amazon.com/Nathan-Starr-Official-Maker-1776-1845/dp/B002Z3QFEKThe Bezdek books fill in a lot of blanks and my own shelves contain a couple/few that are more complete in some aspects. I have yet to find one do-all book for US swords, as it was more diverse than can really be listed in a single paragraph or indeed, one thread. Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 26, 2020 2:48:56 GMT
As in my first reply, I would disavow US involvement and even influence. Just as some write that the US m1902 was birthed of a marriage between the French 1882 and the Italian grips of their 1888, others will counter with the actual design parameters of the US m1902 (the discussion is elsewhere). Re; the two flank officer swords, yes, Napoleonic era. I had actually posted more of one of them in another thread and the cant to help bring the point in line. Others will show kukri, yataghan and others as an influence to the edge forward philosophy. We see the cant on several swords as a trend. The US 1812-1813 and 1818 contracts vary in the cant and part of that because Starr was outsourcing the bladesmithing with others filing the rough blanks. Another rabbit hole but the Starr letters and notes are in the Hicks book, which one might stumble on at a must have price. Mine was ex library and a bargain. www.amazon.com/Nathan-Starr-Official-Maker-1776-1845/dp/B002Z3QFEKThe Bezdek books fill in a lot of blanks and my own shelves contain a couple/few that are more complete in some aspects. I have yet to find one do-all book for US swords, as it was more diverse than can really be listed in a single paragraph or indeed, one thread. Cheers GC Link to the original design parameters of the M1902? I've read a thread regarding the argument between Mle1882 and M1888 influence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2020 3:27:06 GMT
As in my first reply, I would disavow US involvement and even influence. Just as some write that the US m1902 was birthed of a marriage between the French 1882 and the Italian grips of their 1888, others will counter with the actual design parameters of the US m1902 (the discussion is elsewhere). Re; the two flank officer swords, yes, Napoleonic era. I had actually posted more of one of them in another thread and the cant to help bring the point in line. Others will show kukri, yataghan and others as an influence to the edge forward philosophy. We see the cant on several swords as a trend. The US 1812-1813 and 1818 contracts vary in the cant and part of that because Starr was outsourcing the bladesmithing with others filing the rough blanks. Another rabbit hole but the Starr letters and notes are in the Hicks book, which one might stumble on at a must have price. Mine was ex library and a bargain. www.amazon.com/Nathan-Starr-Official-Maker-1776-1845/dp/B002Z3QFEKThe Bezdek books fill in a lot of blanks and my own shelves contain a couple/few that are more complete in some aspects. I have yet to find one do-all book for US swords, as it was more diverse than can really be listed in a single paragraph or indeed, one thread. Cheers GC Link to the original design parameters of the M1902? I've read a thread regarding the argument between Mle1882 and M1888 influence. The image is gone, it is an old thread. It is possible Varangian might check in (as an erstwhile poster) but the letter posted was his contribution. www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/128411-1902-saber-question/?It is the circular type of debate that doesn't really offer much new but may be new news to some. I was a much younger man 9 years ago but in my feeble minded geriatrics, I pulled up the thread in a few minutes. Cheers GC Sean @ SFI www.swordforum.com/vb4/member.php?24276-Sean-Scott&tab=aboutmeSBG sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/user/5996
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 26, 2020 11:41:24 GMT
I am afraid we all take your ,,feeble minded geriatrics'' with a large helping of salt. :)
This turned out to be one interesting thread and I bookmarked it for future reference because I have just bought the darn thing.... Hopefully I do not have to resort to eating peanutbutter sandwiches for too long.
Now the waiting begins. In the meantime I am thinking about mailing Czerny's hoping they have something conclusive to say about the still elusive Sardinian M1819. Maybe they even have an image. That would be great.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Feb 26, 2020 12:30:38 GMT
This has been a fascinating thread to read. Thanks to all for sharing. Uhlan - congratulations on an interesting saber.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 26, 2020 13:21:33 GMT
Ya, you really started something Uhlan. And congratulations on your new purchase.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Feb 26, 2020 14:32:11 GMT
Indeed, a very cool saber and an interesting discussion - and many thanks for everyone who linked references, too!
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 26, 2020 15:54:39 GMT
I sure hope this is not the end of the discussion, but let's say that I would like to thank everybody involved in this thread thus far. UH. Feels like a funeral speech or an Oscar acceptance speech which, judging by the latters low ratings, amounts to almost the same.... I hope the inspection of the sabre will turn up some makers marks and/or Sardinian inspection stamps. I decided to wait with Czerny's until I have had the time to look the sabre over. In the meantime the search must go on. Cheers.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 26, 2020 17:52:25 GMT
Spend some time sifting through the stock of assorted Italian museums. bbcc.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/pater/search.doFound this sabre at the Modena museum. The blade comes quite close, though the blade under review here is more curved. Hussar sabre from 1800-1820. The museum says it's probably Turkish (because there are Turkheads on the blade?) which is a load of nonsense. This thing is either French or Austrian or a Solingen copy thereof. The hilt type is probably easy to trace. I have seen it before many a time. Very interesting pointer I think.
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Feb 27, 2020 0:33:24 GMT
Yo dudes, I think Calamandrei's books has a mistake, the sword at page 41 is dated 1819 but marked as a foot officer sword, doesn't make much sense when you look at a real infantry officer sword M1819. And at page 499 there is a sword labelled as Royal Staff Officer corp sword 1831 and at page 500 3 swords labelled as Light cav Officer swords 1831 and they all seem to be the same type of sword. My bet is on being either a Staff Officer 1831 or a LC 1832 sword. No need for Czerny, when you have a Sword God such as I... Ok ok, I'll show myself the way out now!! Ufficiali del Corpo Reale di Stato Maggiore 1831 Sciabole per ufficiali di cavalleria adottate nel 1831
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 0:39:05 GMT
It is the thickness of the guard stock that makes me lean later than earlier.
|
|