|
Post by jimmythedonut on Oct 14, 2021 8:23:12 GMT
Hello all, sorry to bother you again, but I am looking for some clarification on a sword I got. I won a Catawiki for what was ostensibly an 1845 with an 82cm blade. Turns out it was only 77cm. Also turns out I should have been using the automatic bid function instead of going to my max immediately, probably could have saved a few hundred over the years. But I digress. It appears to be a normal 1845 Infantry sword. Steel scabbard, horn grip, SLIGHTLY curved Montmorency style blade. It was covered in rust, red and black, and what looks like decades of grime. I am doing my best to clean this up and I've mostly gotten down to the pitting. In terms of this being a period sword, I have no doubt at all. But I have a few questions I am hoping someone more versed in the French patterns of swords can help me answer. The first one is the distal taper. Much like a Belgian private purchase sabre (also of the French 1845 pattern, 86cm blade, but the leather scabbard, likely a special purchase for a Sergeant Armourer) I recently got (that won't fit back in the scabbard it arrived in by about 1cm but that is a story for another thread), it has ABYSMAL feel in the hand. The 1845 has about a 6mm thickness at the base. I have tried to reverse engineer thicknesses of other examples and it does look like there are examples with 7-9mm thicknesses which is what I should expect. It doesn't feel useless. Certainly if they handed me this and told me that in 30 seconds the Prussians would enter my room it would serve as an example. But there is no life in the sword, it feels more like a blunt dead fencing sword I would use at HEMA practice. Was a 6mm thickness common? I cannot identify any marking on the blade, a few angular marks on the drag of the scabbard but nothing else. Nothing on the spine, nothing on the guard, nothing on the scabbard rings. The second question is on weight. I am well aware that the French officers had a WIDE variety of options for their personal arms. But as this is the lower-officer sabre-pattern sword, I feel there should be less variance. By my estimates, I track about something between 800-840 grams, I apologize but my current scale only shows in lbs and it's a game of doing my best Clint Eastwood stare to try and guesstimate how close the dial is to the next pound sign. That's not a bad weight at all, and the sword is somewhat backweighted towards the hand, even moreso than lighter but livelier swords like the Swiss M1867 dismounted officer's sword which feels more like a sabre than this one (something I never thought I would say). I was just wondering if there was information on weight ranges and standards for this pattern. The knuckle guard initially appeared dented in, as if it received a blow to it at some point but I am not sure now, it curves without any sign of major impact at a specific point. The guard has chips and cracks on it, either from neglect or impacts, but the castings are very nice and don't look to be fake at all. Finally, the scabbard appears slightly different. The rings appear to start closer to the throat than other examples, I can only estimate how much, say 2-3" or so. Sword fits in snugly and tight, this is a legitimate sword. If anyone can help me figure out if I am reading too much into this or if it possibly belongs to a country that also used French 1845 pattern swords I'd really appreciate it. I am aware the Belgians used it (though at 76/77cm their scabbards should be leather, not steel) alongside the Americans (though without the horn grip from what I have heard) but I am not sure who else. I'm gonna try and fix it up as much as I can, see if I can make a small profit on it (got it for pretty cheap) and maybe use the funds to buy a spine-marked nicer condition version but maybe I will fall in love with this one? I have attached photos as well, please let me know if you need any more from other angles. There is NOTHING on the ricasso on either side, in fact I started cleaning the blade primarily to see if I could uncover any markings there. Thank you!
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 16, 2021 17:24:04 GMT
Hello Jimmy. The French Infantry 1845 sabre originally had a leather scabbard. In 1855 this was changed to sheet iron for the NCO model, so what you have here should be an M1845/55. The regulation Adjudant model kept the leather scabbard up until 1870. The Superior Off. blade was straight and 86cm long and the NCO/Adjudent slightly curved and 77 cm long. As the above are regulation sabres they should be etched with the usual identification and date on the spine and have poincons on the flat of the blade. So far the French side of things. Problem may be that what you have here is not French. Like you said it may be Belgian, but it also could be Swiss or US. Over time the iron scabbards had the ring mounts changed. The lower one, nearest to the drag, came up, but the upper one kept the same old position of about 2" from the mouth. Apart from the regulation models there were the private order variants too, but those would in general also be marked as such. The furbisher's address could be stamped under the guard plate. The Swiss model would most probably be made by a contract Solingen forge. In your case there seem to be no marks at all although you say something about some stamps on the scabbard drag. I would like to see those. Also a picture of the entire blade would be welcome. It looks like you do not have a standard blade, but I am not sure what it could be because I cannot see the rest. Also a picture of the rest of the scabbard. The drag design could be telling too. Hope this may be of help so far. Cheers. Ps. Run this link through Google translate if you do not read French: www.passionmilitaria.com/f165-armes-blanchesThis is the French go-to site for everything French made that cuts and stabs.
|
|
|
Post by maxdchouinard on Oct 22, 2021 16:51:19 GMT
So a couple of things. There are some old ideas floating around about French sabres, some of them have only recently been corrected.
I should make a post to really document all of the particularities of each model, but basically what you have there is an 1845 adjudant, made sometime after 1851, based on the cast steel blade. The scabbard, if it's original, would put it between 1873 and 1883, when the two ring steel scabbard was introduced to adjudants and before the model was phased out.
Post 1855 adjudants sabres tend to be a lot heavier than their officer counterparts. This was a way to make sure that they endured being passed around the regiment for decades. This is why many NCOs (who often composed the bulk of fencing masters) would buy their own sabres.
The quality of French swords can vary wildly based on where and when it was made. Keep in mind that France had the largest land army for most of the 19th century. A sabre made in 1870 or 1915 could have been made in urgency, or by unskilled workers. Châtellerault manuf pieces tend to be the highest quality, but there are sabres that were made by cutlers who normally made table knives and got into the sword business for a few years during a major conflict.
As for small details like position of rings and such, I would give no mind for such small details as they again varied a lot, especially with fittings that could have been made by a fourbisseur.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 24, 2021 11:04:03 GMT
Hallo Max.
I would like to know how you determined the blade was cast? Generally the only way to know is when the blade is marked on the spine with ,,Acier Fondu''?
The two ring steel sheet scabbards for Adjudants were introduced in 1855, hence the regulation M1845/55, according to my information. I hope all the books about French sabres do not have this wrong? Could you also point me where I can find this new ,,corrected'' information? Very curious.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by maxdchouinard on Oct 30, 2021 5:08:23 GMT
Hallo Max. I would like to know how you determined the blade was cast? Generally the only way to know is when the blade is marked on the spine with ,,Acier Fondu''? The two ring steel sheet scabbards for Adjudants were introduced in 1855, hence the regulation M1845/55, according to my information. I hope all the books about French sabres do not have this wrong? Could you also point me where I can find this new ,,corrected'' information? Very curious. Cheers. The round fuller comes around just after cast (or rather crucible; of Bessemer, and later Martin type) steel got introduced. It started being used in 1845 at Chatellerault, though it's unclear when Klingenthal followed suit. You are right that the first examples in the 1820s and 30s were sometimes marked AF for acier fondue, as they were kind of a trial run. But by 1855, all French blades were required to be made with crucible steel, as mentioned here by Lt. col Thiroux in 1860. I think you may be confused between the adjudant and subaltern officer models. Here's a rundown of how they each evolved. 1845: Both get introduced. The subaltern officer model is said to have gilt brass mounts, while the adjudant is only brass. 1855: The 1855 model for subaltern officers gets introduced. While it's true that it has a steel scabbard, this is not the defining characteristic. The biggest difference is actually pretty small, and is mostly how the secondary fuller now stops are the forte instead of continuing to the guard. Meanwhile, the adjudant model sees no pattern change as the sword is still the same design. Here's a comparaison of an 1845 and an 1855 side by side. Notice the secondary fuller, as well as the now round shoulder thanks to new materials and production methods. And here is the description from the Official Military Journal of 1856, mentioning that the secondary fuller now needs to start at 145mm from the shoulder. 1870: The adjudant model gets a steel scabbard. The pattern designation remains the same. 1882: The subaltern officer M1855 is replaced by the M1882. 1883: The adjudant M1845's scabbard loses a ring. 1916: the adjudant M1845 is phased out. Long story short, there is no 1845/55, as the scabbard was never a determining factor for a pattern designation. The mistake got made by earlier collectors who did not notice that difference or research the regulation changes in detail, and was only clarified at the start of this year! I would be very careful when using older reference books, especially on post Napoleonic swords. A lot of new information has been uncovered since then, so I would recommend the works of Jean Ondry, and always use older sources like Lhoste as secondary ones.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Oct 30, 2021 6:21:43 GMT
Hallo Max. I would like to know how you determined the blade was cast? .., The round fuller comes around just after cast (or rather crucible; of Bessemer, and later Martin type) steel got introduced. It started being used in 1845 at Chatellerault, though it's unclear when Klingenthal followed suit. .. Here's a comparaison of an 1845 and an 1855 side by side. Notice the secondary fuller, as well as the now round shoulder thanks to new materials and production methods. … Hey, y’all. Okay, please forgive my ignorance. I’ve asked this question before, but I didn’t really understand the answer I received. I’ll try to be more specific this time around. Would you please elaborate on what new materials made rounded shoulders (I don’t know the technical terms, but I gathered the “shoulder” is the proximal fuller termination) newly possible/preferable and why? I see that your post refers to the contemporaneously new steel making process. Was there something about the earlier steel that demanded the squared shoulders? Was the newer steel more capable of being economically shaped with new tools or processes? If so, what were they? If the blades were cast, were rounded fuller terminations easier? Obviously, both older and newer models had rounded (not square, anyway) distal fuller terminations. It is hard for me to imagine what new process made rounded shoulders “suddenly” possible. (I’m not disputing your information or anything. I think I’m just missing something.) Similarly, regarding the appearance of the secondary fuller, the French 1822 cavalry sabers had them all the way back to 1822. Indeed, I have an 1822 heavy cav officer saber with a Klingenthal blade dated to 1817. It has the squared fuller shoulder and the secondary fuller. So, again, I’m just not getting what/why new materials and production methods made secondary fullers and rounded fuller shoulders newly possible/preferable. Again, sorry for my ignorance and for my rambling question. I just don’t understand the connection, and I would very much like to.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 30, 2021 9:05:00 GMT
I would like to know the source of this new info. Do you have a link to this forum or publication where this new info was first presented? Would very much like to read the discussion.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by maxdchouinard on Oct 30, 2021 21:25:54 GMT
I would like to know the source of this new info. Do you have a link to this forum or publication where this new info was first presented? Would very much like to read the discussion. Cheers. Right here for the change in the 1855 model: www.passionmilitaria.com/t201822-sabre-mle-1855-reglementaire-ou-fantaisieChanges in material and techniques: www.passionmilitaria.com/t195588-sabre-de-cavalerie-legere-modele-1822Do you also wanted to see the one about the changes in scabbards for the 1845? I can't find it right now, but I have the official documents ordering the change. I don't think this was published in Ondry's latest book as it came up after it got printed, but taking a look at the numerous models showcased in his 4 books you can see the differences quite clearly. If you think about it, no other pattern ever got renamed because of a change of scabbard, and if you look at the models from Chatellerault, which were to be produced exactly to regulations, they clearly name the adjudant 1845, and the officer 1855, regardless of the type of scabbard; which could easily be swapped anyway. Link to Ondry's books. www.lalibrairie.com/livres/auteurs/jean-ondry,0-11415589.html
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 31, 2021 9:30:29 GMT
Thanks for the links. Passion Militaria is a great forum indeed. To tell you the truth I too was rather p!ssed when I first read your new info, but now PM is involved it looks like some changes have to be made here and there. PM does not beat around the bush and does not deal in nonsense. Period. I hope l'Hoste too will bring out a new edition. He's one of the few who publish great basic info for a reasonable price. And a reasonable price is very important for people who just start out in the field. I do not get it why he draws so much flak lately, mostly by people who can easily afford 800$ books is my impression. This new info coming out is again proof that, as I stated I think a year or two ago, the entire sabre world and research is in a constant state of flux. I even mentioned PM as a source for change. Too many people on too many fora do not like that notion and bunker down not wanting to accept. Like it is a personal attack. Lots of venom all over the place. Involvement in the research for this sabre: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/66024/pottenstein-signed-austrian-hungarian-madonna made it abundantly clear to me that when emotions take over from facts all reason is thrown out of the window. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by maxdchouinard on Nov 1, 2021 18:49:25 GMT
Hey, y’all. Okay, please forgive my ignorance. I’ve asked this question before, but I didn’t really understand the answer I received. I’ll try to be more specific this time around. Would you please elaborate on what new materials made rounded shoulders (I don’t know the technical terms, but I gathered the “shoulder” is the proximal fuller termination) newly possible/preferable and why? I see that your post refers to the contemporaneously new steel making process. Was there something about the earlier steel that demanded the squared shoulders? Was the newer steel more capable of being economically shaped with new tools or processes? If so, what were they? If the blades were cast, were rounded fuller terminations easier? Obviously, both older and newer models had rounded (not square, anyway) distal fuller terminations. It is hard for me to imagine what new process made rounded shoulders “suddenly” possible. (I’m not disputing your information or anything. I think I’m just missing something.) Similarly, regarding the appearance of the secondary fuller, the French 1822 cavalry sabers had them all the way back to 1822. Indeed, I have an 1822 heavy cav officer saber with a Klingenthal blade dated to 1817. It has the squared fuller shoulder and the secondary fuller. So, again, I’m just not getting what/why new materials and production methods made secondary fullers and rounded fuller shoulders newly possible/preferable. Again, sorry for my ignorance and for my rambling question. I just don’t understand the connection, and I would very much like to. Just to clarify, what I call shoulder is what I used to call ricasso, until I realized that they weren't the same. It is the part of the blade that usually comes in contact with the guard. If you look at this rapier for example, the blade has a ricasso but also a shoulder. A 19th century sabre has no ricasso, but has a shoulder. So when I say the 1845 has a square shoulder, and the 1855 has a round shoulder, I'm mostly referring to the blocky appearance of the 1845's and the fact that the fuller tends to end very abruptly on it, while the 1855 has a very smooth shoulder, with round sides and a fuller that very gradually sinks into it. So I am not referring to the fullers especially. You can see it clearly even on the superior officer sabre. The 1845 has a very sharp looking shoulder, while the 1855 is a lot subtler with rounder fuller terminations. So for the process of producing them, I'm afraid I am far from an expert and I am mostly repeating what more knowledgeable folks said about them. AFAIK, the square version is usually (though not always) forged and finished by hand, including grinding and cutting, while the round one is usually made using anvil fullers and shapes, and often mechanized ones. It's simpler to make (if you have the equipment) and does not necessitate as much secondary processes such as counter polishing. I also believe, and don't take my word for it, that the crucible steel that was then used was harder to work, since it was generally a harder type of steel, and shaping it the old way was a major headache. I hope that makes sense. The problem with French swords is that surprisingly little has been published on them over the years, especially outside the Napoleonic period. This is due to the lack of interest if France for material culture studies, and the effect is that the French sword collecting world is years behind what has been done in Britain for example. We know very little about the how and why certain patterns came to be, and a lot of very basic things are now just starting to be corrected or even addressed. I also think that generally the ressources now available online have really pushed things forward. In the past, you needed to scour archives and libraries hoping to find that information, with the result that often only one person had the time and ressources to do this. Now, you can have many people all around the globe looking at this using precise keywords. Lhoste did some great things, and I use many of his books as pictorial references, but he had a tendency of stating suppositions as facts, as people are increasingly finding out, so it's hard to use them if you don't have anything else to rely on. His books were widely published though, so it's easier to find them at reasonable prices, where a lot of other references that are out of print are now sold at insane prices. Unfortunately, Mr.Lhoste passed away in 2010, but people like Pétard and Ondry are still around and hopefully will keep publishing new material. Though Ondry had a very rough time finding a publisher, and even then he had to nearly force them to publish his last one since the market is so small. I am hoping to post a few articles on my website in the future to help bring new information forward.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 1, 2021 19:12:08 GMT
Thank you for the further information.
|
|
|
Post by jimmythedonut on Jan 9, 2022 21:11:52 GMT
|
|