|
|
Post by puzon on Nov 27, 2024 8:51:07 GMT
Good morning I would like to ask for help in identifying this saber. It seems to me that it will be an officer's light cavalry 1796 England. I am wondering about the rather large curve of the blade. Theoretically, the officer could have ordered the blade individually. There are no additional markings. What do you think? Puzon |
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 27, 2024 9:03:27 GMT
That looks like an insane curve for a 1796LC. Look here: www.antique-swords.co.uk/how-much-do-1796-pattern-light-cavalry-sabres-weighLooks like No. 5, maybe same source?
No. 5 - Private purchase by Osborn & Gunby. Mass 860g. Balance 16.5cm from hilt. Blade 78cm long (extra curved). Gotta say I am no expert and have only seen a few of these heavily curved LCs and know next to nothing about them.
I have also seen this one, but the general blade shape and the angle of the grip don't fit yours. |
|
|
|
Post by madirish on Nov 27, 2024 15:16:26 GMT
This would likely be a 1796 style-adjacent Flank Officers' Sabre, I believe. They were quite curvy and were for Infantry officers (Grenadiers and Light Infantry), generally, but could be found in Naval, Volunteer, and Cavalry units, too. Inspired by the 1796 and by very curved Egyptian blades, as I understand it. It was not a regulation pattern (the 1796 Infantry Officers' Sword was "regulation", but not well loved). The succeeding 1803 pattern followed with a quite curved blade, but a different hilt altogether. I found this graphic of Osborn blades as an example...  |
|
|
|
Post by puzon on Nov 27, 2024 18:13:25 GMT
Thank you, there is indeed a lot of truth in what you write. Officer's light cavalry and such a curved blade could have happened as shown by your links and Osborn's graphics. It is also worth returning to the guard which is not steel but probably brass. Puzon
|
|
|
|
Post by bas on Nov 28, 2024 3:38:26 GMT
That's a great-looking sword, and it's definitely British from the Napoleonic era. To properly answer your question, we also need to know the length of the blade (from guard to tip in a straight line). While not a perfect methodology, it will help narrow it down some. Some observations to begin with: - It's not a true 1796 Pattern light cavalry sword. The clue here is the use of 'pattern'. It means the sword must follow a specific template to qualify as following the pattern, which this one doesn't on account of the curve and what I suspect is a 30inch blade.
- Cavalry swords will use longer blades, typically around 32 inches.
- The 1796 light cavalry sabre style most certainly inspired it, which was common in this period.
- The hilt is brass or gilt. The regulation was to have the hilt match the material of the uniform buttons: silver/steel for cavalry and gilt/brass for the infantry. When the rifles companies were formed, they used silver buttons as their uniforms drew a lot from the cavalry.
- These rules only applied to regular army uniforms. They didn't extend to militias and the yeomanry, of which there were a lot!
- Typically, mounted officers use steel scabbards. Leather is preferred for dismounted use as it's lighter, and steel is preferred for mounted use as it better protects the sword while riding.
- We don't know if there was a regulation dress sword for light cavalry officers, but there is a reference to them carrying a smaller, lighter version of their standard field sabre in dress uniform.
All said and done, it's a very nice example of a Georgian era British officers sabre, in the 1796 LC style.
|
|
|
|
Post by puzon on Nov 28, 2024 13:07:56 GMT
Thank you very much Bas for this detailed description. Blade length 71 cm. Puzon
|
|
|
|
Post by bas on Nov 28, 2024 22:13:54 GMT
Thank you very much Bas for this detailed description. Blade length 71 cm. Puzon
Too short for fighting from horseback then.
It most likely was originally owned by a militia officer or a regular army officer with enough rank to ride instead of march everywhere. |
|
