|
Post by Afoo on Oct 14, 2022 12:02:09 GMT
Bump - got something from Pino recently. Smooth sailing all the way.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 28, 2019 5:05:27 GMT
Right back at ya. Great doing business witb you
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 9, 2019 23:55:34 GMT
Thanks! It was a pleasure to do business with you.
Likewise, Christain was super responsive to questions, especially given my lack of experience with money orders (and not having a local bank). Very much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 11, 2019 15:22:36 GMT
Excellent - I like the canvas cover!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 23, 2018 17:41:29 GMT
Yeah. Oldswords is less ideal for the descriptions. I just use it to confirm a pattern (ie: is the unfullered blade a standard pattern, or some frankenjob or alteration). As you say, its one source of many, though at the end of the day there is no substitute for using your own brainz
Yup - so naval sword heritage seems clear. Again, I think I have Hobson somewhere at home, so will dig that up. Its really a cute pattern.
Still confused as to what the crown over 16 stands for - guessing thats an inspector mark, but have yet to find another example
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 21, 2018 6:18:05 GMT
Very good find. Thanks for the review. One example popped up on Deutsche Blankwaffen in 2008: www.deutsches-blankwaffenforum.de/topic.php?id=875The DBW OP gave it the provisional working title of ,, British Navy sabre. Sabre for privates of the Army Hospital Corpse ''. The ,, British Navy '' part is intriguing. I do not think the DBW OP's ,, British Navy '' suggestion as in ,, primarily designed for the Navy '', is far off the mark? The sturdy and short design seems to point at this too. So what is the ARMY Hospital Corps doing with it? I think bfoo2 is right - the blade may have been recycled. Its marked Mole on the spine, with a crown over 16 on the ricasso. Curiously there is no WD broad arrow anywhere. Given that the WD did not exist prior to 1855, this may suggest an earlier pattern? Note that the markings is a crown over 16 - no manufacturer code (E, B, S, etc). IIRC, the manufacturer codes came into effect in the later half of the 19th century. All this is speculation though, since no markings is not positive proof per see. Still, an interesting history
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 21, 2018 6:02:13 GMT
Private Kelly! You drunk sob! Didn't I tell you: The LEFT limb. The LEFT. Yes you schnotz, the OTHER right! Oh Mother of God! Be happy he's using the Hospital sword, not his German Cavalry lance for the amputation... Hope he's not in charge of the mess tonight....
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 20, 2018 5:33:04 GMT
The sword patterns and makers of the British Empire are generally well documented, with a wide range of material available from 1788 pattern all the way to the present. Despite this wealth of literature, a few swords slip under the radar. Today, I present one of the rarest - the British 1861 Hospital Corps Sword. I initially picked this up because it seemed like it would make a good friend with bfoo2 's 1896 Mountain Battery sword; both swords share the same cast iron grip and brass hilt, so likely shared at least some genealogy. The price was good, so I bought first and asked questions later. Turns out that not much is known about the 1861 pattern, at least not on the internet. Brian Robson's book discusses it, but I am frankly not willing to shell out $65 for a book on British swords at the moment, again given that most of the information in that book is likely available from the interwebs. I also believe bfoo2 has a copy in Canada, so I'll just take a peak at that next time I am up. I do have a quote describing it as "one of the rarest of all regulation patterns" of British Army sword issued in the previous 215 years.", which seems compelling The small number of 1861's produced is further fragmented by the fact that there appear to be several variants. One source ( Australian War Memorial) depicts a unfullered, slightly curved blade, while a retailer shows a model with a fuller. A survey from oldswords again reveals both models, along with a third one with a straight unfullered blade. The one I have has the first combination (curved, unfullered). Stats: Blade length: 27 inches PoB: 3.75 inches Taper: 8mm --> 5mm --> 3.5mm --> 2.5mm Width: 34mm - 28 mm Grip: 104 mm Weight: 2.26 lb 1861 Hospital Sword (top). 1885p shown on bottom for size comparison
This sword looks.....clumsy, with that blobular, spoooooooOoooooon-tastic blade and stubby dimensions it should handle like a sea cucumber. However, its actually surprisingly good. I won't go as far to say that its as good as the 1896 - its nowhere close, but the foundations are there, particularly when we look at the blade but more on that later SpoooOoooonWhile the bloated blade dominates the first impression, clues about the 1861's function are hidden in the grip and hilt. The cast iron grip is rugged and durable, but it has also been well sculpted. It fits the hand almost perfectly and gives good support in all areas, while offering enough room to adopt an open grip. It may not be the best grip for all people, but its shape demonstrates intent - whomever made this intended the sword to be used, and spent time and effort designing it so that it would succeed in that function. Well contoured grips of the 1861 fit the hand and facilitate movement - something which the 1885p has been alleged to lackThe guard of the 1861 suits its purpose as well. Its small and slim, as befitting someone whose main job is not to get into fights. Again though, the guard is thick and robust, like its 1896 counterpart, and the side branch is well contoured and made of robust material. Again, this shows intent in design - someone clearly thought this through from a fighting perspective Guard of the 1861
The blade is where the 1861 shines. Again, it looks super awkward, but it actually has good taper. The 1896 has better taper, but gives up on stiffness. The spear point of the 1861 rectifies this superbly - its impressively stuff even considering its short length. There is less flex in this than most cavalry swords, and it achieves this while still being reasonably light. Blade of the 1861 - stubby, but suitable
Close up of the tip/foibleThe handling is good.....ish. The blade is light and it moves around very well. I would put the blade about 75% as good as the 1896, but with the benefit of the additional stiffness. What gets it down is the weight. There is a LOT of weight in that hilt, being a solid lump of iron. The close PoB seems to support this. Interestingly, bfoo2 's 1896 weighs in at 0.2lb lighter than the 1861. I suspect that this may be due to the guard. I know what you are thinking - that extra sidebar adds a *bit* of weight for sure, but thats surely not enough brass to make up 0.2lb....and you are right. However, its not brass. My example has discolouration on the hilt, which I assumed was surface staining. Upon closer inspection however, it looks like the darker brown/grey is actually the guard material, and the brass stuff is plated ontop. The coating is definitely metallic (as opposed to paint), but it is also definitely ontop of something else. The substrate has a similar luster to iron or some other heavier base metal, which I suspect contributes to the weight. All in all, its a cute little sword. I was originally drawn to it because of its rarity, but have come to appreciate it as a fighting weapon. If eels like what the 1873 Prussian s hould be - its solid in the hand and gives you confidence, but its also light and nimble enough to dance in the hand when you need it. The grips fit the hand nicely (unlike the 1873 - at least for me), and the dimensions are perfect for its intended role as a sidearm.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 10, 2018 3:36:19 GMT
Nice find - super envious!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 10, 2018 3:35:11 GMT
At least its not the dreaded left handed 1904....
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 10, 2018 3:34:30 GMT
I looked at this model closely - and it does differ quite significantly from the Universal based on the provided KoA measurements. The hilt and grip on the EC also look nicer.
I found a few sources which indicate that it was indeed slab sided as Uhlan says, and not hollow ground like I would expect - at least for the troopers version. Its not a great handling repro, but I suspect that's in part due to the design. Compared with an original, full sized 1854 carbiners sabre with the double fullered blade it comes up short (not suprising for a repro), but not as far off as you might expect.
I really do like the length of the blade though. Aesthetically they have done something to make the blade look smaller than it actually is. Its easy to forget that you have a full meter of steel in your hands. Neat design
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 10, 2018 3:30:00 GMT
huh?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 7, 2018 1:05:44 GMT
One way to check if its a British production is look at the rivets in the grip. On British versions, the rivets lie ~10mm from the pommel (rear set), and ~17mm from the guard (front set). I think yours are spaced further than that.
Also, the guard should be 3.5 inches across. Whats it like for yours?
That said, the thickness suggests against a repro. Maybe its an India pattern? I am not sure if they made India Pattern 1885's.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 1, 2018 19:13:33 GMT
Also, Italy did not exist until 1861...
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 29, 2018 1:07:40 GMT
[...] Thus, they charged with bayonets, the P1907, with all of 17" of blade. I presume they had the bayonets fixed....
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 24, 2018 2:35:37 GMT
Mind you, that also does depend on where you live, and the customs requirements etc...
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 23, 2018 0:50:18 GMT
Yeah - its nice to know that they are making progress, rather than reselling/reissuing the same things again and again *cough windlass cough*
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 23, 2018 0:48:29 GMT
Hmm. I have an 1906 sabre, and had a similar impression. I like the 1822 and its a respectable sword. The 1906 definitely does not live up to it, but the overall package is better than what you would expect when considering each element of design individually.
I still like the 1822 more :P T
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 21, 2018 4:34:39 GMT
Right, thanks for the reminder, and also for taking the effort to write everything down. I thought for some reason someone already did the EC version, but I guess that was the WEI one I was thinking about.
I think EC is above Universal for some things. Their hussar sabres (non-Blue and Gold) look very similar to the Universal ones still. Not convinced that those have been upgraded.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 18, 2018 3:27:22 GMT
The EC seems to be a step in the right direction - its 3lb vs the 3.4 for the Universal. The wider blade confuses me, but I'll take it. Better than having a smaller blade AND being over weight....
Thanks for putting the stats and images up again for the 1806. Very useful resource!
|
|