|
Post by Afoo on Oct 17, 2018 1:32:50 GMT
Thanks. The hilt does not stink, though the quick corrosion is a bit of a pain. I think I will let it brown for a bit to achieve a more manageable finish. Its hard to say what they made it of, but its not obviously cheap or rubbish, asides from the rapid tarnishing/patination
I would say that the handling is actually pretty good for a repro. The hilt material is 3.5mm thick. I feel that its a bit overbuilt ,but not as bad as the Universal ones, and the weight is reasonable. I just think that, with a sword as wide and as long as this one, you will have mediocre handling no matter what.
I suspect that the sword may be manufactured in eastern europe now - the grip is not undersized, and the blade has really good springiness for its thickness. Thats just a hunch though
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 15, 2018 4:26:06 GMT
EC Grenadier horse guards sword (top) compared to an 1822LC tmre 1882 (bottom)My interest in this sword stems mainly from its aesthetics, as the Napoleonic wars falls a bit before my main area of interest. As such, this section will lean heavily upon a few references and will be relatively brief. Calling the horse Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard (Grenadier a cheval de la garde) an elite formation in Napoleon’s Imperial Guard is a bit of an understatement. More fitting would be to call them THE elite formation, being the senior heavy cavalry regiment of the old guard – which is the Napoleonic military equivalent of holding an M.D. PhD J.D MBA. They were the most privileged and exclusive unit with a compliment of just over 1000 men at any one time, many of whom played a notable part in numerous conflicts and engagements across the Napoleonic wars from Iberia to Siberia. The illustrious nature of the Grenadiers is conveyed in their sabre design. They were initially issued with a straight-bladed weapon, which was replaced by a slightly curved sabre in 1806. Both versions feature a flared hilt decorated with the flaming grenade emblem, though I seriously question the feasibility of tossing flaming grenades from horses. The post-1806 version is available from both Universal and Empire Costume featuring the grenade hilt coupled with a menacing Montmorency blade almost one meter in length housed in a brass and leather scabbard Post-1806 Sabre (Universal) Note that I am reviewing the EMPIRE COSTUME versionThe hilt The hilt of this weapon was what appealed to me the most. It is in essence a 3-bar hilt featuring the grenade crest. However, its proportions are more comparable to the 4-bar hilts seen in the later 1822/1854 line cavalry swords. The hilt is actually only 3.5 inches wide, but it extends much further down the back of your hand to give excellent protection – almost like a half basket hilt. Hand protection offered by the EC. 1822 LC in backgroundThe decoration is extremely well done – the flaming grenade has great detail, and the bars and other structural elements are well formed, with well defined ridges and valleys. The front “face” of the guard also features crisp detailing, unlike the Universal equivalent which employs a slab-sided blank square which looks like it was leftover from another project. The lack of definition and detailing on the other structural elements puts the Universal product further behind the Empire Costume offering. Detail of the Empire Costume (left) compared to the Universal (right). SadThis trend extends towards the grip, which is much better sculpted on the EC version, with smooth elegant lines which not only look good, but make the sabre very comfortable in the hand. The point falls very naturally in line and the grip gives good support without restricting maneuverability. Grip of the EC (top) compared to an original 1822 LC. The 1822 is more comfortable, but not by much. Great care has definitely been put into the EC gripOne issue I have with the EC product is its construction. On my example, the knuckle-bow is not fully inserted into the pommel cap. This is not a major issue since the rest of the construction seems solid. I e-mailed Empire Costume to bring this to their attention, but thus far no response. The images on EC’s website do not show a similar defect. As such, I believe this is a one-off error rather than a systematic flaw in the sword design, though it does not lend confidence to their QC practices. Knuckle Bow doesn't make it all the way - just like Napoleon's invasion of RussiaEven with this flaw, the EC product is miles ahead of the Universal counterpart, and that alone makes it worth the elevated costs in my books. If I wanted something that handles well, I have antiques. This sword was purchased just for bling, and I would argue it meets, if not exceeds expectations in that category. More details of the guardOne more issue I noticed is that the brass of the guard corrodes really quickly – I touched it with my hands, and within 8 hours there were already some light brown fingerprints – and that’s even with a coat of oil. I know fingerprints corrode metals, but normally you don’t expect something within a work day. The brass has been brought to a very epic polish, so perhaps as it builds up a patina over time it will become more resistant. Either way, this is not something I have noticed on other brass repros, so figured I would mention it here. The BladeThe pictures of this sword available from EC’s website do a good job showing off the workmanship and build quality. However, they do not do a good job showing the blade – in fact there is no picture which shows the whole sword and blade together. As such, I used the Universal Swords equivalent for a reference. From the stats on KoA, it seemed like the Grenadier’s sword would have a long, slender thrusting blade similar to the 1822 bancal. This is supported by some other sources, which give a blade width of 3cm, or 1.2 inches for this pattern in line with the Universal. However, the blade on the EC version is quite a bit broader, coming in at 3.4 cm, or 1.34 inches at the base. The grip on the EC is wider than the originals, so I think they had to beef up the blade to compensate. While this may be a historical anachronism, I think it works nicely. The wider blade makes the sword feel very authoritative and intimidating – you have something as wide as a 1796 LC, and as long as the 1822 Bancal. The wide fullers have great definition, and definitely help accentuate the sense of graceful power. I like the fact that the fullers go almost all the way to the edge as well, making the sword both lighter while further accentuating the width of the blade. While not apparent from the mark one eyeball, there is a drastic amount of profile taper, with the blade shrinking to 2.5cm or 1 inch at the end of the fuller. Achieving this amount of taper without making the sword look overly pointy and scrawny is a minor feat of craftsmanship and design in my opinion. Massive, broad blade on the Horse Grenadier's sabre
Definition of the foible and fullers. Note how it absolutely DWARFS the 1822 tmre. The Tmre is not a big sword, but this thing completely obliterates it...
Another view showing the pincoins and fuller definition. Note that the 1822 has a similar blade width as the 1822 line cav and yet....
Detail of etching on the spineThe taper on the blade is modest, though well within what you would expect from a repro. The 7mm stock is really not bad for a repro, but in this application its really not enough to support the rather long blade. There is notable floppiness in the last ¼ - its not awful, but you will notice it on certain maneuvers. I do not do test cutting but I suspect it would be noticeable there as well. View of taper down the bladeHandling
At first glance, the handling is mediocre. However, that’s because the aesthetics make you forget how BIG this thing is. When you consider that the Grenadier has similar stars to the 1854 HC, then you start to realize how good it is. Its maneuverable and easy to move for its size, and it can hang with swords which are 80% of its size. For example, I would rate the EC as similar to the Windlass 1906, despite the latter having a much smaller blade. The grip is well sculpted and makes the sword easy to point without getting in the way of dynamic handling, while the large guard and dramatic profile/modest distal taper helps cut down on weight. Its no match for an 1822 Bancal or LC, but as discussed earlier those have much smaller blades, so that’s to be expected. The most relevant comparison I have is with the 1854 HC, since they have similar sized blades. Here, the Grenadiers trounces the 1854 – it feels much livelier despite the further PoB. That said, 1854 trades dynamic handling for excessive stiffness and rigidity. Given the floppiness of the EC, I think the trade was worth it. ScabbardThe scabbard is also well done, though has the same quick-corroding brass as the guard. It holds the sword well, and is not comically oversized like what you see on some of the Universal offerings. OverallIn order to make an assessment, we have to first identify the criteria – mainly what niche or role this repro fills in your collection. While the handling is reasonable, its not really its strong suit. No, this sword was meant to be displayed proudly on your desk as a work of art, with its gleaming gold guard twinkling in the pale moonlight, casting shadows which for a brief moment reveal the ghosts of a glorious empire in a time of strife. In this regard, the Empire Costume does admirably. My only complaint is that poorly assembled guard, but I suspect that is an issue with an individual sword, and not a systematic error inherent to the entire production line. Full link to images: flic.kr/s/aHsmruhS62Sources (non-SBG) swordscollection.blogspot.com/2012/02/horse-grenadier-saber-third-pattern.htmlwww.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/IMPERIAL_GUARD_cavalry_1.html#frenchguardcavalrygrenadiersImages from KoA are liberally marked as such.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 24, 2018 22:36:05 GMT
Thanks for the review - nice to know the blade holds up at least. The nice clean lines make it appealing despite the rough finish - gives it a more munitions grade feel to the piece - something more akin to the 1811 blucher which was manufactured in massive quantities for bulk use. True it lacks the hussar "bling", but the simple design would not have supported such an aesthetic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 14, 2018 22:39:40 GMT
Great writeup! The 1853 series of swords is quite a contradiction in terms of the information available - the 1853 and its descendants are well known, but specific information concerning their relationship is harder to find. Its easy to look up the 1853 pattern, but to identify the link between it and the 1864 and 1882 is harder than one would expect. Most sources give the vague notion that there were minor changes, but there are few specifics.
I agree with you that the 1853 lineage is very under-appreciated. Its a serviceable sword and, while the grips may not have been as well sculpted as the Italian 1860 or French 1822, it more than makes up for it in terms of durability and ease of production. I would much rather have a mediocre sword than no sword at all. I have my 1885, and its a heavy brute, but usable in a fight. I also argue that the worn checkering really, REALLY dulls our sense of handling. I had a mint condition (likely never issued) Brazilian version of the 1890, and the leather grips on that were like velcro, and I do not recall having any issues with it slipping or twisting.
We should also consider that France lives and dies by her cavalry. Britain however lives and dies by her Navy. With that in mind, the amount of care put into designing the swords for these two nations makes a bit more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 14, 2018 6:19:37 GMT
The HC reminds me of the Swedish 1831 sabre (https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/49022/swedish-mounted-artillery-another-variant) in that it looks like a longer, straighter version of the 1796-style blade. Almost like a hybrid of the 1796 LC and HC. You keep the same broad blade, wide fuller, and spatulate tip o'cutting, but make it straighter and longer. Looks nice
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 14, 2018 6:12:52 GMT
The 1906 is a nice sword - an accurate replica, and an affordable one while it was in production. Its a *bit* heavier than my original 1906, but not outside the margin of error for manufacturing tolerances. Nice buy!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 5, 2018 3:17:57 GMT
Not sure the 1822 ever got "heavy". I recall somewhere that the post-war swords might have been made to looser tolerances due to budget cuts etc, but that seems to be hearsay, at least from what I know. Oldswords states that the manufacturing process was changed in July 29, 1851. The end of the fullers also changed in 1860, indicative of changes in the manufacturing process. I suspect that, while the average weight distribution of the pre/post-war populations has shifted, the variance between individual swords will be hard to detect - ie: the top graph in the figure below. In other words, the individual variation between one population (eg" pre-war 1822's) far exceeds the overall variation between the two different populations
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 5, 2018 0:15:26 GMT
I admit that the grips on the 1885 series are less sculpted than the 1822 (or a brick, for that matter). I had a Brazilian 1890p with basically mint grips (which I regret selling). This had a similar design as the 1885, albeit a bit thinner (see link below). The checkering on the grip was very aggressive, and gave a more solid surface to grasp than you would expect. The grips on the 1885's do wear down and become smooth over time, which makes things worse. I suspect that, when new the issue of twisting would not be that severe* That said, it is a compromise design which places a greater emphasis on durability and ease of production over handling relative to some other designs. I quite like that but its not everyone's taste. www.faganarms.com/products/brazilian-cavalry-trooper-s-sword-1880s*Note that the checkering is really, REALLY aggressive. The checkering on mine looks okay, but its already a far cry from what it was when it came from the factory
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 4, 2018 15:10:31 GMT
On the original topic - I would consider looking at Reliks in the future. I find their prices are reasonable - and actually in CAD! The caveat being that their stock is limited, and we do not know when that particular stock was made (ie: if its an older piece or not)
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 4, 2018 3:17:08 GMT
Same cavalry pattern swords were cut down (shortened) to produce infantry staff sergeant's swords. However, Robson's book says that new guards of the 1897 pattern were fitted. But he says the difference in length was only less than an inch. The blade's sure in good shape, aside from the wrong point, considering the rest of the sword and scabbard. What you are speaking of here was the 1905p sword (link here --> www.google.com/search?q=1905+sergents+sword&oq=1905+sergents+sword&aqs=chrome..69i57.5045j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)The one you have is not a 1905. That said, some versions were shortened and cut down to make training weapons - I know this was done a lot for the 1885p, and those are somewhat common. I think Denner had a 1899p which was cut down in a similar fashion, but I am not 100% sure
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 31, 2018 22:19:56 GMT
I recently got an 1885p. I figured I would post the stats here for reference. Part of my decision to buy was based on the history of the 1885p, particularly its place in the overall evolution of British sword design spanning over 100 years. I actually went back tp this excellent article to get a better grasp of what the 1885 might be like, and how it differs from its preceding models. As such, I figured this would be a logical place to drop it. British 1885p next to a Swiss 1867Weight: 2.36 lb PoB: 5.5 in Blade Thickness - Base: 9 mm - PoB: 8 mm - 1/3: 7.5 mm - 1/2: 7 mm - 2/3: 5 mm - Tip: 3 mm The numbers and figures seem to match with the 1864. However, thickness measurements are only one element of blade geometry. The overall weight is the same as the 1864, but the blade is shorter. Also note that the guard is actually kinda small (3.5 inches across), so its not like that's contributing an increased amount of weight either. Suggests that a bit of extra metal was distributed around the blade to make it a bit more resilient. My particular example is an Enfield production. Not sure where it ranks in the gamut of manufactures. I do like the feel of the thing - its stout and confident. Would love to see how it compares to the 1853 in person. Blade of the 1885. Fuller is deeper than the national debt
Look at that beefy tang! Transition to the foible (~24 inches out)
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 27, 2018 5:39:11 GMT
But the mole is so cute! Thanks for the offer, but will pass. Recently got an 1885p actually, so that scratches the Brit sword itch for now (if you wanna talk likable pigs, thats a heck of an example)
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 27, 2018 5:05:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 27, 2018 1:11:16 GMT
Glad to be of service
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 22, 2018 22:47:47 GMT
So you were the one that won this thing... I was wondering how it felt. My impressions from the photos were that it would be a very light almost spadroon like blade, but I am surprised to hear of how weaponly it is. The handle is interesting, I'm having trouble thinking about how that would work in any other grip than the high guard point - on position used for charges. Were you watching that as well? I kinda felt bad for the seller, since it went for a ridiculously low price. Then again, you win some and lose some when going to auction... I concur - the pictures do not really convey the full length of the blade. I do not have a scale so I am reluctant to give weight estimates. However, I will venture on a limb and say that the 1909 weighs in the neighborhood of 2.2-2.3 pounds. Similar to my Swiss 1867. @uhlan - I doubt it. The fullers are too small to alter the balance much IMO - perhaps they were put in to strengthen the spine? Both the Spanish 1907 and Chilean 1890 have a pseudo-T-backed blade, so the spine does play a proportionally larger role in maintaining rigidity. The 1909 is quite stiff given its weight, so maybe they were successful in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 22, 2018 2:16:48 GMT
This will be a quick post - bfoo2 is the keeper of our Italian sword collection, and I hope that we can one day do a compilation album for the whole lot (part 2). That said, I figured I would post my quick thoughts on the weapon in question while its in my possession. Italian 1909 Experimental (top). Prussian 1889 (bottom)BackgroundI first became aware of this sword in an SBG thread last year - ironically from a source posted by bfoo2. I could not find much about it. Asides from the one source mentioned (bygone blades - link), there is nothing on the web. This dearth of reliable information on Italian swords in general is quite noticeable. While some print material does exist, they are out of reach for most of us - for example, I found Calamendi's history of Italian military edged weapons runs around $900 and I have neither the money to buy it, nor the time to hunt one down and have it translated from its Italian. victoriansword mentioned friend putting together book to address this. I have no clue what happened to that project, but I do wish them luck, and would be happy to donate any picture or images of this particular sword towards their endeavour. That said, what I do know about this sword comes from the aforementioned page from bygone blades. If anyone has any information to add or other references which cost less than $900, please do let me know. From my limited source, the 1900/1909 was experimental, straight bladed weapon was designed in 1900 with a "ridiculously long blade". This was found to be, well, ridiculous, and it was subsequently cut down to give the 1909. The wording on the website is a bit ambiguous - it suggests that the Italian 1871 blade was re-worked to give the 1900/1909 pattern, almost implying that they were converted in a scheme reminiscent of the French 1822 tmre 1883. However, the Italian 1871 has a blade length of ~35 inches. My "shortened" 1909 also has a blade length of ~35 inches, meaning that the 1900 must have a bespoke blade, unless the Italians figured out how to conjure up additional steel from thin air. My 1909 also has a raised ricasso at the base of the blade, whereas bfoo2 tells me the 1871 (or at least his examples) do not. Finally, my 1909 has a channel or mini-fuller running along its spine - similar to what is found on the Chilean 1890 or Spanish 1907 sword, except on the 1909 the fuller starts at the guard and runs up, rather than starting at the tip. Not sure what the function of this is, but its darned cool. Again, the standard 1871 lacks this feature, making the 1909 an unlikely chop job. I should not that, since this was an experimental model, it is possible that some of them were converted 1871's, while later production examples were made de-novo Ricasso of the 1909. Note how the blade starts off a uniform thickness, with the pipe-back emerging after ~1 inch. The 1871 does not have this - with the pipe back already being fully formed the moment the blade leaves the guard.
This lack of Tmre-ification to me is rather interesting, since the blade itself does look very similar to the 1871. Even the tip has a very similar profile, with the pipe-back transitioning to an almost diamond cross section at the very end Tip of the 1909. Don't worry - the phosphate coating is just rubbing off - its not actually pitted or rustingThe guard looks almost identical to the 1871, as is the pommel cap, so perhaps some elements were cannibalized. Again, according to bygone blades, these swords were made and issued for testing, though never went into "full production". This is consistent with both mine, and bygone blade's examples having an Italian proof mark and what appear to be serial numbers. Mine is serial 608 and his is 1552, suggesting a production range of at least 2000. Both of ours are from Serafino Gnutti (SFG marked), though I would be curious if there were other sites of production. Interestingly, the example from Bygone appears to have a blackened guard (albeit cleaned), and a bare steel blade. Mine appears to have had both the guard AND the blade completely phosphated. Serial number and manufacturer mark. The proof mark (MA) is on top of the SFG markings. Handling/PerformanceAs you have hopefully figured out by now, the 1909 is a straight-bladed pipe back sword. The blade is 35 inches long with a PoB of around 4 inches. Its no slouch - especially when laid against my Prussian 1889. The blade itself feels like a heavier version of my French 1882/1896. Point control could be good, but yet retains enough weight to parry with some confidence. Its not heavy enough to fill the role of a heavy cavalry pallasche, but its good enough in the age of khakis and pith helmets. EDIT: The sword weighs 2.33 lb. Not a heavy bruiser, but again no lightweight dress swordI say that point control *could* be good because, well, its not - but that's not on account of the blade. Upon first glance, the most unique feature of the 1909 is the backwards canted grip. This seemed strange to me - in an era where forward leaning pistol grips *hem Prussian 1889 hem* are becoming more common, why go the other way? Backwards angle of the 1909 grip compared to that of the KD 89 (front)
After handling the 1909, the answer became obvious (I think). I have never rode a horse, let alone gone to war on one. However, from my understanding, in a typical frontal cavalry charge the sword would be presented in the prime position, with the palm facing up, as demonstrated by these fine lads. In this context, the backwards cant of the 1909 would pull the tip down, allowing you to hold the sword on target a bit better. This is particularly useful when aiming for targets which are lower than you, which would be the case if you were trying to skewer non-mounted infantry. For king and country
While this, erm, unique grip design lends itself well to frontal charges with the sword held above your head, it basically sucks for everything else. While the blade itself is decent for fencing, the angle of the grip makes point control difficult, and the tip is never quite where you expect it to be. They also removed the nice thumb tab you had on the 1871, which seems to be a step backwards when designing what is ostensibly a thrusting weapon. When in the hammer grip, the backstrap still bulges out in a strange position and makes it uncomfortable. That said, if I had to use this on foot, I would seriously debate hammering this thing rather than deal with my point always being a few inches higher than where I expect it to lie. This brings me onto the discussion about hand-lances. I had a discussion with bfoo2 last night about this, so some of these ideas can be attributed to him. The term "hand lance" is used on the forums to describe thrust-centric cavalry swords like the 1908, 1907, and 1913. While these swords were doctrinally used for frontal shock action on horseback much like a lance, they could also be employed to some effectiveness in other ways either on foot or on horseback. The 1913 is a decent cutter in a melee, while the 1908 and 1907 make good rapiers. I would argue that, by that definition, neither of those patterns are true "hand lances". A hand lance is something like the French 1854, as its so large and heavy that it only really works in the frontal shock action. In other words, you have taken away the versatility of the sword and replaced it with the single purpose focus of a lance. By this definition, the 1909 is the most extreme hand lance of them all - it can only really be used effectively in one way, at the expense of all others. I don't mean to say that the 1909 is *better* than the 1913 or 1908p in this role - its just that the 1909 can ONLY really work in this role, and nothing else. Think of it as a Toyota Celica. We call the Celica a sports car, not because it can out-race a BMW M3 on the road, but because it is so much more specialized for racing in relation to all other functions. My apologies to anyone who owns a Celica
Long story short - the blade is good, but that handle makes it hard to use as anything other than a hand lance. As a result, handling is kinda meh. A missed opportunity. Several months late on the bitcoin bubble. However, this sword makes it up as a collectors item. From an aethetics point of view, it still retains the distinct Italian flair of the 1960 and 1971, but with some minor modern updates. That dead-straight pipeback blade tapers to a savage point, and makes my KD 89 look much more stubby and portly than it really is. Its just savage. Moreover, the 1909 it really just a cool bit of history. It represents a rather unique insight into the dying days of the sword - the mad experimentation undertaken by ordinance boards everywhere to try and find new relevance and meaning for a relic out of time. Full pics here: flic.kr/s/aHsmmeckjd
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 20, 2018 21:56:47 GMT
Thanks for the review. I had considered this at one time. I think MRL had one left and while trying to make up my mind and find a review it went. I then found Dave Kelly’s review and was glad that I missed out. Now I am not so sure and think that I can now remedy those things that I didn’t like. I’ve just bought a sword so the mad money is low at the moment but I’ve book marked Southern Swords. Thanks for the kind words. I am not sure its worth buying it from Southern Swords unless you are in the UK. I mean, its nice, but I wouldn't say its worth the conversion rate and shipping across the pond. Their "In Stock" signage is also very....optimistic so I am not even sure its available there. I have yet to handle the new Hanwei side sword, but I almost wonder whether the two would be similar, now that the sidesword blade has gotten longer and slimmer...
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 16, 2018 16:31:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 15, 2018 21:39:45 GMT
Wow nice review, and nice sword. Glad to hear its a tough little thing, despite the weight.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 14, 2018 22:36:28 GMT
I believe you are correct. The pipeback design is somewhat unique, and makes it easy to identify. Its interesting that their obsession with pipeback designs extended to the bayonet as well This here is a good reference for the future. The database does not cover all models, but for what models are included its pretty through worldbayonets.com/
|
|