A Scottish basket hilt sword with military marking
 

O.L. 104 cm ; blade L. 90 cm; blade width at hilt 3.8 cm. single edge.
The hilt has a Sharkskin grip
Regiment mark : VI 4T 23 .
With an extended recess that the blade sit is ( see cathey and Rex explanation) http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...425#post212425 post 140.
Any comment about the military marking would be welcome
Best
Cerjak

A decent backsword you have here, Cerjak (where do you get them all from?), made for cavalry use, as shown by the oval ring on the left side of the basket, to enable simultaneous deployment of reins, sword and pistol, as I'm sure you know. As for the markings, working back from right to left: 23 = sword/soldier number 23; 4T might = 4th Troop; VI should indicate the regiment or other unit but I cannot think of any with these initials. Let's hope someone else can recognise then.
Best wishes, Neil

What a great condition (or well cleaned). But seems truly Scottish and for use on horse back.

Thank you Neil
It would be nice to know more about this marking and discover where this sword saw action.
Best
CERJAK

Fantastic sword! We hardly ever see anything like that over here

Speculation, but plausible
 

I deeply admire basket hilts, and this is an amazing example of what appears to be a garrison town product, probably Glasgow, for English cavalry, post Culloden c.1755.
It is important to clarify some things on British cavalry of the 18th c.
According to Dr. Mazansky ("British Basket Hilted Swords", 2005, p.94) and paraphrasing him, a horseman's hilt or cavalry hilt may or may not have an oval ring in the hilt. He notes that cavalry hilts are more heavily constructed than their Scottish infantry counterparts (Darling, 1974)*.
Quoting Mazansky, " ...thus since this group of swords has a variety of shapes and is primarily identified with regulation markings on the hilt, such markings are very rare, it does not warrant its separate typological section, it belongs to the large group of conventional hilts".

It is somewhat frustrating that virtually the primary way of identifying many of these cavalry basket hilts is by regimental markings, yet these are 'rare' and there is little compiled data on these. I recall communicating with Dr. Mazansky ( Sept. 1997) regarding various symbolic and markings matters, and he emphasized the typological theme of his proposed book, and that such 'other' matters were outside the scope of the study.

The past several days I have searched online, but found interesting help in "Swords and Blades of the American Revolution" (George Neumann, 1973) and "The British Basket Hilted Cavalry Sword" (1974, Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting, Vol.7, #3).

I found no evidence of Roman numerals used in regimental equipment markings, however, the general convention and order of placing these seems as Neil has suggested. With most British weapons however it seems that these were configured as 'fractions' i.e. 9 /59 the top '9' the military group or unit; the lower the soldiers rack number.

There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency in these applications, in the use of letter, number etc.

In the British army of early 18th c. the basket hilt had been adopted for cavalry units in 1707 (Ffoulkes & Hopkinson, 1938),by both units of Horse and Dragoon Guards. By about 1750, the concept of dragoons dismounting and fighting on foot had ended.
In 1751, the 6th Dragoons became the title of the 3rd Irish dragoons.
In 1759, this regiment fought in the battles of Minden and Wetter in the Westphalian region of Prussia (England allied with Germany vs. French in the Seven Years War).

It seems that it may be possible this was a field marked sword of the 6th Dragoon Guards (why the Roman numerals unclear) and as noted 4th troop (cavalry were formed in troops) and sword #23.

This same regiment by 1765 was known as the carabineers, had an English four slot type guard with half basket and olive pommel and example in Darling (1974, fig, 11) had hilt marked A19 ( colonels troop A and rack number 19).

I think this may explain the period of this sword c. 1750, an English sword made most likely in Glasgow by Scottish armourer, and used by the 6th Dragoon Guards, with field markings as noted and possibly used in these campaigns in Seven Years War.

I would welcome the thoughts of others toward this theory of course, as these regimentally marked basket hilts are as noted by Mazansky, quite rarely found.

Jean Luc, you still there?

I note for library https://books.google.com.om/books?id...guards&f=false with interesting details on Baskets by Cyril Mazansky.

Sorry Jim ,I have been travelling with a only access to net with my cell..
Thank you very much for your input . There is some great information who could contribute in the identification of this sword. And of course very exciting to have some information about the possible place & regiment where this sword saw action. I’ m surprised that there is not much data on these regiment markings.
Best

Jean-Luc

Outstanding reference indeed Ibrahiim!!! Thank you for adding this and always bolstering the thread discussions with these key references and insightful notes.

All very best regards
Jim

Hi Jean Luc,
Thank you, ya had me worried there my friend. You're usually right on these discussions!
Indeed it would be great to have information on regimental markings on these swords, but as previously noted, such markings were seldom used before the 19th century. For that matter there were no official regulation swords in Great Britain prior to those of 1796.

Of the relatively rare instances of marks applied, in many cases these were field applied by regimental quartermasters or sometimes individual soldiers, and on campaign these were not part of official record keeping. We can only surmise which units might be represented by initials of unit colonels or commanders as the units were commonly referred to by their names, i.e. so and so's regiment of horse or dragoons or of foot.

As always, a fantastic example of these amazing swords .

All the best
Jim

Cerjak what a wonderful sword that can talk, just enough! The possible and likely 6th DG attribution is great!