Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard
I hope you guys don't mind me coming in on this debate?
|
Hi Richard,
No problem, the more the merrier.
The assertion that the faceted faces was solely an Osborn design feature was mine I'm afraid. I was under the impression that this was the case but I defer knowing your experience is much greater that mine when it comes to Napoleonic era swords. Were there several makers who copied this design? With regard to the 'abuse v use' question, this would appear to be quite subjective and very difficult to quantify. I think that real battlefield attributable swords are not that thick on the ground, although you wouldn't think so when reading descriptions on a well known internet auction site, and therefore the signs, or not, of genuine 'battle damage' is quite a difficult thing to ascertain with any real precision. Whether my sword has been the subject of 'abuse or use' will unfortunately, I suppose, have to remain an opinion only. This dubiety, to my mind, impinges greatly on the next question 'restore or not'. The restored sword you posted would appear to have been a composite brought back to its original configuration. Was the infantry guard a period or modern marriage? If it was a period addition/replacement some people may view it as part of the history attached to the sword and as such should be left as is. Regardless of anyones views on this subject the hilt restoration on your example is artfully done and has resulted in a really nice sword. On another subject, do you have any views on the wieldable aspects of the officers swords versus the troopers version? We're a relaxed lot here so please come in on any subject at any time, the bigger the input the more interesting it gets.
My Regards,
Norman.