Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 9th August 2011, 06:43 PM

Glen, I can only offer my compliments, you really know your stuff, and it is truly a pleasure to discuss these issues with you.As I mentioned, a true learning experience, and reminding me that despite so many years studying these things, I know I remain much more student than any kind of 'expert'

Actually as I mentioned, my familiarity with most of these references are from decades ago in my 'collecting' days. In looking back at some of the cites I used, I must concede that I am quite guilty of some cherry picking as you have astutely noted, but such was more inadvertant as I was trying to minimize some of the text for volume. The reference to 'histories' did not seem relevant, but as you point out perhaps in retrospect was. My selective choice of references was from quite a few hours of revisiting the few books I have with me. Ironically, although I have the revised Peterson from 1965, I acquired it only a few years later. These books; Neumann, Blair and later Robson (1975) I have had all these years are are still my treasures, and it is great to revisit them (glad I brought them!). As you note there have been considerable revisions and newly presented material in these past decades, so it is good to have that made known here.
Also, I neglected to thank you for sharing the article in Man at Arms on Rose!
I have subscribed to Man at Arms since the first issue in 1979, but all of these are with most of the rest of my books in deep storage for years.

Interesting note on the sabers identified as American made, but now known to be by Thurkle. This seems inevitable with all the cross traffic in trade and as I had noted, many swords came in from Germany and were mounted in America, so provenance may easily have dictated American made, as many German blades were veiled by thier furbishing in America. The interpolation of products is evident by German blades with the 'Warranted' term seen on British swords; Germany was also producing blades for France in given periods.
Actually I was not even aware that the French made eaglehead hilts, and though I knew Andrew Mowbray, I regret I never had his book on these swords, a monumental oversight on my part. He was a great scholar and very giving individual who inspired me a great deal, so even more regretted realizing this.

I am extremely grateful to have this discussion with you on this aspect on the influences in early American swords, and the considerable and important key points you have provided showing much better perspective on these than I previously had. While I think we have pretty well covered much of the detail here, it seems we both remain in degree apart in our views on the French influences, though I admit I lean more toward many of your points.
I would very much enjoy continuing this on a separate thread, but think we should return to the original sword identification featured in this thread.

David, thank you so much for your courtesy and patience in this digression.

Glen, I very much thank you again for your courtesy and outstanding detail in presenting some extremely important history and material in better understanding of these military swords. I know personally I have learned from your most admirable knowledge, and look forward to continued discussions on this and any topics you are in.

All very best regards,
Jim

9th August 2011, 06:43 PM	#21
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Glen, I can only offer my compliments, you really know your stuff, and it is truly a pleasure to discuss these issues with you.As I mentioned, a true learning experience, and reminding me that despite so many years studying these things, I know I remain much more student than any kind of 'expert' Actually as I mentioned, my familiarity with most of these references are from decades ago in my 'collecting' days. In looking back at some of the cites I used, I must concede that I am quite guilty of some cherry picking as you have astutely noted, but such was more inadvertant as I was trying to minimize some of the text for volume. The reference to 'histories' did not seem relevant, but as you point out perhaps in retrospect was. My selective choice of references was from quite a few hours of revisiting the few books I have with me. Ironically, although I have the revised Peterson from 1965, I acquired it only a few years later. These books; Neumann, Blair and later Robson (1975) I have had all these years are are still my treasures, and it is great to revisit them (glad I brought them!). As you note there have been considerable revisions and newly presented material in these past decades, so it is good to have that made known here. Also, I neglected to thank you for sharing the article in Man at Arms on Rose! I have subscribed to Man at Arms since the first issue in 1979, but all of these are with most of the rest of my books in deep storage for years. Interesting note on the sabers identified as American made, but now known to be by Thurkle. This seems inevitable with all the cross traffic in trade and as I had noted, many swords came in from Germany and were mounted in America, so provenance may easily have dictated American made, as many German blades were veiled by thier furbishing in America. The interpolation of products is evident by German blades with the 'Warranted' term seen on British swords; Germany was also producing blades for France in given periods. Actually I was not even aware that the French made eaglehead hilts, and though I knew Andrew Mowbray, I regret I never had his book on these swords, a monumental oversight on my part. He was a great scholar and very giving individual who inspired me a great deal, so even more regretted realizing this. I am extremely grateful to have this discussion with you on this aspect on the influences in early American swords, and the considerable and important key points you have provided showing much better perspective on these than I previously had. While I think we have pretty well covered much of the detail here, it seems we both remain in degree apart in our views on the French influences, though I admit I lean more toward many of your points. I would very much enjoy continuing this on a separate thread, but think we should return to the original sword identification featured in this thread. David, thank you so much for your courtesy and patience in this digression. Glen, I very much thank you again for your courtesy and outstanding detail in presenting some extremely important history and material in better understanding of these military swords. I know personally I have learned from your most admirable knowledge, and look forward to continued discussions on this and any topics you are in. All very best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 9th August 2011 at 07:00 PM.