Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Mark · 21st June 2007, 02:54 AM

Well, not having personally examined the information in the National Archives, I can't really say with 100% certainty that the sword is what it is purported to be. However, every gift to a U.S. President should have been cataloged and inventoried, so I assume that the error in the Natural History Museum's records attributing it to the Matthew Perry collection was discovered by comparing the sword & its description to the National Archive records.

It is something that bears investigation. I would like to find the original records, just to get the full history of the thing. I want to track down the other sword referred to in the catalog entry, so perhaps I can find the original records on this one as well, and confirm or disprove the stated provenance. It would be interesting to learn the context of the gift, such as whether it was a single gift on some special occasion, or one of several things given at once. For example, there are a number of items in the Smithsonian's collection from Thailand that were given to the US government after an exposition marking the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.

As for condition, patina would come from handling and exposure to the elements, but since it has been in either a drawer in a controlled climate or in a display case in a museum, I don't find it surprising that it is in so good a shape. Of course, there is no telling what color the wood of the scabbard was originally, so the darkish orange color it is now actually could be the result of some amount of patination. The blade is, in my opinion, quite well-made, so it is not complete trash. The fittings pass the "squint test," as they don't look bad from a distance (I never noticed the flaws on the several occasions I observed it on display at the Museum of American History). Its just up close that you see the shoddy workmanship, so maybe it was deemed adequate for a display/presentation piece.

Something else that just occurred to me is that the bad cleaning/"restoration" of the sword that removed the enamel, referred to in the catalog, might have screwed things up. If the fittings were made to be covered in enamel, they might not have been made so finely. The scabbard might even have been stripped. It sounds from the catalog entry that it was pretty badly treated.

21st June 2007, 02:54 AM	#14
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Well, not having personally examined the information in the National Archives, I can't really say with 100% certainty that the sword is what it is purported to be. However, every gift to a U.S. President should have been cataloged and inventoried, so I assume that the error in the Natural History Museum's records attributing it to the Matthew Perry collection was discovered by comparing the sword & its description to the National Archive records. It is something that bears investigation. I would like to find the original records, just to get the full history of the thing. I want to track down the other sword referred to in the catalog entry, so perhaps I can find the original records on this one as well, and confirm or disprove the stated provenance. It would be interesting to learn the context of the gift, such as whether it was a single gift on some special occasion, or one of several things given at once. For example, there are a number of items in the Smithsonian's collection from Thailand that were given to the US government after an exposition marking the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. As for condition, patina would come from handling and exposure to the elements, but since it has been in either a drawer in a controlled climate or in a display case in a museum, I don't find it surprising that it is in so good a shape. Of course, there is no telling what color the wood of the scabbard was originally, so the darkish orange color it is now actually could be the result of some amount of patination. The blade is, in my opinion, quite well-made, so it is not complete trash. The fittings pass the "squint test," as they don't look bad from a distance (I never noticed the flaws on the several occasions I observed it on display at the Museum of American History). Its just up close that you see the shoddy workmanship, so maybe it was deemed adequate for a display/presentation piece. Something else that just occurred to me is that the bad cleaning/"restoration" of the sword that removed the enamel, referred to in the catalog, might have screwed things up. If the fittings were made to be covered in enamel, they might not have been made so finely. The scabbard might even have been stripped. It sounds from the catalog entry that it was pretty badly treated.