'well there ya go' , as they say in these parts
Exactly, but of course we are often on different frequencies saying basically the same thing.
In my comments toward colonial 'styling' or lack thereof, I used the words 'simplicity OFTEN associated with colonial weapons'.
It does seem that words so often can carry so many meanings beyond what was intended, which is why my entries are 'often' so complex, as I try to qualify and explain my comments.
While it does seem we are deviating from the OP, actually, these observations are key to properly classifying these swords (or reliably attempting to).
There are no 'cut and dry' solutions, as 'colonial' weapons may have been put together in rural or remote locations without the supply, artisans and materials available to makers in Continental or Peninsular cities.
By the same token, many swords may have been put together in locations equally remote on the Continent etc. as well.
Again, it is important to remember that while officers and gentry would privately commission appropriately high end swords, the 'munitions' or 'issue' weapons would have been produced in accord with skills of the maker as well as the costs involved. Many units, especially cavalry, were elite, and deemed extensions of the officers themselves so well appointed, while many units were simply 'field forces' whose weapons need by sturdy but not necessarily stylish.