Cathey,
To sum up, I think this is unlikely to be an officers sword, the blade is plain, the grip is bone, not ivory and it is marked to a regiment and not an individual. At 27in the blade is too short to be a 'fighting' sword, but in many respects it seems to lack the decoration I would expect on a levee sword. Officers may have had their swords marked to their regiment, but I think not in such a simple, 'off-hand', manner.
I think it is unlikely to be the 18th Hussars for the simple reason there were none between 1821 and 1861 which, stylistically, is the period of this sword.
The 18th Foot is a possibility, I was worried about the bone grip, which looks rather ill fitted, but I found this regiment spent most of this period on overseas service, so, anomalies not normally expected in a British sword are possible.
A 27inch blade is consistent with a band sword, whether or not the 18th foot carried a band with them I do not know.
There were a couple of '18th's in the Indian Army but they seem not to have been known as 'Regiment' but 'Native Infantry' etc.
We don't know for certain, but assuming this is genuinely old, a sword for ceremonial use, e.g. a band, belonging to the 18th Regiment of Foot seems to me the most likely attribution.
Regards
Richard
|