Q.E.D........if the original post had more details indeed we may have less circuitous discourse. Just the same it is interesting to see a variant of a sword form recognized as the British M1821 light cavalry sabre which reflects the wider scope that the form encompassed.
It seems the three bar, or barred guard itself evolved for more hand protection of course, but unclear which source might have inspired it. The French had the M1816 cavalry sabre with extra bars to the knuckleguard, but thought the Germans were still using the M1811 Blucher sabel in these times for light cavalry.
In the U.S. this three bar hilt did indeed become the M1833 Dragoon sabre made by Ames, which was in use a short period when replaced by the US M1840 dragoon sabre (from the French M1822 also a barred hilt).
It seems the British M1821 as noted, was in use until the introduction of the M1853, but the form itself continued in degree as the hilt style was continued for Indian forces of the British Raj....even into 20th century.
At the outset of the US Civil War there were M1821 patterns produced in Solingen (Walscheid, who also produced US M1840 swords) in c. 1861.
Returning to the Iberian Peninsula, it is puzzling why the REEVES name would appear on these Spanish exports to Portugal.....however it should be noted that Charles Reeves was enjoying a great deal of notoriety for his innovations in tang design as well as his prolific production of swords.
Perhaps in the Solingen manner, the name was being capitalized upon.
Such convention was it seems well in place.
The Portuguese it seems did have a high regard for British swords as they had been receiving their swords during and after the Peninsular campaigns. That perhaps had set a kind of precedent.
Still it is hard to imagine a Toledo maker, regardless of commercial interests, spuriously using a British (or any other for that matter) name. Spanish adherence to tradition and long standing reputation would seem to prevail.
|