Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff D
All side issues, but, sure I will bite. Nowhere, in 1954 edition, does the description of sword #18 say the hilt is of German manufacture. I am not sure what you want.
To my knowledge not a single brass lion pommel and grip is discussed in Mowbrey's work. I have reviewed the text and you are talking about apples when the topic is oranges.
Ok I have answered you, now tell me where in the Medicus discredits the Brazelon article.
All the Best
Jeff
|
My Revised edition 1996. Is it different than his description?
Quote:
18. "American Light Horse" Saber, 1785-1800
One of the sabers of the immediately post-Revolutionary period that has succeeded in capturing the imagination of sword collectors is a German made weapon that has received the designation...
|
The conclusion of that paragraph/description of the sword describes the cast grip lion pommel of #18.
In an earlier post, I mention the bulk of his writing of #18 is about the overall bulk of similar sabers with organic and bound grips but otherwise similar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You might find this interesting in the light of Bazelon and his notes on Prahl and found elsewhere.
Quote:
Northern Liberties Of Philadelphiaa, May 22nd, 1777.
To the Honourable Thomas Wharton, Junior, Esquire, President and Commander-in-Chief of the State of Pennsylvania, <tea.:
The Petition of Lewis Prahl of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia, Gunsmith, Most Respectfully Sheweth:
That your Honours petitioner entered into a Contract with Colonel Benjamin Flower to furnish him with One thousand Swords for the Use of the Horsemen raised in this State, of which he is obliged to deliver at least two dozen every week, and that your petitioner hath Sixteen Workmen, (whose names are hereunto annexed,) in his employ, in the making of the said Swords, all of which are Associators and belong to different Companies of the Militia, the several Captains whereof insist on their doing Military duty, notwithstanding the Resolve of Congress of the 12th of April last, by which the Work is greatly delayed.
Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Honour would be pleased to take the Premisses into Consideration and direct what your Honour in his Wisdom shall think meet. And Your Petitioner in duty bound Shall ever Pray,
LEWIS PRAHL.
1. William Brown, 9. Christian Cane,
2. Caspar Christ, 10. Thomas Quigsall,
3. Jacob Frey, 11. Paul Dawson,
4. Robert Man, 12. George Strebey,
5. Patrick Vaun, 13. Lewis Smith,
6. Conrad Waltner, 14. Nathaniel Bean,
7. Thomas Hltt, 15. Jos. Fanckleberry,
8. Matthew Grimes, 16. Adam Layer.
Lewis Prahl
|
Now all we need is lion pommel cast spiral grips to go with them? Bazelon does not describe the sword contract any better than that, nor assign a maker to his grooved doggie in the PA collection. Does he do so in the 1992 article? Or, is he (as I read it) starting his foundation with the same type of information I add here above and Perterson's old testament (which is as often disputed as are other author's wrks and description)
~~~~
What Bazelon does not describe may well be the grail as yet unfounded but Prahl was making brass gun mounts as of 1777 (also found elsewhere).
There were earlier brass foundries in Philly and that I do not deny Prahl either. There are some decent histories out there. Here is one I read through.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8uYkAAAAYAAJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to Flayderman and Stuart Mowbray in contention regarding Bazelon's article and the earlier posts regarding Flayderman's own experience, as well as sales; I find Medicus as less supportive of the conjecture that appears to drive this particular discussion. For a third time, I now point to the lion pommel sabers listed in that book as counter to the Flayderman sale descriptions posted earlier. As the elder Mowbray's notes and Flayderman's collaboration I mention them as less absolute about a great many swords and offer less speculation than earlier sword books.
Again, I have not read Bazelon's article and have only other's read on that. I have though read in this thread that some of what is definitive of Bazelon's article is presented only as second hand interpretations that could be as misread as I feel my own posts here are.
Cheers
GC