It is the somewhat contradictory premise introduced in your first post that prompts more source and research work.
Quote:
|
This scarce type described in Harold Peterson's "The American Sword", plate 18. Many of these types were inscribed on the blade "American light horse" for the cavalry dragoons. They were discussed at length in a Man-At-Arms article from back in 1992. This pattern sems to be the first true American sword pattern after we officially became a country.
|
Part of the post I lost was in regarding the massive amount of data presented in Neumann's pages listing American horseman sabers. We see one cast grip lion and the origin and maker left an unknown but does relate a European blade. In the several pages of Neumann's horseman's sabers there are indeed several lion pommel swords but pommels only attributed to American. Flayderman's Medicus book lists four lion's in a row all quite similar except for only one of those four being listed American made and three English. None of the four with cast grips.
The use of the lion pommel as iconic as well falls away in my perception as the American continentals such as Washington were not happy with the thought of the lion pommels persisting as a label for their new nation. The eagle does indeed start to pick up steam nationally by the end of the revolution and again, were does that leave the silversmiths and cutlers of New England. It is possible, yes, that cutlers did assemble and even cast full grips but the evidence really does not bear out what is first listed as scarce and then secondly regarded as the first true American pattern.
What I have found of American interpretations of lions (and later eagles, particularly the Osborn Weepers-pcay is listing a doozy of one on the bay right now) show a great deal of coarseness in the differences between texture and finish of chasing the castings and making castings from extant castings instead of producing the wax models. If Prahl is supposed to have been the source for these cast grip lions, why on earth would his eagles have appeared so primitive (along with some other Philadelphia brass casters) compared to the much more refined work going on both in Philadelphia and Baltimore silversmith shops.
Another cast lion hilt in Neumann's to consider is attached below here. I have it handy as an example of brass work from another discussion. What is listed there as French naval artillery turns out to be actually better listed as Belgian (yes?) infantry.
With the cast spiral hilts of other English and European examples then combined with lions used in many countries, determining swords with obviously European blade construct (and many so marked) the evidence kind of piles up against anything except compilations by cutlers. Bazelon and Mowbray (the elder) both share Prahl information along with the earlier Peterson notes and it may well be these later publications (as also with Neumann) are kind of on the fence toppling away from absolutes.
With that, I myself would not take an absolute stance either but might be convinced by later findings.
Note the sleekness of the two Neumann's if you have a copy handy. The cast horseman lion (not attached here) is quite like the French/Belgian shortsword grip and also quite like the Prahl blocky grip eagle version.
Cheers
GC