New member

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Richard, and welcome aboard!!!!
Its great to have you with us, and these British swords you've posted,
now thats what I'm talkin' about!!! Breathtaking

As has been mentioned, your superbly researched and written articles that have appeared over many years stand as excellent resources for collectors and weapons historians, and reflect your devotion to these studies. I truly look forward to your input in the discussions here, and thank you so much for posting these fabulous examples.

What is really interesting with these beautiful, and provenanced swords is that they show chronological development of the sword patterns for the swords used by heavy cavalry officers. With this kind of provenance it is like finding vintage currency in serial sequence!!

Again, my sincerest welcome, and thank you for joining us here!!!

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Richard,
Welcome to the forum .
... and you may tell those three excelent swords that they are welcome, too .
Fernando

[Ian Knight]

Hello Richard,
Superb swords. I'm very envious.
Ian

[Richard]

Thanks to all for your welcome!

The swords I posted for no other reason than to show where my interests lie. Re the swords and other questions:

M Eley - I acquired them about 4 years ago. They had been sleeping in an attic in Middlesborough in the UK for the previous 35 years!

Manuel - Maybe you know me from another forum? (where I no longer post)

Jim - you've hit the nail on the head! the swords are a great illustration of the development of the heavy cavalry sword over the last quarter of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century. The centre sword is dated 1782, at which time Hugonin was a Captain in the 4th Dragoons. It is also of course a P1788 heavy cavalry sword (no anomaly there since the pattern was based on existing examples). The left hand sword is a P1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer's sword made by James Woolley in Birmingham c. 1797. At that time, Hugonin was Lt. Col. commanding the 4th. The right hand sword is a non-regulation pattern known as the Celtic Hilt, dating from around 1815. This pattern is particularly associated with the 4th Dragoons. At that time Hugonin had the regimental rank of Colonel and the brevet rank of Lieutenant-General

Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Richard!!! These swords are stunning, and actually it took a few minutes to focus once I was able to regain my composure but this is whats great about the study of the military patterns. While the research often entails a lot of focus on records in archives and regulations, what becomes fascinating is the relationship of the period of use and units with regard to historic events directly associated.

The M1796 heavy cavalry officers sword is exciting as this is the officers version contemporary with the famed M1796 heavy cavalry disc hilts used by the troopers (as seen on concurrent thread). Even more exciting is that this example was made by James Wooley, one of the key figures in what became known as the 'scandals' in the conflict over the quality of imported German blades over the British produced blades.
The others were Thomas Gill and Samuel Harvey, and these three were essentially the 'rock stars' of British sword blade production.

The center sword with the beautifully developed basket guard has always been a fascinating and sought after pattern, which was long debated as to whether M1788 could be considered a 'regulation' pattern, but as noted, seems more established now with known examples. It was contemporary to the light cavalry sabre with stirrup hilt, which were produced by James Wooley and Thomas Gill, along with others of course, and in the early years of the 'scandals'.
I once had (sigh) one of these M1788 heavy cavalry which had a monstrous 40 inch blade, and was mounted with a curious sphere pommel rather than the tall olive type. It was one of the most massive swords I ever owned!

Again, I cant resist saying, its really good to have you here Richard, and to bring in more on these regulation military swords.....its been years, and I look forward to getting 'up to speed' on them, and hopefully will bring in more from those collectors interested in them.

All the best,
]Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Hi Richard! Welcome to the foum. It is very valuabe to have more knowledged people over here. Do you have those mentioned monographs online? Thank you for your attention.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Richard]

Hi Gonzalo and thanks for the welcome. A number of my articles are available on line but I'm not sure if the rules here allow me to name another website?

Richard

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Hi Richard! Welcome to the foum. It is very valuabe to have more knowledged people over here. Do you have those mentioned monographs online? Thank you for your attention.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Richard]

Hi Jim,

Its interesting that you mention the cutlers. As you say, it was Gill, Woolley and Harvey who took part in the sword trials of 1786. Ostensibly these were supposed to prove the superiority of English blades over German blades imported by Runkel. However, it is clear that Thomas Gill who instigated the trials was far more interested in proving the superiority of his own blades over his Birmingham rivals Woolley and Harvey (I actually have an original copy of Gill's pamphlet of 1789 asserting this truth). Poor old Woolley didn't do too well in the trials. Interestingly (and to connect with the Le Marchant thread), Osborn hadn't yet come to prominence. Until his collaboration with Le Marchant, I think he was a fairly minor player but after the P1796 was approved that all changed. Almost immediately, he received huge orders from the Board of Ordnance and his name was made.

Going back to the Hugonin swords, the P1788 is dated 1782 and is by Runkel Solingen - it is one of his earliest blades. Runkel of course was a importer not a maker and his business came to an abrupt end c. 1808 after Napoleon had conquered Prussia and instigated his "Continental System" blockading all trade between Britain and mainland Europe.

Jim, don't get me started on the controversy over the true identity of the pattern 1788 heavy cavalry sword which caused a huge academic row between Robson and some others!

Richard

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks very much Richard!!! These swords are stunning, and actually it took a few minutes to focus once I was able to regain my composure but this is whats great about the study of the military patterns. While the research often entails a lot of focus on records in archives and regulations, what becomes fascinating is the relationship of the period of use and units with regard to historic events directly associated.

The M1796 heavy cavalry officers sword is exciting as this is the officers version contemporary with the famed M1796 heavy cavalry disc hilts used by the troopers (as seen on concurrent thread). Even more exciting is that this example was made by James Wooley, one of the key figures in what became known as the 'scandals' in the conflict over the quality of imported German blades over the British produced blades.
The others were Thomas Gill and Samuel Harvey, and these three were essentially the 'rock stars' of British sword blade production.

The center sword with the beautifully developed basket guard has always been a fascinating and sought after pattern, which was long debated as to whether M1788 could be considered a 'regulation' pattern, but as noted, seems more established now with known examples. It was contemporary to the light cavalry sabre with stirrup hilt, which were produced by James Wooley and Thomas Gill, along with others of course, and in the early years of the 'scandals'.
I once had (sigh) one of these M1788 heavy cavalry which had a monstrous 40 inch blade, and was mounted with a curious sphere pommel rather than the tall olive type. It was one of the most massive swords I ever owned!

Again, I cant resist saying, its really good to have you here Richard, and to bring in more on these regulation military swords.....its been years, and I look forward to getting 'up to speed' on them, and hopefully will bring in more from those collectors interested in them.

All the best,
]Jim