Federalist sword

M ELEY · 26th December 2010, 03:36 AM

I assure you I didn't mean to repeat past answers, perhaps more of a clarification. In the end, what I am getting out of this is simply this. Probability of these types (I am referring directly to the brass solid lion hilt slotted saber, regardless of blade marking) of swords being of European manufacture is very high with a slight probability of some American involvement. No question of private purchase (I never questioned this, even from the beginning). Until another type of this sword appears in a well-documented European setting, we can assume they were in highest probability only (or mostly) made for the American market. The final question is are these swords only used by cavalry officers (private purchase) or could other American unit (navy, artillery, foot soldiers, etc) officers have taken a fancy to them as well. Many of the existing lion-hilts are not marked "American Light Horse", after all.

M ELEY · 26th December 2010, 04:22 AM

I really didn't mean to open a can of worms, but once I got to thinking about the very significance of private purchase, which leaves open many possibilities for any type of officer finding these swords attractive, I began to wonder about naval use. Yes, I am a naval collector, but it was never my intention to steer this sword down that path. It is an incredible piece of history regardless of how you look at it. Perhaps I'm daft for pointing this out, but here goes-

Naval officers of the time period 1780-1810 frequently purchased their own type of swords depending on what they liked. There were no standard patterns back then or rules as to what a sword had to be. That being said, here is a composite of the typical things seen on private purchase officer's swords of the time-

#1- Solid brass hilts- These were extremely popular with navalmen due to brass being rust-resistant to salt air. Note this same metal was valued in British and French naval swords for the same reasons.

#2. 4 sloted-hilt swords- Very well documented in Annis and May, Gilkerson (who dedicated multiple pages and pics of same hilt type) sword. Neumann likewise.

#3. Single-edged sabers among naval officer's swords (note 'saber' being the curved type vs 'sword' which strangely referred to the straight cutlass-type blades of the more common seaman's sword) was very common.

#4. The lion hilt. Multiple examples of lion hilt naval swords pictured in the above volumes, in brass none-the-less. Jone Paul Jones sword was a lion hilt.

#5. The ribbed grip. Whether it be the classic m1803, the Baltimore cutlass, the French boarding sabers, etc, the solid ribbed grip was the way to go with naval swords. Most of the ones I mention were in iron, however, brass examples were known to exist, especially in French examples.

As a matter of fact, the only things saying that a sword such as this isn't naval can likewise be attacked. One is the lack of any naval adornment, such as an anchor motiff or somesuch. Many, if not most, private purchase swords that were made for a general audience lacked such specifics and well-documented naval officer's swords from past conflicts with no markings are known. The only other weak point to be made is the blade length. At 32", it is not a typical naval length. This can be shot down by the fact that many officer's type swords had longer blades vs the more common hunting hanger types with shorter blades. In 'Boarders Away', pg 117 ex D, we see an officer's sword with 31" blade. In P.G. Annis book "Naval Swords", we see multiple Brit naval presentation swords with 30+" blades.

Even beyond all this, in May's monumental naval volumes 'Swords for Sea Service', vol.1 & 2, he directly points to naval officers who purposely chose to buy cavalry-type officer's swords for themselves based on their taste. Swords of this type with naval attribution can be found in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

I stumbled over an officer's saber in Gilkerson's book. Pg 123, #16 is a pic of an American made eagle head made in Philadelphia for a naval officer ca. 1797-1803. Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such. The hilt is ribbed, but as the pic is only a drawing, it doesn't say if it is brass. The eagle is of the primitive Prahl type. Is it just a coincidence that as the brass lion hilt faded into the sunset, it was replaced by the federal eagles, many of which were on naval swords?

Wow, I seem to have presented a treatise for challenge here, but as a naval collector, the possiblity of even a slight chance of naval usage makes this sword even more precious to me. And now, I open myself up to cannonfire-

Hotspur · 26th December 2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

I stumbled over an officer's saber in Gilkerson's book. Pg 123, #16 is a pic of an American made eagle head made in Philadelphia for a naval officer ca. 1797-1803. Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such. The hilt is ribbed, but as the pic is only a drawing, it doesn't say if it is brass. The eagle is of the primitive Prahl type. Is it just a coincidence that as the brass lion hilt faded into the sunset, it was replaced by the federal eagles, many of which were on naval swords?

Oh come on

The piece is described as the grip made of the finest material (ivory as shown light, others shown dark as ebony horn etc). It shows a distinct and sharp ferrule to contain organic material. Surely you don't read that or the rest of the "less than glorious attempts" as described by Mowbray and cutlery in Philadelphia. It doe not include the description of Gilkerson 16 within the light of Mowbray's remark. It does not read as "Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such" Quote/transcribe it word for word if you want to but I have that next to me as well as both the Mowbray eagle book and the Medicus collection never mentioning the sword (or anyone please show me in those if I have missed it n those two other tomes).

It is pretty clear at least in that example of your regard for that passage alone kind of reads to me as you hope to see what you would like to be instead of looking at some texts more objectively.

This is not to simply nay say and deny other speculation and theory entirely but I feel you are stretching a bit. I am open minded enough to accept that absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence. However, evaluating published texts and illustrations need not read in to what one hopes to find.

Cheers and respectively

GC

Glen Cleeton

Jeff D · 26th December 2010, 08:53 PM

Hi M ELEY,

Congratulations, I think you do indeed have a Philly brass Hilt. Is there any way to get better pictures of the letters on the hilt? I think Glen's concerns are all answered in the 1992 Bazelon article.

Jeff

M ELEY · 26th December 2010, 11:08 PM

Hello Jeff and thanks for responding,
I will try and post more pics of the sword, including the blade ASAP. What Glen is actually saying, though, is that Bazelon's article is dated and not correct in it's assumpion of the hilt being made in Philadelphia. As the original models of solid brass hilt lion types were undoubtedly imported, they were probably all imported (I still question this assumpion, as it seems private purchase types could have just as easily been made here as there after the pattern caught on IMHO). Likewise, although not as common as the iron hilts for cavalry troops, bras hilt types certainly existed. (Neumann's Accutrements of the Rev War pg 256, swords 11-15, all brass hilt components, pommels, slot hilts although admittedly not solid brass hilts.).
Likewise, in Neumann's Swords and Blades of the Revolution, ex 170.S, is listed as AMerican, solid brass hilt type (made over-seas possibly, but an interesting eagle listed as and made for America). The controversy rages on...

Jeff D · 27th December 2010, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Hello Jeff and thanks for responding,
What Glen is actually saying, though, is that Bazelon's article is dated and not correct in it's assumpion of the hilt being made in Philadelphia.

Do you mean brass hilts by Prahl and Rose? If so , this is fully acknowledged. You guys really should reread the article all of this is well covered in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

As the original models of solid brass hilt lion types were undoubtedly imported, they were probably all imported (I still question this assumpion, as it seems private purchase types could have just as easily been made here as there after the pattern caught on IMHO). Likewise, although not as common as the iron hilts for cavalry troops, bras hilt types certainly existed. (Neumann's Accutrements of the Rev War pg 256, swords 11-15, all brass hilt components, pommels, slot hilts although admittedly not solid brass hilts.).

I think you answered your own question in the first part of the question and almost answered the second question. I am unaware of any brass hilt and gripped cavalry sabers in Europe before or during this time, for the reasons you already quoted, they are awkward and have poor grips.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Likewise, in Neumann's Swords and Blades of the Revolution, ex 170.S, is listed as AMerican, solid brass hilt type (made over-seas possibly, but an interesting eagle listed as and made for America). The controversy rages on...

I have the 1973 edition which on page 118 identifies it clearly as American made?
I look forward to sorting this out as I have been trying to sort out a more traditional brass lion saber that may have originated in America.

All the Best

M ELEY · 27th December 2010, 07:19 AM

Jeff, I'd love to see your sword for comparison. Please post some pics when you get a chance.

I don't want to paraphrase Glen here, so I'll let him address your question/comment. My original intention was just to show off my sword, which i believed might have been made in Philly per Bazelon's 1992 article. In it, he attests that although the first all brass full lion hilts might have been Euro, later additions appeared to be locally made for a list of reasons he detailed in the article and I repeated above. Hotspur/Glen pointed out that this article is very dated and no proof of any of the solid full brass lions have turned up there, thus appearing to be over-seas work that was imported. When you mention Rose and Prahl, you are referring to brass fixtures and later eagle hilt types, but not the lion.

BELIEVE me, I want to believe that this piece is American made for the historical significance of it, but the evidence is lacking. What i am fighting for here is a clear picture that my lion hilt is A) Made for the American market and not elsewhere and B) That it is, in fact, a cavalry sword whether private purchase or not. I don't feel this sword should get the shaft just because it isn't the 'classic' iron hilt of the period. If anything, isn't this type rarer in some ways?
My naval theory was whimsy at it's best and indeed wishful thinking. I presented it simply as a supposition in the face of this sword being (gasp!) private purchase (eauuh!)

. Likewise, as naval types are in such a gray area, one never truly knows for sure unless there's undoubtable provenance.

Hotspur · 27th December 2010, 01:07 PM

My position has been stated and information presented to support my thoughts. Further reviewing and re-stating my perspective has become a bit redundant.

If someone has the 1992 article and cares to share that in full, I am all ears/eyes. Here is one sword that I acquired that could easily be argued as American assembly and quite like a Rose effort. The thing is that "quite like" does not make the similarity "most likely" to be a Rose effort. A ringed, grooved bone grip for counter to the thought the Gilkerson example looks brass. Gilkerson does show a brass grip spadroon though. Along with that batch here is a pair of weepers, both with horn grips and showing the difference in two examples of definition but very much the same vein. Some of the coarser American cast? Very possible but again not definitive. To finish, an even coarser definition in chasing a casting and along with the spiral example shown earlier, another longer cavalry length blade. Definitively cavalry? Not an absolute.

Cheers

GC

27th December 2010, 01:07 PM	#8
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 514	My position has been stated and information presented to support my thoughts. Further reviewing and re-stating my perspective has become a bit redundant. If someone has the 1992 article and cares to share that in full, I am all ears/eyes. Here is one sword that I acquired that could easily be argued as American assembly and quite like a Rose effort. The thing is that "quite like" does not make the similarity "most likely" to be a Rose effort. A ringed, grooved bone grip for counter to the thought the Gilkerson example looks brass. Gilkerson does show a brass grip spadroon though. Along with that batch here is a pair of weepers, both with horn grips and showing the difference in two examples of definition but very much the same vein. Some of the coarser American cast? Very possible but again not definitive. To finish, an even coarser definition in chasing a casting and along with the spiral example shown earlier, another longer cavalry length blade. Definitively cavalry? Not an absolute. Cheers GC Attached Images

26th December 2010, 03:36 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,159	I assure you I didn't mean to repeat past answers, perhaps more of a clarification. In the end, what I am getting out of this is simply this. Probability of these types (I am referring directly to the brass solid lion hilt slotted saber, regardless of blade marking) of swords being of European manufacture is very high with a slight probability of some American involvement. No question of private purchase (I never questioned this, even from the beginning). Until another type of this sword appears in a well-documented European setting, we can assume they were in highest probability only (or mostly) made for the American market. The final question is are these swords only used by cavalry officers (private purchase) or could other American unit (navy, artillery, foot soldiers, etc) officers have taken a fancy to them as well. Many of the existing lion-hilts are not marked "American Light Horse", after all.

26th December 2010, 04:22 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,159	I really didn't mean to open a can of worms, but once I got to thinking about the very significance of private purchase, which leaves open many possibilities for any type of officer finding these swords attractive, I began to wonder about naval use. Yes, I am a naval collector, but it was never my intention to steer this sword down that path. It is an incredible piece of history regardless of how you look at it. Perhaps I'm daft for pointing this out, but here goes- Naval officers of the time period 1780-1810 frequently purchased their own type of swords depending on what they liked. There were no standard patterns back then or rules as to what a sword had to be. That being said, here is a composite of the typical things seen on private purchase officer's swords of the time- #1- Solid brass hilts- These were extremely popular with navalmen due to brass being rust-resistant to salt air. Note this same metal was valued in British and French naval swords for the same reasons. #2. 4 sloted-hilt swords- Very well documented in Annis and May, Gilkerson (who dedicated multiple pages and pics of same hilt type) sword. Neumann likewise. #3. Single-edged sabers among naval officer's swords (note 'saber' being the curved type vs 'sword' which strangely referred to the straight cutlass-type blades of the more common seaman's sword) was very common. #4. The lion hilt. Multiple examples of lion hilt naval swords pictured in the above volumes, in brass none-the-less. Jone Paul Jones sword was a lion hilt. #5. The ribbed grip. Whether it be the classic m1803, the Baltimore cutlass, the French boarding sabers, etc, the solid ribbed grip was the way to go with naval swords. Most of the ones I mention were in iron, however, brass examples were known to exist, especially in French examples. As a matter of fact, the only things saying that a sword such as this isn't naval can likewise be attacked. One is the lack of any naval adornment, such as an anchor motiff or somesuch. Many, if not most, private purchase swords that were made for a general audience lacked such specifics and well-documented naval officer's swords from past conflicts with no markings are known. The only other weak point to be made is the blade length. At 32", it is not a typical naval length. This can be shot down by the fact that many officer's type swords had longer blades vs the more common hunting hanger types with shorter blades. In 'Boarders Away', pg 117 ex D, we see an officer's sword with 31" blade. In P.G. Annis book "Naval Swords", we see multiple Brit naval presentation swords with 30+" blades. Even beyond all this, in May's monumental naval volumes 'Swords for Sea Service', vol.1 & 2, he directly points to naval officers who purposely chose to buy cavalry-type officer's swords for themselves based on their taste. Swords of this type with naval attribution can be found in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. I stumbled over an officer's saber in Gilkerson's book. Pg 123, #16 is a pic of an American made eagle head made in Philadelphia for a naval officer ca. 1797-1803. Mowbray likewise ID'ed this sword as such. The hilt is ribbed, but as the pic is only a drawing, it doesn't say if it is brass. The eagle is of the primitive Prahl type. Is it just a coincidence that as the brass lion hilt faded into the sunset, it was replaced by the federal eagles, many of which were on naval swords? Wow, I seem to have presented a treatise for challenge here, but as a naval collector, the possiblity of even a slight chance of naval usage makes this sword even more precious to me. And now, I open myself up to cannonfire-

26th December 2010, 08:53 PM	#4
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi M ELEY, Congratulations, I think you do indeed have a Philly brass Hilt. Is there any way to get better pictures of the letters on the hilt? I think Glen's concerns are all answered in the 1992 Bazelon article. Jeff

26th December 2010, 11:08 PM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,159	Hello Jeff and thanks for responding, I will try and post more pics of the sword, including the blade ASAP. What Glen is actually saying, though, is that Bazelon's article is dated and not correct in it's assumpion of the hilt being made in Philadelphia. As the original models of solid brass hilt lion types were undoubtedly imported, they were probably all imported (I still question this assumpion, as it seems private purchase types could have just as easily been made here as there after the pattern caught on IMHO). Likewise, although not as common as the iron hilts for cavalry troops, bras hilt types certainly existed. (Neumann's Accutrements of the Rev War pg 256, swords 11-15, all brass hilt components, pommels, slot hilts although admittedly not solid brass hilts.). Likewise, in Neumann's Swords and Blades of the Revolution, ex 170.S, is listed as AMerican, solid brass hilt type (made over-seas possibly, but an interesting eagle listed as and made for America). The controversy rages on...

27th December 2010, 07:19 AM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,159	Jeff, I'd love to see your sword for comparison. Please post some pics when you get a chance. I don't want to paraphrase Glen here, so I'll let him address your question/comment. My original intention was just to show off my sword, which i believed might have been made in Philly per Bazelon's 1992 article. In it, he attests that although the first all brass full lion hilts might have been Euro, later additions appeared to be locally made for a list of reasons he detailed in the article and I repeated above. Hotspur/Glen pointed out that this article is very dated and no proof of any of the solid full brass lions have turned up there, thus appearing to be over-seas work that was imported. When you mention Rose and Prahl, you are referring to brass fixtures and later eagle hilt types, but not the lion. BELIEVE me, I want to believe that this piece is American made for the historical significance of it, but the evidence is lacking. What i am fighting for here is a clear picture that my lion hilt is A) Made for the American market and not elsewhere and B) That it is, in fact, a cavalry sword whether private purchase or not. I don't feel this sword should get the shaft just because it isn't the 'classic' iron hilt of the period. If anything, isn't this type rarer in some ways? My naval theory was whimsy at it's best and indeed wishful thinking. I presented it simply as a supposition in the face of this sword being (gasp!) private purchase (eauuh!) . Likewise, as naval types are in such a gray area, one never truly knows for sure unless there's undoubtable provenance.