Federalist sword

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	#4
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	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, 11:08 PM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	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	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	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.