Federalist sword

[Hotspur]

Hi Jeff

The information regarding foundries in Philadelphia was mentioned by me and drawn from other's of Bazelon's associates.

To my knowledge Casting brass is a far easier process that forging decent blades, which Rose and to a lesser extent Prahl were doing.

Mowbray specifically relates Rose as not a founder, so I have to wonder where you have information pointing to the Rose family casting any brass items at all. It gets no notice or copy in Bazelon's book regarding The Pennsylvania collections, including his Rose biography. Bezdek has a good number of pages on Rose as well. I'll maybe deign to open that to find naught as well but my posting of that would be as inconclusive to you as anything I have drawn from the other sources already posted.

As I have, you are now answering questions with questions posed as answers. My conjecture is no less than what other information has been presented here and I have listed the other titles which support my feelings and understandings.

I think this is where the problem lies. I cannot find the contradiction between the Medicus collection and the article. I apologize if I again ask you to be redundant, but what exactly is it in the Medicus collection shows these hilts are European? We are talking about brass lion pommel and grip hilts and not just brass pommels, right?

I specifically pointed to the lion pommels listed and that only one pf the four shown are possibly of American origin. I further pointed to Flayderman and the Younger Mowbray as being the least speculative of the newer publications on American swords. Certainly, we see do not see any discussion in the book regarding cast grip lion pommel slotted hilts.

Irregardless of other debate, my initial contention was regarding what is being touted as America's first recognized sword pattern. What I regarded as interpretation of other author's such as Peterson's #18 and Gilkerson's sketch of what might be brass (while listed as made of the finest materials) makes me question the varacity of any speaking/writing of the Bazelon article when not having it in my hands to read it.

As with many of my replies regarding other's view of information presented, it is easy to make whatever one wants to promote as some truth. It is I that has been quite open in offering the proponents to supply something more than Bazelon's article to bring forth the grail of whom exactly was casting the grips shown (when regarded by other authors as German manufacture).

Burn one that might seem as a heretic but believe it or not, I have been on your (collective) side in participating at all. I'll always have a soft spot for vikingsword, as it was a very early portal in my interests of swords.

I was done here several posts ago but I have begun to realize you'd rather not accept anything I have offered anyway.

Do carry on with better ID for the sword in question.

Cheers

GC

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Hi Jeff

The information regarding foundries in Philadelphia was mentioned by me and drawn from other's of Bazelon's associates.

Mowbray specifically relates Rose as not a founder, so I have to wonder where you have information pointing to the Rose family casting any brass items at all. It gets no notice or copy in Bazelon's book regarding The Pennsylvania collections, including his Rose biography. Bezdek has a good number of pages on Rose as well. I'll maybe deign to open that to find naught as well but my posting of that would be as inconclusive to you as anything I have drawn from the other sources already posted.

Glen, Everyone agrees that there is no evidence Rose or Prahl cast brass. When I say everyone, that would include you , me, Bazelon, etc. The difference is that because Rose and Prahl most likely didn't cast their hilts you have concluded the hilts were imported from Europe. Bazelon came to a different conclusion with well supported information, that they came from the Philadelphia area most likely through a cottage industry. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but all I would like to know is what information do you have that discredits Bazelon. If you don't think it necessary to bother with the article just let me know where the evidence these hilts were imported to the Philadelphia area from Europe, or any where else for that matter, is. I would actually be very happy if that were true for selfish reasons regarding my own saber.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

I specifically pointed to the lion pommels listed and that only one pf the four shown are possibly of American origin. I further pointed to Flayderman and the Younger Mowbray as being the least speculative of the newer publications on American swords. Certainly, we see do not see any discussion in the book regarding cast grip lion pommel slotted hilts.

If your point is that the majority of lion pommeled swords came from Europe, I don't know anyone who would argue with that. If it was that the majority of Brass hilted lion pommel and gripped swords (ie: NCO bandsman etc swords) were European again no one could argue with you. That is why the article specifically limits the discussion to Brass pommeled and gripped lion cavalry sabers. These seem only to be related to sabers and makers in the Philadelphia area in the revolution-federal period. Again if you have other information please let me know.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Irregardless of other debate, my initial contention was regarding what is being touted as America's first recognized sword pattern. What I regarded as interpretation of other author's such as Peterson's #18 and Gilkerson's sketch of what might be brass (while listed as made of the finest materials) makes me question the varacity of any speaking/writing of the Bazelon article when not having it in my hands to read it.

I recognize that this may be a pesky bee in your bonnet, but, it has nothing to do with the article or discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

As with many of my replies regarding other's view of information presented, it is easy to make whatever one wants to promote as some truth. It is I that has been quite open in offering the proponents to supply something more than Bazelon's article to bring forth the grail of whom exactly was casting the grips shown (when regarded by other authors as German manufacture).

If you are discussing Peterson #18, I have never seen any one state the hilt is of German manufacture. All agree the blade is of Solingen make as it is clearly marked. Get used to Bazelon being offered as the holy grail on these hilts, because it is. Until better information is found, or a better argument is made. The internet is a great source of information, but I think you have to start at the beginning and work your way up. That may involve actual paper.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Burn one that might seem as a heretic but believe it or not, I have been on your (collective) side in participating at all. I'll always have a soft spot for vikingsword, as it was a very early portal in my interests of swords.

I was done here several posts ago but I have begun to realize you'd rather not accept anything I have offered anyway.

Do carry on with better ID for the sword in question.

Cheers

GC

All the Best
Jeff

[Hotspur]

Lol Jeff,

If you are discussing Peterson #18, I have never seen any one state the hilt is of German manufacture.

Maybe you should read Peterson writing that it is German in his description of #18 and begins that dialog with the information.

Out of the original context you replied

Glen, Everyone agrees that there is no evidence Rose or Prahl cast brass. When I say everyone, that would include you

Along with the text for Peterson #18, you seem to overlook much of what I have related from Mowbray's eagle book.

Snipped from another section in your reply

Until better information is found, or a better argument is made. The internet is a great source of information, but I think you have to start at the beginning and work your way up. That may involve actual paper.

You are now actually supporting my argument while being just as nice as pie, right? I am a bit familiar with the texts I have mentioned. Rather than act hurt by your take on my own research, I'll but shrug and ask that maybe you review some of the texts I have referenced for your own edification.

Cheers

GC

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Lol Jeff,



Maybe you should read Peterson writing that it is German in his description of #18 and begins that dialog with the information.

Out of the original context you replied


Along with the text for Peterson #18, you seem to overlook much of what I have related from Mowbray's eagle book.

Snipped from another section in your reply

You are now actually supporting my argument while being just as nice as pie, right? I am a bit familiar with the texts I have mentioned. Rather than act hurt by your take on my own research, I'll but shrug and ask that maybe you review some of the texts I have referenced for your own edification.

Cheers

GC

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. Is it this excellent 1954 work that you think outdates the 1992 Bazelon work?
To my knowledge not a single brass lion pommel and grip is discussed in Mowbrey's work. Do you think that Bazelon who is noted in the acknowledgements of that book is unaware of the pearls that only you seem to have gleamed? 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

[Hotspur]

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?

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.

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

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

My Revised edition 1996. Is it different than his description?


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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The quote is the same, point being.....? Oh I see that 38 years before the article in discussion Peterson implied that the Hilt is German. Ok I will give that to you.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

You might find this interesting in the light of Bazelon and his notes on Prahl and found elsewhere.



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)

~~~~

Thanks that is interesting. No Bazelon does not ascribe a specific maker. If five or six shops are casting hilts and 3 or four guards, who would you say the maker was. would you label them with one?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you on my side of this? If true would you risk the embargoes during the Napoleonic and French revolution to get imported hilts for the above contract?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

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.

It was not the purpose of the book to prove or disprove anything. I don't know of any controversial issues mentioned in the book, even dates. The book was to showcase the massive collection and to give descriptions only. Controversies had no place there, but are saved for other venues like here and the literature.

Originally Posted by Hotspur

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

Glen your posts may have been misread by me, but, not intentionally I can assure you. I have most certainly questioned them. I have not been convinced by your arguments, do not take it personally. If the only part of the Medicus book that you feels outdates the 1992 article is a lack of a ringing endorsement of the theory, then I remain unconvinced. That would be counter to its purpose.
In my original post I suggested that the Bazelon article be reviewed to counter your observations, I still believe this. It is not now or ever been a 'blow off' . I could care less if you do, I do suspect you will not feel it is a waste of time. If my scanner was actually working I would try to get it to you.
Mark, As in the original post I still feel that the best theory on the origin of your hilt is Revolution-Federal period Philadelphia.

All the Best
Jeff

[Hotspur]

Hi Jeff

In my original post I suggested that the Bazelon article be reviewed to counter your observations, I still believe this. It is not now or ever been a 'blow off' . I could care less if you do, I do suspect you will not feel it is a waste of time. If my scanner was actually working I would try to get it to you.

Indeed and even though I am a two finger typist as well, I often manage to transcribe quite a bit of text for others. Nor do I offer the Medicus book as a whole proof but it is certainly better described than a lot of the same (types of and at times exactly those) swords in other texts and sales.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

I am sorry if this entry has caused a stink, nor did I see it coming. I didn't mean to imply that this sword type was the original American prototype, although that is the conclusion Flayderman came to in that long-ago auction catalog from the 1990's. I also realise that new information is coming to the surface everyday and I am open to it, but it still seems to me that for an absolute positive answer, the jury is still out. I am not an expert in this (or probably any other edged weapon area, but particularly weak here, thus the reason for my posting). If I have seemed closed to any of the information thus posted, I assure you, I am not, just digesting it a piece at a time. I would hate to see anyone leave this forum because of a difference of opinion. I welcome controversy IF it serves to shed light on certain forms of esoteric weapons.

I am not posting this to defend or deny American make, nor an I going to argue that this is private purchase. My struggle lies in a definitive answer as to whether any other examples of this sword exist in any other collection pointing away to a strictly American usage. It is not fair to treat this as the lowly import sword when i feel it belongs side-by-side with it's iron compatriots, many of which BTW during the Revolution might have foreign-imported parts/blades/etc. With that, I am also going to step back (but not run away) from this thread until those with more information step forth.

Jeff, I do hope you will start a separate thread featuring your sword, but it may also involve controversy in this admittedly obscure time period in American history (post-Revolution up to the great eagle-head era).

Mark