New member

[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

[fernando]

Originally Posted by 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

Sure you can!
This is one of the differences that prop this forum to a superior level .
Fernando

[Richard]

OK then, here you go (in the Research section)

http://www.swordsandpistols.co.uk/

Originally Posted by fernando

Sure you can!
This is one of the differences that prop this forum to a superior level .
Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Richard,
Thank you so much for these responses and the details concerning the atmosphere of these seminal times in the development of the regulation patterns in the military swords of Great Britain. Your soundly emplaced knowledge on these weapons and thier history is evidenced by the very concise and perfectly stated manner in which you write.

Thank you for the link to the articles, and for your courteous concern for the forum rules. As Fernando has proudly noted, we are absolutely delighted to mention other websites, as well as links etc. as our focus is on sharing information and learning together. Naturally the only protocols that should be considered would be pertaining to copyrights or other legal restrictions in posting materials, but aside from those, fair use and fair play stand as our guidelines

It is wonderful reading the detail you mention in these posts, and for me its very much visiting a place I havent seen in many years. My earliest years in collecting were with British regulation patterns, and your descriptions not only bring back the memories, but clarify the often complex details that were then inherent in the study of these weapons.

I had forgotten the turmoil on the 1788 heavy, and the confusion that ensued. The sword tests were huge news of the times, and as noted, these were the big three. I recall the Gill M1788 light cavalry sabre which carried his pronouncement in huge lettering 'WARRANTED NEVER TO FAIL'. It honestly hadnt dawned on me back then, that Osborn was indeed a relatively minor figure until his alignment with Lemarchant, and I had always wondered why his name did not figure in with the others during these issues. As for Harvey, I've never seen much on the weapons he produced except for the dragoon swords and some others which seemed to date earlier than these events. I dont recall ever seeing cavalry sabres by Harvey, and wonder if there are examples to be seen.

One thing that always intrigued me was that in a sense, it seemed that Gill's styling, from the flat pommel hilt and elongated rectangular langets, to the cross section of the blades, appear to correspond to German forms.
On the other hand, those of Wooley seem to lean toward French styling, perhaps somewhat neoclassic with the 'turban' domed pommel cap and the more elliptical langets, then coupled with the montmorency style blade cross section.
Woolley's swords seem characterized by this cross section to the center point fuller nearly to the blade tip.

These are recollections that come to mind, and actually are probably admittedly superficial observations, which I look forward to clarification on.

It seems that I once had read even that Thomas Gill, the mainstay of the controversy over the German blades, was at some point even involved in the importation and use of thier blades, perhaps somehow connected to JJ Runkel. I would suspect this reference might have had to do with propoganda of the times and the situation, but his adherence to German forms does present an element of potential basis.

Its an amazing window into history to see that the weapons scandals and intrigue of yesterday are basically the same in nature as in todays troubled times, only with the obvious difference in technology.



All the very best,
Jim

[Richard]

Hi Jim,

Re the 1788 patterns (the first regulation patterns of British military swords) : you are correct of course when you point out that, despite being a "pattern", there was a wide divergence of detail between different makers. On a rough estimation, I would say around 50% of existing trooper's swords in existance today are the "Germanic style" imported by Runkel, 30% Woolley with that distinctive rounded "turban pommel" style, 15% Gill, again with his distinctive style and 5% others (Harvey, Dawes, etc.). As I said earlier my computer was stolen last year and I lost literally hundreds of photos otherwise I could have illustrated what we are talking about.

However, the 1796 patterns also differed in style between different makers albeit to a lesser extent than with the 1788 patterrns. This is particularly true of officer's swords and this time I am able to post some photos:

The first (I hope they come out in the right order) is an example by Woolley. This has a plain rounded pommel and backpiece with large ears, not vastly different from trooper's swords. The second is by Gill and has a very distinctive shield shaped langet and reinforcing fillet at the junction of the knucklebow and crossguard. The last is by Osborn and has typical Osborn "comma" ears and facetted backpiece. It is of note the many other cutlers later copied those "comma" ears, but Osborn was the first.

Regards
Richard

PS, the Woolley was the sword of Lt. Joseph Hume of the Berwickshire Yeomanry Cavalry, the Gill belonged to Lt. The Hon. John Dutton of the Loyal Gloucester Yeomanry Cavalry and the Osborn was the sword of William Waddell of the Loyal Birmingham Light Horse Volunteers (the Yeomanry Cavalry of the late 18th century/early 19th century is my speciality!)

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Richard,
Thank you so much for these responses and the details concerning the atmosphere of these seminal times in the development of the regulation patterns in the military swords of Great Britain. Your soundly emplaced knowledge on these weapons and thier history is evidenced by the very concise and perfectly stated manner in which you write.

Thank you for the link to the articles, and for your courteous concern for the forum rules. As Fernando has proudly noted, we are absolutely delighted to mention other websites, as well as links etc. as our focus is on sharing information and learning together. Naturally the only protocols that should be considered would be pertaining to copyrights or other legal restrictions in posting materials, but aside from those, fair use and fair play stand as our guidelines

It is wonderful reading the detail you mention in these posts, and for me its very much visiting a place I havent seen in many years. My earliest years in collecting were with British regulation patterns, and your descriptions not only bring back the memories, but clarify the often complex details that were then inherent in the study of these weapons.

I had forgotten the turmoil on the 1788 heavy, and the confusion that ensued. The sword tests were huge news of the times, and as noted, these were the big three. I recall the Gill M1788 light cavalry sabre which carried his pronouncement in huge lettering 'WARRANTED NEVER TO FAIL'. It honestly hadnt dawned on me back then, that Osborn was indeed a relatively minor figure until his alignment with Lemarchant, and I had always wondered why his name did not figure in with the others during these issues. As for Harvey, I've never seen much on the weapons he produced except for the dragoon swords and some others which seemed to date earlier than these events. I dont recall ever seeing cavalry sabres by Harvey, and wonder if there are examples to be seen.

One thing that always intrigued me was that in a sense, it seemed that Gill's styling, from the flat pommel hilt and elongated rectangular langets, to the cross section of the blades, appear to correspond to German forms.
On the other hand, those of Wooley seem to lean toward French styling, perhaps somewhat neoclassic with the 'turban' domed pommel cap and the more elliptical langets, then coupled with the montmorency style blade cross section.
Woolley's swords seem characterized by this cross section to the center point fuller nearly to the blade tip.

These are recollections that come to mind, and actually are probably admittedly superficial observations, which I look forward to clarification on.

It seems that I once had read even that Thomas Gill, the mainstay of the controversy over the German blades, was at some point even involved in the importation and use of thier blades, perhaps somehow connected to JJ Runkel. I would suspect this reference might have had to do with propoganda of the times and the situation, but his adherence to German forms does present an element of potential basis.

Its an amazing window into history to see that the weapons scandals and intrigue of yesterday are basically the same in nature as in todays troubled times, only with the obvious difference in technology.



All the very best,
Jim

[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