Basket hilted swords

[victoriansword]

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by victoriansword

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS

I agree VS, that would be a bit irresponsible to classify any type of sword to a regiment etc. without markings or provenance, though it is OK to note that it is 'of the type' used accordingly. What I was noting is that Jeffries and later Drury were prolific suppliers of this munitions grade hilt form (it seems Harvey had a few).

I have one that I've had since the 70s which was remounted with a M1788 light cavalry saber blade, and would suspect it was taken from the stores of these collected after 1784 when they ceased being issued to infantry.
Possibly it was remounted for militia or yeomanry during the 1793+ concerns over possible French invasion etc. hard to say really, but pretty interesting saber.

I got most info from "Swords for the Highland Regiments 1757-1784". Anthony Darling, 1988.

[victoriansword]

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by victoriansword

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

Absolutely, and as you well note, Darling was extremely cautious, in fact as you know, he had that one instance of '42' on the one example, which was noted as specifically 'unusual'. Though I've learned so much all these years, I still learn virtually every day, thanks to queries and discussions as here with you.

The regimental markings situation with British weapons in the 18th century are fascinating because they are so mysterious and not necessarily standardized nor always accurately recorded.