Federalist sword

[M ELEY]

For posterity's sake, here are the descriptions of the few examples I was able to find in auction catalogs over the years. My source for these was Norm Flayderman's catalogs (no example found in Fagan & Co, Dale C. Anderson, Frederick's Swords, Museum of Historical Arms, etc, over a 15-20 yr period). The info identifies the style of saber as one of private purchase for American cavalry officers, some possibly made in Philadelphia, but probably the majority either from over-seas (Germany & England), Euro blades with poss American-made hilts. (note I paraphrase somewhat for time constraints)

Ex.#1- American Horseman's Cavl'y Saber 1785-1800, made by famous British sword maker Harvey specifically for the American market. Heavy, tall all-brass hilt (pommel/grips cast as one piece) with brass divided slot hilt guard. Blade is 36" curved,sible-edged, completely flat/wedge-shaped (no fullers). Lion pommel rudimentary with hand-engraved etching to create detail in the face/mane, ears cast in relief of a 'star pattern'. Deeply marked "Harvey".

Ex.#2- "American made horseman's saber c.1780-85 by Phila. silversmith", Heavy, tall all-brass hilt with traces of original gilt. Massive lion's head pommel/grips cast as one piece. Slot-hilt guard hall-marked with "I. Myers" (Well known Philadelphia silversmith ca. 1773-1790). In known advertisements by him in Phila. newspapers of the time, he said- "Gentlemen of the Army & Navy may be supplied with swords & dirks of every description, silver & gilt mounted". 31" curved single-edged balde with 3 deep parallel fullers each side (seems to be the earlier pattern vs the wider fuller, IMHO).

Ex.#3- American horseman's saber c.1775-1785. Large brass 4-slot hilt with lion pommel (identical in form to above, not like the lion pommels on the typical Rev War pieces), spiral horn grips (resembling the later form all brass grip in same style) Elegant large, quite delicately devided guard with simple fluting on pointed quillon, 33" blade, curved, single-edged with broad shallow unstopped fuller. (I know there were many types of lion-hilts during the Revolution, but the pic of this sword hilt is spot-on to the Federalist types we are discussing)

Ex.#4- A lion-hilt, 4 slot hilt in iron, the pommel with backstrap and sharkskin/wire grip, ca 1785-1800, 35" single edged curved blade marked "American Light Horse" in large letters both sides of the blade in the wide fullers. Blade also has German maker (Wm. Tesche Peters Sohn/Solingen/Fecit), also a sunburst, stars, U.S. and etched spread eagle. This one had its original scabbard.

Ex.#5- Large brass lion hilt pommel/grip sword with 35" single edged curved blade marked "American Light Horse" both sides of blade plus 'Wilhelm Tesche Peters Sohn in Solingen Fecit'. Decor consists of U.S in a shield device, and eagle. 4 slot-hilt of brass.

[Hotspur]

Yes, I have Bazelon's Pennsylvania book from 1987 in hand. He has one crude dog cast hilt. I think we are also looking at the context a bit differently when he writes "The one piece brass hilt is typical of Philadelphia swordsmithing. The pommel is the 'dog's head' motif' andthe 34 3/4" blade is hand drawn from a single piece of steel." Underline mine to show his syntax in regarding the overall (all parts) of the cast hilt, slotted hilt, long crude variation as typical of Philly make. A couple of pages later is the Rose light horse ca 1795, lion, composite grip and slotted guard. Why he lists the rose as the revolution with that date with naught but the blade marked Rose. " These dates (93-95) are approximately those which can be attributed for this sword on stylistic grounds underline mine again. Nothing in the makers of Philadelphia section of that book regarding cast hilts. I do probably need more Bazelon along the line but may see duplicate informations from the compilers like Dick Bezdek (and woe is, kinda like me).

A break for Peterson here. Do you mean J Meyers 1785-1804 or maybe his family at large? Peterson references #80 silver five ball spadoonky Also a Myer Myers of NY as a silversmith (smallsword). Peterson silver lions and dogs. The blade of 39 shows traces and IDed as Prahl but the cutlery work/silver Wiltberger. Dogs, none to mention in that silver section.

So let us look again at the elder Mowbray in 1988 regarding brass casting in Philadelphia. He begins with the silversmiths and American makers. Not one hilt with a cast handle mentioned, eagle or not. Lots of information on borrowed and imported parts and blades. On to Philly. Prahl and Rose are fairly well bio'd then as now. In glowing optimism he writes " As a specialty, the swords of Philadelphia have no peers, providing the meatr and potatoes-and more than a little of the caviar- to the collector of American swords." His maker list for the Philly eagles is quite meager as charted directly below that quote. However, it is Prahl, Rose, Weaver, Widmann and Horstmann that might be the most prolific in the waning of classical and federalist tastes as well as common forms. Lets go on to cast brass hilts specifically. Prahl type 1 1800. The only spiraled grip is not surprisgly (to me) not cast brass but rather a Rose blade with a Prahl pommel " In absence of any information that Rose was ever involved in the founding of brass, it is assumed this arm constitutes a "marriage" of a Rose blade..." Type 1 is a mix of stirrup and slots, as are on occasion the type 2. The type 3 listed as possibly an older version as it is owner named/marked five years after Prahl's death in 1809. A cast McLaws eagle dated to 1805 and abstraclty quoted here for description "Although the brass work is quite artistic, it little resembles the much less streamlined normally associated with Prahl" . Concl

Philly brass in chapter 41 "The results ranged from highly-stylized, near streamlined, efforts to a calculated degree of crudity." He shows a Rose like hanger/nco type blade that's cast hilt is smooth like a Prahl effort. Adjacent, A European hanger, possibly French with a cast bird hilt from half a century earlier.

Chptr 42 the Federal Lancer hilt What more to say? This is a prelude to dismissing the capabilities of Philly/Quaker foundries in lieu of the advances marching forward in Europe. "...the design of the hilt with its stylized eagle represents an art-in-metal school that seems alien to any in vogue in America (circa 1815) See also Medicus notes A Flayderman example with a spiraled similar lancer "this short sabre is nearly identical to the previously illustrated example"

I could pull out more from the Rose examples of blades but blades is what Rose is most known for regardless of their other contracts. No casting by them known.

So I have Bazelon, Mowbray and Flayderman pretty much covered in denying the spiraled cast grips with the exception of the dog in Bazelon's unknown maker example. Mowbray ends the cast hilt with the lancer eagle and we see some other air-srteam models coming in and specifically noted by Mowbray as the advances in Sohlingen. He is prefacing in that chapter for volume II of the eagles which later becomes Stuart Mowbray's work with Flayderman to use the Medicus collection as a pretty good do-all for all swords of the American military histories. This written, it is apparent Bazelon and Mowbray did co-operate as publisher and editor with the 1992 article perhaps too little too late in going back to re-publish both the PA collection book and the elder Mowbray's eagles.

If then Stuart's editing along with Flayderman offers the best balanced fence sitting we know of regarding dogs lion and eagles (oh my) then the earlier notes are left as entirely contentious but even Mowbray the elder is writing in his book that Philly cutlers and foundries were simply not up to par with overseas castings. The Medicus collection book is as much a bible to me now that I have it as Peterson was even before starting there and reading online.

Long post but where I began the other day.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

Wow, GC, you have done your homework well! A lot of excellent information presented here. I'm printing it off for my records. I'm not arguing the fact that in retrospect, these swords were probably made over-seas, but Bazelon was the man who wrote the article I speak of. Unless he changed his stance from the time of it's publication (1992), he was speaking of these lion-hilts as being made in Philadelphia and he presented theories to his hypothesis, which Flayderman used when he was selling the above swords.
No skin off my teeth if it were made here or over-seas, as long as they were true "light horse" swords, which I believe Bazelon proved with his arguments. Fashion drives popularity and probably American officers saw others with this type sword, which caught on. Too many existing examples with "Philadelphia" and "American Light Horse" etched on the blade, plus no accounts of these type swords turning up in any German, French or English arsenals. (I posted several other examples above via edit).
The silversmith I mentioned was from an auction catalog of Norm F's, so I don't have any other info than what he (and I ) listed above. Sorry! In any case, I just want to make sure I understand you on one point. You don't think there's even a chance that Prahl (who was making swords/castings during this time period) couldn't have been the creator of this hilt type?

[Hotspur]

Good morning,

What I am getting at in conclusion is that Flayderman and the Mowbray archives waffle the Philly notes Bazelon based his 1992 article on. If I make it back to Hartfod in the fall, I'll chat up Stuart a bit at their book stall. With and in collaboration, the Mowbray and Flayderman archives embody their best work and guesswork being left to a minimum. That titles resets values and supposition (in my mind) to a minimum of absolutes and information.

In a previous post you link

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...ew/vol4-1d.htm

and the example shown is the typical horseman of American hussar hilts sans cast lion grips. This is exactly my point in referencing Neumann's expanses of that general type. To then assign cast lions as predominate and Philly cast is then lumping them into the whole. In that the lion is still somewhat available and used throughout the 18th century does not make Washington and other patriots less leery of claiming the lion pommel slots anything but non-regulation variants. Yes, long crude blades (ala Rose) and slots or hussar hilts are prevalent and often Philly based but the cast hilts are not.

A later analogy

Move on to the American Civil War and while the gothic baskets with spread eagles are often listed as popular for Federal foot officers and the blade as well as purpose fit the general mold, the regulation French patterns should not be confused with those gothic hilts while existing hand in hand with exactly the same blade decorations as well as the blades themselves.

````

I have not read the Bazelon article. What I am regarding from your notes (including Flayderman's and Mowbray's earlier contentions) is that the cast lion hilts or just pommels and general pattern are easily accepted. To label the cast hilts in Philly and predominate in the revolution to federalist period is denial of both earlier work and a summation half a decade after Bazelon's apparent theorizing and Flayderman's later collaborations. My feelings and research really do point to the dearth of information group during the internet's growth which is still expanding expotentially.

Throughout that, the background historical information such as political trends. Import/export retail operations along with cutler and smith facts are also still growing but Philly has become a pretty open book by the time of Bezdek's compilations as well as the Medicus publication. None of that supports what seems to be alluded to here other than imported non regulation cast grip lions of private purchase by officers. By the federal period, the lion hilts are even less in demand with the eagles starting to overlap by 1790 with that trend lasting another half century, just as the British lion had been popular in the colonial period.

I have gone from accepting older absolutes and conjecture as better and more complete information surfaces. I find my personal focus a lot more refined to just a handful of eagle types but the trends and information accumulating crosses many other paths.


Have a great eve and day of merriment and we will likely purse this some more but my thoughts and yours have both been fairly stated to what I find a fair conclusion for now.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

Hello GC and Merry Christmas to you. Out of respect for the holiday, no need to respond for now, just something that has been bothering me...
I've been mulling over your information and find it very conclusive as well. It makes sense that these were imported all along if for nothing more than that most of the existing 'marked' blades were foreign. Likewise, your point about the much more uncommon brass lion hilts points both to private purchase and probable foreign import. Now that that is behind us, on to the next uncomfortable issue mentioned before...
Is this private-purchase brass lion-hilt limited to just American cavalry? Was it sold to other factions of the early U.S. troops? Was it in fact sold over-seas via private purchase to other militia in other countries? Baselon insists in that earlier article that solid brass hilts were not popular in europe as the design flaw lay in the grip being slippery when wet with sweat. If we accept that the hilts were not made in America, that they were not the standard pattern but private purchase and that they were far less common, do we also open that door to uncertainty as to their ultimate use?

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Hello GC and Merry Christmas to you. Out of respect for the holiday, no need to respond for now, just something that has been bothering me...
I've been mulling over your information and find it very conclusive as well. It makes sense that these were imported all along if for nothing more than that most of the existing 'marked' blades were foreign. Likewise, your point about the much more uncommon brass lion hilts points both to private purchase and probable foreign import. Now that that is behind us, on to the next uncomfortable issue mentioned before...

You are now asking of clarification for much the same points already discussed but I'll give it a shot but some replies will on occasion go back to response already posted and be a question to answer the question.

Is this private-purchase brass lion-hilt limited to just American cavalry?

Were the 19th century spread eagle gothic hilted infantry swords with U.S. etchings on the blades sold to only U.S. infantry Officers? In the form you are pursuing, it is easy to make a case for lion pommel cast grip slotted hilt cavalry blades marked American targeted solely for American cavalry officers. However, are there any regulations supporting only these as suitable for cavalry officers during the federal period?

Was it sold to other factions of the early U.S. troops?

Under the qualification you have limited, hard to make a point those identical swords were distributed for anything else but American use. However, not intended for troops but for private purchases and as already accepted time and again by both of us.

Was it in fact sold over-seas via private purchase to other militia in other countries?

Somehow I am reading three questions with much the same intent, so my replies would be much the same. Sold in bulk to many of a certain group? Someone would have to come up with a period description of the sale receipt or written history referring to a mass of identical swords displayed by the group. Something like this but more descriptive of the swords themselves.

"He entered Springfield with a good deal of mediaeval display. His escort, which was composed of St. Louis German butchers, remarkable for their size and ferocious aspect, was mounted on powerful iron-gray horses and armed with big revolvers and massive swords, and thus accoutered dashed through the streets of the little town, which was held by…"

Are we considering only the cast grip lion pommel slotted hilt cavalry blades with American markings?

Baselon insists in that earlier article that solid brass hilts were not popular in europe as the design flaw lay in the grip being slippery when wet with sweat. If we accept that the hilts were not made in America, that they were not the standard pattern but private purchase and that they were far less common, do we also open that door to uncertainty as to their ultimate use?

Again, I have not read the article or passages in context and in the determining qualifications of the discussion but cast grips reigned for more that two centuries on any number of shorter blades and are also found on swords with longer blades including the Prahls discussed earlier. Not grooved, those would have been considered much slicker. Would a horseman have not regularly worn gloves/gauntlets? Is he mentioning it in regard to the all those briquet and infantry hangers? Those cast grips that were meant for worldwide domination over the course of centuries?

A better reference and context for Bazelon's insistence?

I don't know.

Cheers

GC

[M ELEY]

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.

[Jeff D]

Hi Glen and Mark,

Is it Post #13 that you prove how out of date the 1992 Bazelon article is?
Unfortunately I am a two finger typist and do not have time to type the article, and I have no way of getting the article to you. I will quote Bazelon's acknowledge of these concerns using the same sources as you. His conclusion is that Rose and Prahl are not the sources for these brass hilts but builds a pretty convincing argument for a cottage industry in the Philly area as the source. I will have to leave it to you to find the article and see how he comes to a that conclusion as that is what the entire article is about.
If it is something else in Glens posts that I have missed that show how "out of date" the article is please let me know as I will see if it is addressed.


'...These factors lead to the conclusion that the brass hilts were made by another party working in cooperation with Rose and Prahl'


The reason I bring this up again is that the Bazelon article is the most up to date and thorough discussion on these strange brass hilted swords (that I am aware of). I will happily discard it when some thing better comes along. It also is helping me find an answer to my mystery saber which I won't post here so as not to distract the thread. I think it is the best information on your saber.
Now how about it, lets see those markings. This may the key to proving or disproving the source of these sabers.

All the Best
Jeff

P.S. If you are still unconvinced, I will happily save it from your sea dog collection and place it with my horsey set

[Hotspur]

Hi Jeff

'...These factors lead to the conclusion that the brass hilts were made by another party working in cooperation with Rose and Prahl'

Conjecture, as far as I can see. There is no reason to assume that it is some unknown foundry in Philadelphia but a lot of evidence that Philly cutlers imported many of their parts. Abstracts, even as direct transcriptions (as I have here on occasion) are hard to prove anything but I have pointed to the European foundries as able and quoting Mowbray, showing the PA foundries not up to it. Further, I have referenced the younger Mowbray's collaboration with Flayderman that does indeed supercede a great deal of what is presented here as more than supposition by Bazelon in 1992. As he published and edited with Mowbray (again this is redundant and repititious) Bazelon may well have been aware his PA collection book and Mowbray's eagle title may have been out dated themselves. However, Bazelon is relying on Flayderman and Mowbray and indeed Flayderman sales are being referenced here but they predate the publication of the Medicus collection.

That's my take and I'll stick to it without the article in hand. You seem to think it is up to me to find it, while I have pointed several counters to the theory and from other authors mentioned as supporting the castings made in America. Indeed the same sources Bazelon has drawn a theory on. Perhaps the odd dog casting in his editing of the PA collection. That, the one cast hilt shown and without true provenance.

I often photograph book pages, so if someone has a camera or scanner and the article in hand, sharing could be cool. Blowing me off as "go find it yourself" finds me more amused than particularly interested in debating the issue further.

Have a good one.

GC

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Hi Jeff



Conjecture, as far as I can see.

You are using conjecture to determine Bazelon's Conjecture?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

There is no reason to assume that it is some unknown foundry in Philadelphia but a lot of evidence that Philly cutlers imported many of their parts.

You have evidence that brass hilts were singularly imported from Europe? sorry if I am asking you to be redundant as I haven't seen it in your posts. BTW have you seen anything similar (stylistically or with Brass grips) to Mark's hilt in any other area of the world except Philly in this time period?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Abstracts, even as direct transcriptions (as I have here on occasion) are hard to prove anything but I have pointed to the European foundries as able and quoting Mowbray, showing the PA foundries not up to it.

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

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Further, I have referenced the younger Mowbray's collaboration with Flayderman that does indeed supercede a great deal of what is presented here as more than supposition by Bazelon in 1992. As he published and edited with Mowbray (again this is redundant and repititious) Bazelon may well have been aware his PA collection book and Mowbray's eagle title may have been out dated themselves. However, Bazelon is relying on Flayderman and Mowbray and indeed Flayderman sales are being referenced here but they predate the publication of the Medicus collection.

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?

Originally Posted by Hotspur

That's my take and I'll stick to it without the article in hand. You seem to think it is up to me to find it, while I have pointed several counters to the theory and from other authors mentioned as supporting the castings made in America. Indeed the same sources Bazelon has drawn a theory on. Perhaps the odd dog casting in his editing of the PA collection. That, the one cast hilt shown and without true provenance.

I often photograph book pages, so if someone has a camera or scanner and the article in hand, sharing could be cool. Blowing me off as "go find it yourself" finds me more amused than particularly interested in debating the issue further.

Have a good one.

GC

I am always happy to keep you amused.

All the Best
Jeff

[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

[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