Unidentified Cavalry Saber of French Mfg...

laEspadaAncha · 15th March 2010, 02:00 AM

Hello Jim & European pattern enthusiasts -

I recently acquired two swords out of an area estate, including this cavalry saber (the other being a Shinshinto-period katana). The (late) previous owner had labeled this as an "imported Civil War cavalry saber." At first glance, the blade does appears to be a close dimensional match to the 1860 pattern U.S. cavalry saber - 41 inch OAL, 36+ inch blade, 1 inch wide at the hilt, false edge running back approx. 7 inches from the tip, wide fuller beginning at the ricasso and running to the beginning of the false edge, a second narrow fuller beginning approx. 7 inches from the hilt and ending +/- 2 inches before the false edge...

However, there are also several distinctions (e.g., the backstrap) that set it apart from the 1860P. While there were many imported cavalry sabers brought in in 1861-62, I know there were also many 19th Century variants of French cavalry & curassier sabers, and would think this likely to be one of them... yet it does not match any examples I have in my limited reference materials.

Other details: the blade is etched on the spine to Coulaux / Kligenthal. The center-swell grip is of wire-wrapped horn, and as shown in the photos below, the guard is stamped with "Co. LeFleur" over "Paris."

Anyway, dimensions and details side, as the old adage states, "a picture is worth a thousand words." So here's 6,000 words' worth of pictures.

As always, thank (all of) you in advance for any assistance you might provide...

Hotspur · 15th March 2010, 02:35 AM

I would defer to those with books and experience regarding the Paris markings but to me this seems like a later 19th century cavalry officer sword for the French market.

There is really no such designation as an American 1860 cavalry sword, it was simply addressed by the ordnance paperwork as the light vs heavy. You realize that the basis of these does go back to the trooper and officer cavalry swords based on the French 1822 patterns. The smoothed many branched guards actually go back to the 1816 patterns, when we see the branches not ending in an earlier balled form.

When looking at the American market and derivatives, we see the light sword adopting what was basically the officer version of the French mle1822 form. The slightly humped grip and lighter blade showing in the trend from the trooper to officer swords and then widely adopted during the American Civil War as the defacto (although misrepresented) 1860 pattern. There were both heavy and light officer versions made by Ames and as far as the trooper swords, there is overlap of both grip and blade combinations with the first plain "light" trooper builds appearing by 1857-1858. Complicate that further with what was produced in Solingen and the American market swords show quite a diversity, with some quite normal looking 1822/1840 trooper swords being the bulk of the American heavy designation.

Without absolute provenance of sale to an American during any given war period, the attribution as a civil war trophy is spurious at best. I have a completely unmarked trooper ("wristbreaker") that has a better basis as possibly imported for use during the ACW but I simply look at mine as "in the form of" and a nice example.

You sword looks quite nice and should have every reason to appreciate it for what it is but more or less completely remove from thought that it had anything at all to do with the ACW. The guard on yours looks almost like an evolution to the "new and improved" hilt of the French 1890s cavalry swords. You may enjoy the following link if you have not browsed through it yet.

http://users.skynet.be/euro-swords/

the following section particularly

http://users.skynet.be/euro-swords/M1896OC.htm

Did you get a scabbard with this? Single or two rings? As mentioned, this looks like a nice one. I have seen horn grips as late as the twentieth century with very much the same overall profile for these swords.

Cheers

GC

laEspadaAncha · 15th March 2010, 03:21 AM

Howdy Hotspur,

Thank you for the feedback and the links.

I have in fact visited that link in the past. I agree with the description of the CW attribution as "spurious." I have several CW swords in various patterns, dated, named and otherwise, and IMO, in the absence of these particularities, one cannot attach such an attribution with any degree of certitude.

I do have references with plates of French cav. sabers spanning the 19th C. However, I cannot find a solid match... For instance, the M1896 in your second link lacks the backstrap and curved blade present on this example, and the guard is of a more symmetrical design. The M1822 appears a closer match (as it does in my reference material) but again, lacks a backstrap. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the mfg. of French govt. issue swords was moved from Kligenthal to Chatellerault prior to 1850...

My example does have a scabbard - single ring and asymmetrical drag.

laEspadaAncha · 15th March 2010, 05:04 AM

A couple more pictures...

laEspadaAncha · 15th March 2010, 06:59 AM

Upon further review, it does seem to share similarities with a published reference I have to a French cavalry officer's sword dated c. 1870. It, too, has a 4-bar decorated brass hilt, horn grip, and a personalized monogram on the backstrap near the pommel...

However, it differs in the treatment of the quillon (lacking on my example), and I still have the question re: the Kligenthal manufacture - were French cav. officers allowed the option of private purchase?

Hotspur · 16th March 2010, 05:27 PM

I would think absolutely yes, to private purchases and more likely the norm for officers. There are also notes out there for the rather prolific private sales of swords from the Klingenthal works.

What struck me the most about later than earlier was the flatness of the guard stock, as opposed to the rounder castings. Add also the timeline for going to single ring scabbards, many refitted from two to one in the 1880s (but we should never assume dating from the attached scabbards without due considerations).

Cheers

GC

15th March 2010, 02:00 AM	#1
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	Unidentified Cavalry Saber of French Mfg... Hello Jim & European pattern enthusiasts - I recently acquired two swords out of an area estate, including this cavalry saber (the other being a Shinshinto-period katana). The (late) previous owner had labeled this as an "imported Civil War cavalry saber." At first glance, the blade does appears to be a close dimensional match to the 1860 pattern U.S. cavalry saber - 41 inch OAL, 36+ inch blade, 1 inch wide at the hilt, false edge running back approx. 7 inches from the tip, wide fuller beginning at the ricasso and running to the beginning of the false edge, a second narrow fuller beginning approx. 7 inches from the hilt and ending +/- 2 inches before the false edge... However, there are also several distinctions (e.g., the backstrap) that set it apart from the 1860P. While there were many imported cavalry sabers brought in in 1861-62, I know there were also many 19th Century variants of French cavalry & curassier sabers, and would think this likely to be one of them... yet it does not match any examples I have in my limited reference materials. Other details: the blade is etched on the spine to Coulaux / Kligenthal. The center-swell grip is of wire-wrapped horn, and as shown in the photos below, the guard is stamped with "Co. LeFleur" over "Paris." Anyway, dimensions and details side, as the old adage states, "a picture is worth a thousand words." So here's 6,000 words' worth of pictures. As always, thank (all of) you in advance for any assistance you might provide...

15th March 2010, 02:35 AM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 489	I would defer to those with books and experience regarding the Paris markings but to me this seems like a later 19th century cavalry officer sword for the French market. There is really no such designation as an American 1860 cavalry sword, it was simply addressed by the ordnance paperwork as the light vs heavy. You realize that the basis of these does go back to the trooper and officer cavalry swords based on the French 1822 patterns. The smoothed many branched guards actually go back to the 1816 patterns, when we see the branches not ending in an earlier balled form. When looking at the American market and derivatives, we see the light sword adopting what was basically the officer version of the French mle1822 form. The slightly humped grip and lighter blade showing in the trend from the trooper to officer swords and then widely adopted during the American Civil War as the defacto (although misrepresented) 1860 pattern. There were both heavy and light officer versions made by Ames and as far as the trooper swords, there is overlap of both grip and blade combinations with the first plain "light" trooper builds appearing by 1857-1858. Complicate that further with what was produced in Solingen and the American market swords show quite a diversity, with some quite normal looking 1822/1840 trooper swords being the bulk of the American heavy designation. Without absolute provenance of sale to an American during any given war period, the attribution as a civil war trophy is spurious at best. I have a completely unmarked trooper ("wristbreaker") that has a better basis as possibly imported for use during the ACW but I simply look at mine as "in the form of" and a nice example. You sword looks quite nice and should have every reason to appreciate it for what it is but more or less completely remove from thought that it had anything at all to do with the ACW. The guard on yours looks almost like an evolution to the "new and improved" hilt of the French 1890s cavalry swords. You may enjoy the following link if you have not browsed through it yet. http://users.skynet.be/euro-swords/ the following section particularly http://users.skynet.be/euro-swords/M1896OC.htm Did you get a scabbard with this? Single or two rings? As mentioned, this looks like a nice one. I have seen horn grips as late as the twentieth century with very much the same overall profile for these swords. Cheers GC

15th March 2010, 03:21 AM	#3
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	Howdy Hotspur, Thank you for the feedback and the links. I have in fact visited that link in the past. I agree with the description of the CW attribution as "spurious." I have several CW swords in various patterns, dated, named and otherwise, and IMO, in the absence of these particularities, one cannot attach such an attribution with any degree of certitude. I do have references with plates of French cav. sabers spanning the 19th C. However, I cannot find a solid match... For instance, the M1896 in your second link lacks the backstrap and curved blade present on this example, and the guard is of a more symmetrical design. The M1822 appears a closer match (as it does in my reference material) but again, lacks a backstrap. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the mfg. of French govt. issue swords was moved from Kligenthal to Chatellerault prior to 1850... My example does have a scabbard - single ring and asymmetrical drag.

15th March 2010, 05:04 AM	#4
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	A couple more pictures...

15th March 2010, 06:59 AM	#5
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	Upon further review, it does seem to share similarities with a published reference I have to a French cavalry officer's sword dated c. 1870. It, too, has a 4-bar decorated brass hilt, horn grip, and a personalized monogram on the backstrap near the pommel... However, it differs in the treatment of the quillon (lacking on my example), and I still have the question re: the Kligenthal manufacture - were French cav. officers allowed the option of private purchase?

16th March 2010, 05:27 PM	#6
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 489	I would think absolutely yes, to private purchases and more likely the norm for officers. There are also notes out there for the rather prolific private sales of swords from the Klingenthal works. What struck me the most about later than earlier was the flatness of the guard stock, as opposed to the rounder castings. Add also the timeline for going to single ring scabbards, many refitted from two to one in the 1880s (but we should never assume dating from the attached scabbards without due considerations). Cheers GC