A Pair of English Swords?

awdaniec666 · 21st January 2022, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drac2k

The man I got it from said that he purchased it in London; I know him and he tells the truth, however, he has bought so many swords, he might just have been confused .

London, like many other places, has been and is a marketplace for stuff from all over the world.
Whatever these swords are, and I wish you luck in researching them, they are part of history and to be honest sometimes it´s nicer to have something that stands out and is unique in its way than another one of thousands "M-whatever" that are around. But I get the point of having one of the iconic M1796 in Britain or M1811 in Germany.
If you´re still interested in a M1796 LCS, PM me. I know a guy who bought a batch of these from a museum in Europe yesterday and sells them for a good price

drac2k · 22nd January 2022, 05:48 PM

Better pictures of the hilt.

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 07:07 PM

Thanks for the additional photos, is there any leather remaining on the grip? Also what is the length of the grip?

drac2k · 22nd January 2022, 07:13 PM

Almost all of the leather and the handle is 5" long.

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 07:54 PM

Thanks, photos can be deceiving when trying to gauge proportions and it looked small. 5 inches is an appropriate outside grip length.

Without wanting to be malicious my concerns with this sword are:
1. The blade profile is wrong for a 1796 patten Light cavalry sword. The tip should become broader at the end. They flare out.
2. There is too much ricasso before the fuller starts.
3. The langets are missing. As you have pointed out, sometimes these did break off but there is no evidence of that on your sword.
4. The Quillon is too short.
5. The grip ferrul (the band between the leather and the guard) is too broad and the fit poor.
6. Trooper swords didn’t have grip wire, and Officer swords (when present) the wire was silver or silver plated and finer than what is present here.
7. The fit of the blade to the handle is poor, like they do not belong together.
8. The overall fit and shape of the grip and blade is poor especially if it is an officer’s sword.
9. The knuckle guard is too thick for a British 1796.

If I purchased this recently and it was sold to me as a British 1796 pattern light cavalry, I would take it back.

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 08:13 PM

Unfortunately I only have two 1796 LCs to show you what I mean, and forum rules prevent the posting of photos from Auctions and dealer sites.

But hopefully these will help give an impression.

1. Officer (Cornet) of the Yeomanry 1796 made by Gill, dates to the end of this patterns life, about 1817 - 1818.

This is a very light sword weighing 750grams. The blade starts at 40mm wide, narrows to 35mm and then broadens out to 40mm again at the last part. Thickness is 7.4mm to 1.5mm

Radboud · 22nd January 2022, 08:18 PM

2. Officers 1796 Pattern light cavalry by Osborn dating to before 1800:

This a stouter sword, that weighs 900 grams, the blade width at the ricasso is 35mm, pinches in to 33mm in the middle before flaring out to 41mm near the tip. The thickness is 10.2mm down to 1.5mm

22nd January 2022, 05:48 PM	#2
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,265	Better pictures of the hilt. Attached Images

22nd January 2022, 08:13 PM	#6
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Unfortunately I only have two 1796 LCs to show you what I mean, and forum rules prevent the posting of photos from Auctions and dealer sites. But hopefully these will help give an impression. 1. Officer (Cornet) of the Yeomanry 1796 made by Gill, dates to the end of this patterns life, about 1817 - 1818. This is a very light sword weighing 750grams. The blade starts at 40mm wide, narrows to 35mm and then broadens out to 40mm again at the last part. Thickness is 7.4mm to 1.5mm Attached Images

22nd January 2022, 08:18 PM	#7
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	2. Officers 1796 Pattern light cavalry by Osborn dating to before 1800: This a stouter sword, that weighs 900 grams, the blade width at the ricasso is 35mm, pinches in to 33mm in the middle before flaring out to 41mm near the tip. The thickness is 10.2mm down to 1.5mm Attached Images

22nd January 2022, 07:07 PM	#3
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Thanks for the additional photos, is there any leather remaining on the grip? Also what is the length of the grip?

22nd January 2022, 07:13 PM	#4
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,265	Almost all of the leather and the handle is 5" long.

22nd January 2022, 07:54 PM	#5
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Thanks, photos can be deceiving when trying to gauge proportions and it looked small. 5 inches is an appropriate outside grip length. Without wanting to be malicious my concerns with this sword are: 1. The blade profile is wrong for a 1796 patten Light cavalry sword. The tip should become broader at the end. They flare out. 2. There is too much ricasso before the fuller starts. 3. The langets are missing. As you have pointed out, sometimes these did break off but there is no evidence of that on your sword. 4. The Quillon is too short. 5. The grip ferrul (the band between the leather and the guard) is too broad and the fit poor. 6. Trooper swords didn’t have grip wire, and Officer swords (when present) the wire was silver or silver plated and finer than what is present here. 7. The fit of the blade to the handle is poor, like they do not belong together. 8. The overall fit and shape of the grip and blade is poor especially if it is an officer’s sword. 9. The knuckle guard is too thick for a British 1796. If I purchased this recently and it was sold to me as a British 1796 pattern light cavalry, I would take it back.