Hello All,

This smallsword was recently placed in my care for scabbarding. It's supposed to be an antique but beyond that... Does anyone have any ideas about its provenance?

Thanks,
Russ

Hi Russ,

Yes better pics than the blurred ones of my first impression. A couple of questions ?

No marks on the forte ? Or hilt ?
How much does it weigh approx?
Has the blade ever been sharp on the edges or look like it has ?
Is that hilt brass or a gilt covering over something else - looks like it's worn away in places but that could be brass discolouration.
Does the pommel nut move ? Does it look lik a screw ?
On the non-shell side of the guard is there anything broken off was it originally like that ?

Daniel

19th century?

Looks almost like a schläger blade. I'll guess that it's a dress piece of the mid-19th c.

Interesting. Look forward to the answers. Not saying whether I think it's genuine or not but some thought processes :

My initial impression looking at the blurred photos with the scabbard which I posted before were :

''Blurred images suggested French style, maybe early 19th century possibly Napoleonic, dress sword for a lowish ranking officer, maybe infantry??. But then American sword styles can confuse matters too as I've seen several with distinct French stylings (maybe as a direct result of alliegances during the War of Independence ?) and my knowledge of US swords is next to none. Something odd about the colour/patina of the blade. Has someone scrubbed it clean and left it to patinate again ? ''

The reason i say this is : the upturned shell appears a lot in later French small swords, more and more when you get towards the Napoleonic and early 19th century eras. It also appears more commonly in dress or uniform swords for the military. Another typical feature on a lot of French swords of the period is the one sided shell - shell only on the right side not the left : easier to wear as a dress sword or a military sword against the hip, actually makes a little sense in fencing terms to a certain degree though that wasn't the purpose. There are also French swords of similar type but with a folding left shell which I'm sure you've seen.

The reason i thought it might be a military dress sword for lower ranked officers are : firstly the style, secondly the relative lack of expense of the hilt construction and the fact that it may have been produced as one of a pattern. Civilian small swords were usually individually made and with a lot of clear hand-crafted work and clearly not produced as one of a patterned series using cheaper techniques (moldings) for the hilt etc. This exhibits the signs of a patterned and more mass produced sword.


The reason I asked about marks are twofold : firstly if it was a military sword you could maybe expect ordinance marks, and if later in date (early 19th century) you are more likely to see maker's stamps even on less expensive swords. Though on French swords I've seen a lot more examples without marks than on English ones : the English seem to have been more concerned with marks than the French.

Interesting what you say about posible foliation because that was my other reason for asking about marks: if it was a dress sword of that period I would have expected a degree of decoration on the forte, even if cheaply done. Possibly showing a regiment, possibly not.

The nature of the blade : when you see civilian smallswords they are often triangulated or lozenge blades but either way clearly made to fence with. Earlier military swords of the smallsword shape tend to have much heavier hilts and blades (to cope with the heavier weapons on the field) but again are clearly made with a practical aim. When you get to mid-19th century dress swords and court swords the blades seem to have forgotten any practical design (because they were never going to be used) and are often simple oval shapes, many later ones being little more than toys in the flimsiness of the blade.Some dress swords in between seem to fall in the middle of this transition, and that sword blade reminded me of that. Could be used but probably wasn't going to be.

The weight is important.


The lack of seizable rings inside the guard doesn't trouble me. There were many later 18th century smallswords with none or ones so small they were decorative or to prevent vibration to the fingers. Bear in mind that as small sword and then modern fencing technique developed the habit of substantially wrapping around the arms was falling away in favour of a 'pen-grip' on either side of the lower guard with slight wrap with the end of the finger around the rings : this wrap continued into modern Italian fencing style but completely died away in the French style. Many dress swords or later military swords show these 'evolutionised' bars. I might have expected the bars to be S-shaped though rather than both pointing up if it were French.

Sorry - I'm rambling - finished work early on friday afternoon. What i don't like - finish, connection between shell and hilt, the shape of the shoulder of the forte, the pommel nut, and a few others.

Conclusion : Don't know (helpful isn't it !!!). Could also be American, but don't think it's a copy overall. Judging from 4 photos is tough though.

My two shillings

Daniel

It could be an American fraternal organization sword, though those often feature organization-specific designs in the hilt. I don't think it's U.S. military, militia or cadet. Could be a Victorian stage piece.

Russ et al,

The sword that you show is a British diplomatic sword. Sorry, but I do not remember the year pattern off the top of my head, but I think that the pattern dates to the reign of Queen Victoria ( 1837 - 1901 ). The scabbard was black leather with two gold plated mounts, decorated with incised lines running across them.The whole assembly completed by the obligatory flat gold bullion sword knot. This pattern sword is still in use !

Hope that this helps a bit.

Regards as ever,

Russ.

PS. Overall, the swords looks to me to date to around the 1880's ? If you look very carefully on the blade you should probably see a Royal cypher, a crowned VR.

Well done Russ T! 40 years later than I thought at least. Didn't know that at all. Always good to pick up new info and remind yourself there's a heck of a lot to learn in the subject.

Never seen that pattern of sword. Do you know the year pattern by any chance ?

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Off the top of my head , no I do not know the year pattern. I did find this on the internet though if it is of any interest....

http://search.guns.goantiques.com/search/images.jsp?id=741953


Regards as ever,

Russ

Aah yes. The one Russ E has looks like a slightly different year (or maybe lower rank?) than that that one on the website doesn't it. The guard looks different and not upturned like the one Russ is holding (unless someone dismantled Russ's and put the guard back on the wrong way up!!!) and seems a bit more symmetrical. Can't see whether it has the protrusion that Russ's has on the left side but doesn't look like it. The pommel nut's a bit different too. And the forte. But if as you say the patern's still in use there could have been dozens of minor changes through the years.

Well done on that find Russ T.

Funny that picture is from Garth Vincent's website - I bought my first ever antique piece from him when I was a teenager! A caucasian kindjal, for the princely sum of £30 I remember ! I've still got it somewhere I think.

Regards

Daniel

Nicely done gentlemen! Russ I really appreciate the information sir. I think you've nailed it pretty much. Daniel I think you might be on to something with the thing being reassembled incorrectly. I'm going to take another peek at it tonight and determine if I can get it back apart and determine if will look less contrived the other way...

You gentlemen never cease to amaze me with your amazing knowledge of all things sharp and pointy.

Russ,

My pleasure entirely :) A little anecdote that may be of interest here if you will humour me for a moment.........

Many years ago in days of yore when I was a young apprentice we had a whole bunch of cut steel court swords at the firm where I worksd, some of which were the really early hollow gripped variety, some of them were broken , some of them were incomplete, but there were about thirty of them. The firm I worked for approached Wilkinson sword with a view to getting them professionally restored, but Wilkinsons offered to exchange them for new ones instead.The 'boss' being very happy with this arrangement went ahead with the swap.The new swords when they arrived were of the pattern under discussion here i.e gilt hilted diplomatic swords.......but new ones. The blades Screwed into the hilt and had only about 2" ( 50mm), of tang ! And the scabbards instead of being beautifully stitched, hardened leather, were flattened aluminium tube, with gold painted pressed scabbard mounts :( Technological improvements no doubt :cry: True story....still the boss was happy !

Regards as ever,

Russ

Pleasure for any help Russ, sorry I couldn't be of more help on this occasion. But I think Russ T hit the nail on the head in timely fashion. Good luck with any dismantling ! May be a screw - wondered if it was.

On Russ 's anecdote - I wonder what hapened to the cut - steel swords in exchange ? The drop in quality in workmanship on the new swords rather reflects the fate of Britain as a country through that sword's period : quality stitching to pressed aluminium tubing. Hmmmmmmm.


Daniel