Page 3 of 3

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Sat May 25, 2019 5:42 pm
by Rob O'Reilly
I have a few variants, my most recent one we've already discussed in the O&G blade thread. Another I acquired from Richard with a 'sunburst' style hilt and featured in his book at plate 7.13. My other two can also be described variants as in they both have non-standard blades and slightly different guards.

The first has a somewhat smaller asymmetrical hilt, attached to a pipe-back blade, while the other has a massive hilt attached a double-fullered blade (similar to 1788), but quite curved.

I'm just realizing that I have yet to own a true 'pattern' 1796 HC Officer's sword.

Rob

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:41 pm
by Bryce
G'day Rob,

For some reason ladder hilts fitted with conventional pipe-back blades appear to be very rare. Much, much rarer than 1796 light cavalry swords with pipe-back blades.

Cheers,
Bryce

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 1:52 am
by Will
The cutout in the guard for the blade tang appears larger than the tang for the pipe backed sword. Possibly a replacement?

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:14 pm
by Bryce
G'day Guys,
Couple more photos of the "Osborn Ladder Hilt".
Cheers,
Bryce

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:06 am
by Richard
Bryce wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 3:44 am
I have never come across an Osborn asymmetrical hilt with a decorated blade. All of the examples I have seen have bare blades. The National Army Museum make the claim in their description of Drake's sword that Household Cavalry officers preferred their swords to have bare blades without makers names or regimental markings. Does anyone know the source of this claim?
Cheers,
Bryce
Hi Bryce
Just going back to your post above. I have just been on the NAM website and the passage about officers preferring bare blades without decoration or maker's names appears to have been deleted. I wonder why? Do someone ask them for the source of the claim?
Richard

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm
by Bryce
G'day Richard,
That was my fault I am afraid. I enquired what the source of this claim was and when they couldn't find a source, they decided to remove the statement from the website. So far I haven't been able to locate a household cavalry officer's sword from this period, with a decorated blade, so the statement may still be true.
Cheers,
Bryce

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:31 pm
by Richard
Bryce

I was going to do the same thing because, from the evidence provided by existing Household Cavalry swords of the period, i.e. up to the 1832 regulations, the statement does seem to hold true. In particular, I have never seen an example of the c. 1805-1832 officers' sword (or the misnamed '1814 pattern') with blade decoration and as far as I can recall I have only ever seen one with a maker's name - and actually that was not a maker but an retailer (Jennens & Co).

It would be very interesting to locate the source but I'm afraid these days its no surprise that the NAM could not do it.

Richard

PS, I have of course seen one of the 1805-1832 swords with Osborn's G stamp on the blade ....

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:17 pm
by Bryce
Interestingly, of the 10 examples of the "Osborn ladder hilt" pictured above that I have seen, only 2 have decorated blades.
Cheers,
Bryce

Re: 1796 Heavy Cavalry Officer Undress Sword Variants

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:03 am
by Bryce
Here is an unmarked example of the much rarer symmetrical form of this hilt. This one has a variant "1821 troopers style" blade.
Cheers,
Bryce