How rare are hen's teeth 2. or Horstmann M1832 Foot Artillery

[reschenk]

Here’s another “how-rare-are-hen’s-teeth” question:

 

John Thillmann, on pages 54-55 of his book “Civil War Army Swords”, describes and pictures a Horstmann M1832 Foot Artillery sword. It is similar to the Ames M1832 except there are no rivets on the grip or Federal eagle on the faces of the pommel, and it has a very tall capstan dome for peening the tang. The Thillmann example, which came from Kevin Hoffmann of CW Preservations’ collection, is marked with the Weyersberg king’s head on one side and a faintly struck and worn Horstmann address on the other. For some reason someone drilled holes through the two quillon end discs.

 

This is characterized as a very rare variant. However I just bought the below example on our favorite auction site for $315. It appears identical to the Thillmann/Hoffmann example except it does not appear to have the Horstmann address – either it never did or it was worn/polished off.

 

 

What really strikes me is that this is the second example of this sword I have bought in the last two months for relatively low prices. Both look authentic and I am unaware of anyone reproducing this rather obscure model. If this is such a rare sword, it seems a bit strange two would show up so close together. It may just be coincidence, but it could also indicate they are really not all that scarce after all. My question to my fellow Forum members is have you run across this model often? Are you aware of any fakes being sold?

.

[reschenk]

Here, incidentally, is my first purchase made in early November:

 

[SKIPH]

COOL! I have an AMES dated 1855. I have never seen a Horstmann. Thanks for showing. SKIP

[reschenk]

COOL! I have an AMES dated 1855. I have never seen a Horstmann. Thanks for showing. SKIP

 

Skip,

 

-This is not the only non-Ames M1832 Foot Artillery sword. There is another one which is also usually attributed to Horstmann, but may have been made by some other sword maker or importer such as Schuyler, Hartley & Graham - none of the examples are marked. The hilt on these swords is a much closer copy of the Ames design with the droop-wing federal eagle on both sides of the pommel, but with no rivets through the grip. The casting and chasing of the design is really quite good, but it was cast in halves, and the seam on the side where the two halves were braised together is very poorly done. The seam was just polished down leaving no feathers along the seam. Most examples have Weyersberg blades with the king’s head mark on one ricasso and no other markings. My example shown below has no king's head, but is stamped “U.S.”. I have not seen another example so stamped. Thillmann had this to say on the possibility that Weyersberg made the complete sword: “The firm would never have made a sword with such a poorly constructed hilt. They could easily have made the hilt casting, but never would they have joined the halves so poorly. This then leads to the conclusion that the sword parts, while well made, were poorly assembled by an American firm.”

 

Here are some photos of my example.

 

[reschenk]

The last photo in the above post should have been deleted - it is from a different sword, but the edit function to remove the photo isn't working for me.

 

The photo is actually of another example of the second type non-Ames M1832, this one being from the collection of the late Kevin Hoffman, the proprietor of Civil War Preservations. It is the same as my example except it is stamped with the Weyersberg king's head mark and has no "U.S.". It is also interesting since it comes in a leather scabbard of the type the Navy made in 1861 to accommodate the M1832 foot artillery swords it had in storage. The Navy issued a lot of these M1832s to its ships during the Civil War. It was pointed out to me that one of the most interesting findings when they salvaged the ironclad USS Cairo near Vicksburg was the large number of M1832 artillery swords on board. Here are some photos: