M1859 USMC Musician Sword

[reschenk]

For some time I have been researching M1859 USMC swords, including the M1859 musicians’ swords, for a potential article. I would appreciate Forum members’ help in gathering some information on this topic. Here is what I have so far:

 

A minor mystery among collectors of Marine swords is where are the USMC M1859 Musicians’ swords. The Marine Corps Uniform Regulations of 1859 called for a sword similar to the M1840 Army NCO sword. It was to be made in two blade lengths, 31” for adults and 24” for boy musicians. Horstmann received the first contract in 1859, then Ames received a contract later in the same year for delivery in 1860. Horstmann received another contract in November 1860 and then, in 1861, the contract went to Bent and Bush which received all subsequent contracts for musician swords for the remainder of the war. The second Horstmann contract was modified in June 1861 to specify there should be no rear counterguard. The blades of all these early swords were polished bright with no etching.

 

There are many questions about the identification of these swords. Cureton and Sullivan, in “The Civil War Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps: The Regulations of 1859”, contends the swords produced under the first two contracts were identical to and indistinguishable from the M1840 NCO swords. It is probable the early Horstmann swords had the turned-down rear counterguards which are traditionally attributed to the Marines.

 

The swords produced under the second Horstmann and the Bent and Bush contracts should, in theory, be easy to identify because they would have no rear counterguards. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. First, there are no known examples with the name/logo of Bent and Bush. It is likely, therefore, that Bent and Bush subcontracted other producers such as Roby and Ames to make the swords to fill their contract. Second, I have seen photos of a couple M1859 USMC musicians’ swords, one a Roby adult length, the other an Ames musician length, made with absolutely no counterguards as one would expect given the Marine Corps specification calling for no rear counterguards. However given that, according to McAuley’s figures, the USMC ordered some 193 musicians’ swords, most of them adult length, between June 1861 and January 1865, there should be more. I believe there are, and that they are the rare M1840-style swords with a scalloped vestigial rear counterguards with a raised rim as seen in the photos below.

 

 

I have seen seven examples of this sword, all but one of which were made by Ames. Below is a list by maker, date, and markings of those I’ve seen so far; the initials are the inspectors initials on the blade, knuckle bow, and scabbard drag respectively.

 

1862 Ames ADK ADK GWC Number 18 on Pommel and guard

1862/3 Ames ADK AHC ---- Last digit of date unclear; no scabbard

1864 Ames CSL JH ---- CSL on underside of guard; no scabbard

1864 Ames GKC JF None

1865 Ames JCW JCW LHK

1865 Ames ADK JF ---- No scabbard

Undated R&C ---- ---- ---- No inspection; no scabbard

 

R&C is the mark of the Solingen firm R. Rohrig & Co. which was founded about 1849 and provided about 5000 swords to the Union during the CW. Although this sword looks all original with undisturbed peening, it is possible the blade was remounted with an Ames hilt. I think this is unlikely, however, because there are no inspector marks on the hilt as are usually found on Ames examples, and the knuckle bow and counterguards also seem to be made of thinner gauge metal than the Ames examples. The more likely explanation is that Bent and Bush subcontracted some production to non-Ames sources.

 

 

 

The only thing that bothers me about my USMC theory is that all the examples, I have seen except the R&C have inspectors' marks. The same is true of the Roby adult and the Ames boy musician swords with no counterguard. Ordinarily Marine swords were not inspected. However neither were private purchases or swords purchased directly by States for their militia/volunteer elements. I find it difficult to believe Ames or the Ordinance folks would have made these nonregulation-compliant hilts just on a whim, and there are too many of them to have been as one-off samples. If they are not USMC swords, my fall-back theory is that they were made as an experimental model for issue to a limited number of NCOs for test purposes, similar to what was done with the M1905 and M1911 experimental cavalry swords. There are problems with this alternate theory as well. One is the range of production dates, 1862 - 1865. Experimental pieces are typically made in a single batch. Second, there doesn’t seem to be a record of such a test. It is hard to imagine there would be a 4-year test of an experimental model which would leave no documentary evidence. Finally, the Rohrig example presents another minor issue: it would seem odd for an experimental arm to be purchased from multiple producers, especially a relatively minor foreign producer.

 

As I said above, I need help gathering additional data for my research. First, do any of you have, or know of, additional examples of this M1840 NCO-style sword with either the scalloped vestigial rear counterguard or no counterguard at all? If so, I would appreciate your sending me the info on the maker, date, and any inspection or other markings. Second, I would appreciate any comments, corrections, and/or suggestions regarding the above theories about this sword. Does anyone have alternate theories? Thanks for your help.

 

 

 

[SARGE]

First of all... great research! Hopefully someone has one of these Musician swords that they can show or discuss. I have never seen one but it may simply be that I did not recognize one in a pile of otherwise similar swords.

 

I wonder how these USMC Musician swords fit in with the USMC NCO swords with manufactured, or altered, turn down rear guards. If the guard is present but turned down would that automatically make it a NCO sword as opposed to a Musician sword? How would the vestigial guard be determined to be a NCO or Musician sword? Would the length determine the difference then or would the length matter since it is often related to height of the wearer? Is there an iron clad distinction between the two USMC swords?

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

I have an interesting M1840 Musician sword made by Ames Sword Co. that has an etched blade. The etching features an anchor and the letters "NA" presumably for the Naval Academy. It is not an inspected sword but a private purchase. It is the only one I have seen and I suppose was purchased by the band from unit funds since it is odd that the Naval Academy band would not have used a USN sword rather than an Army style sword. But again... here we have the USMC using the M1840 Bandsmen sword so there seems to be a precedent.

[reschenk]

I have an interesting M1840 Musician sword made by Ames Sword Co. that has an etched blade. The etching features an anchor and the letters "NA" presumably for the Naval Academy. It is not an inspected sword but a private purchase. It is the only one I have seen and I suppose was purchased by the band from unit funds since it is odd that the Naval Academy band would not have used a USN sword rather than an Army style sword. But again... here we have the USMC using the M1840 Bandsmen sword so there seems to be a precedent.

 

Congrats on having a truly rare and interesting piece. Thillmann discusses and illustrates it on p.200 of his "CW Army Swords". He quotes a 29 January 1866 letter from the Chief of Naval Ordinance to Adm Porter, the Superintendant of the USNA, which states: "The Bureau had directed Mr. Ames of Chicopee to make and send you for the band of the Academy thirty (30) non commissioned officer swords with white enamel belts and frogs and the Academy belt plate." Although the letter specified NCO swords, the delivered item was the musician sword. Thillmann also includes an 1869 photo of the band wearing the swords.

 

Where did you acquire this sword? If not too much of a problem, I'd enjoy seeing some photos.

 

[SgtMaddoxUSMC]

Reschenk, any chance of seeing that 1869 band photo?

[SARGE]

Reschenk,

 

Here are some photos of the NA Bandsman sword. Interestingly, the etched maker identification is "Ames Co." instead of Ames Sword Company. Perhaps made before the name change in Chickopee if made in 1866. No inspection markings on the sword or the brass mounted iron scabbard. Otherwise a regulation size M1840 Army Musician sword. I did not know that there were only 30 of these swords made. That knowledge makes me very happy.

 

 

[reschenk]

- Thanks for the photos. Your sword is exactly the same as the one pictured in Thillmann, but yours appears to be in better condition. I am more than a little jealous!

 

- I notice the company is rendered simply as "Ames Co/Chicopee/Mass" which I believe is a unique formulation. On all other Ames swords I am aware of from the CW through the company reorganization in 1881 the name is always rendered as "Ames Mfg Co"; in 1881 it was changed to "Ames Sword Co". I have no idea why for this particular sword they dropped "Mfg".

 

- Another unusual feature of this sword is the metal scabbard. All other Ames M1840 NCO and musician sword scabbards are leather; only Emerson and Silver produced metal scabbards for these. That the NA swords had metal scabbards is new information for me. Thillmann's example had a scabbard, but he did not specify what it was made of. You may want to double check the drag of your sword to ensure it isn't inspector marked - it's unlikely, but possible, that this is not the original scabbard and an E&S replacement was substituted along the way. If it has no inspector marks, it is likely original.

 

- I wonder how many of these still exist. There are at least 2, yours and Thillmann's example. Have any forum members seen or heard of others?

[reschenk]

I wonder how these USMC Musician swords fit in with the USMC NCO swords with manufactured, or altered, turn down rear guards.

 

I am also researching USMC sergeants swords, and the status of the M1840 NCO swords manufactured with turned-down rear counter guards is a somewhat contentious issue. For years conventional wisdom has been that these were USMC swords. For at least the majority, this is almost certainly wrong.

 

 

In 1859, the Marines adopted a new sergeant's sword modeled on the M1850 foot officer sword. The sergeants' version, though similar to the officers’, had a number of differences. Sergeants' swords had plain brass hilts and scabbard mounts, whereas officers’ hilts and scabbard mounts normally were gilt. The grips on sergeant swords were wrapped with leather, whereas officers’ grips were usually covered with shark skin. Sergeant scabbards had only two scabbard mounts, a top mount with frog stud and a scabbard drag, whereas officers’ scabbards bore three mounts, i.e. a throat and middle mount fitted with carrying rings, and a drag. Finally, officers’ swords had etched blades; Model 1859 Marine sergeant swords initially had blades polished bright with no etching.

 

 

Cureton and most other experts contend that the Marines continued to use the eagle pommel sergeants sword adopted in the 1830s up until the adoption of the M1859 sword. Some collectors believe, however, that some time in the 1850s the Marines started using the Horstmann M1840 NCO swords with turned-down hilts. If Chuck Cureton is correct, the only USMC swords with turned-down rear counterguards would be those M1859 musician swords delivered prior to June 1861 when the Marines changed the specs on this sword to eliminate the rear counterguard - see my draft article above. Even if Cureton is wrong and there was a period in the 1850s when USMC sergeants carried the Horstmann M1840 NCO sword, the vast majority of such swords were probably not Marine swords. There are just too many of them out there for the small number of pre-CW Marine sergeants. There are contemporary photos of Army folks carrying these Horstmann swords as well as some inscribed to Army members.

 

 

Pls excuse the extranious picture below - it has nothing to do with this topic, but the system won't let me delete it.

[SARGE]

I double checked the iron scabbard and there are no inspector markings on it or the sword. I also noticed that the placement of the brass screws is in a different place than on the Emerson & Silver scabbards. The holes are set closer to the end of the brass fittings than on the other E&S swords that I have. Not definitive proof but a slight difference in assembly can be seen. Otherwise the brass color and finish on the sword and scabbard match perfectly so I would say an original Ames scabbard for this variation.

[rwporter]

I was looking for posts on naval model 1840 NCO swords and came across this thread. It occurred to me that I had one of those NCO swords with the vestigial shell guard so I went upstairs to look for it. It took me a while but I finally found it. It was made by Ames and has a blade about 32.25 inches long with a fuller that extends from a stop about 0.5 inches from the guard (without a leather washer) to about 1 inch from the tip.

 

On the ricasso on one side with the blade pointing up and the knuckle bow on your right is “US” over “WD”. If you rotate the sword so that the knuckle bow is now on your left, on the ricasso is “N. P” with part of the “P” cut off due to a weak strike or polishing or both; over “ABO” with about half of the “O” missing, clearly part of “CABOTVILLE”; over “184 “. I am fairly certain the date is 1848 due to what appear to be a trace of the mid-section of the left hand side of an “8”.

 

If you turn the sword around again so that the knuckle bow is on your right, on the knuckle bow is stamped “WD”. Perpendicular to that stamp, running down the flat side of the knuckle bow is, “J.W.R.” Below the shell guard, on the little raised platform against which the blade sits, on either side of the blade is a two symbol stamp. They look like they could be numbers. I can’t tell if they are the same two-digit numbers or are different or if one is a number and the other is two initials.

 

There is no scabbard.

 

Thillmann lists “WD” as William Dickinson, armory subinspector 1848-1850 and “J.W.R.” as James Wolfe Ripley, Superintendent of the Springfield Armory 1841-1854. That would suggest that the sword was not re-hilted and to my un-trained eye it doesn’t look as if it has been re-hilted. Taking this a bit further I would postulate that the vestigial shell sword guard dates back at least to 1848.

 

An additional observation based on the image of the R&C sword is that the vestigial shell guard was not the style of a single company. The R&C hilt is not an Ames hilt. Compare the quillon on the R&C with an Ames quillon. The R&C appears to have the shells extend further toward the end of the quillion than the Ames swords. This same R&C characteristic appears on their regular NCO sword guard too, so it must be a R&C thing. Also, the knob on the end of the quillon of the R&C is larger and the section of quillon extending from the grip to the knuckle bow on the R&C is thinner. The sword illustrated with the vestigial shell guard and R&C blade is all R&C. An additional note, my R&C with normal shell guards does not have any inspector marks, only “R&C” on the ricasso with the blade pointed up and the knuckle bow to your right.

 

From this it might be suggested that the NCO sword with vestigial shell was a real type that was inspected and accepted by the U.S. Army in 1848. In addition, this style was imported from a foreign maker. From what I gather, a lack of inspection stamps on imported swords was the rule rather than the exception and a lack of inspection stamps on the R&C should be the expected observation.

[Horseclover]

Is there a reason some of the US Marine swords have no inspection marks? I've wondered about my short etched Roby for exactly that reason.

 

Cheers

 

GC

[SARGE]

Is there a reason some of the US Marine swords have no inspection marks? I've wondered about my short etched Roby for exactly that reason.

 

Cheers

 

GC

 

It seems that the Model 1859 USMC Sergeant swords have no inspection markings either. They do seem to have rack or inventory numbers that do not appear on the Model 1840 style Sergeant/Musician style swords.

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/286481-usmc-m1859-sergeants-sword/

[reschenk]

I was looking for posts on naval model 1840 NCO swords and came across this thread. It occurred to me that I had one of those NCO swords with the vestigial shell guard so I went upstairs to look for it. It took me a while but I finally found it. It was made by Ames and has a blade about 32.25 inches long with a fuller that extends from a stop about 0.5 inches from the guard (without a leather washer) to about 1 inch from the tip.

 

On the ricasso on one side with the blade pointing up and the knuckle bow on your right is “US” over “WD”. If you rotate the sword so that the knuckle bow is now on your left, on the ricasso is “N. P” with part of the “P” cut off due to a weak strike or polishing or both; over “ABO” with about half of the “O” missing, clearly part of “CABOTVILLE”; over “184 “. I am fairly certain the date is 1848 due to what appear to be a trace of the mid-section of the left hand side of an “8”.

 

If you turn the sword around again so that the knuckle bow is on your right, on the knuckle bow is stamped “WD”. Perpendicular to that stamp, running down the flat side of the knuckle bow is, “J.W.R.” Below the shell guard, on the little raised platform against which the blade sits, on either side of the blade is a two symbol stamp. They look like they could be numbers. I can’t tell if they are the same two-digit numbers or are different or if one is a number and the other is two initials.

 

There is no scabbard.

 

Thillmann lists “WD” as William Dickinson, armory subinspector 1848-1850 and “J.W.R.” as James Wolfe Ripley, Superintendent of the Springfield Armory 1841-1854. That would suggest that the sword was not re-hilted and to my un-trained eye it doesn’t look as if it has been re-hilted. Taking this a bit further I would postulate that the vestigial shell sword guard dates back at least to 1848.

 

An additional observation based on the image of the R&C sword is that the vestigial shell guard was not the style of a single company. The R&C hilt is not an Ames hilt. Compare the quillon on the R&C with an Ames quillon. The R&C appears to have the shells extend further toward the end of the quillion than the Ames swords. This same R&C characteristic appears on their regular NCO sword guard too, so it must be a R&C thing. Also, the knob on the end of the quillon of the R&C is larger and the section of quillon extending from the grip to the knuckle bow on the R&C is thinner. The sword illustrated with the vestigial shell guard and R&C blade is all R&C. An additional note, my R&C with normal shell guards does not have any inspector marks, only “R&C” on the ricasso with the blade pointed up and the knuckle bow to your right.

 

From this it might be suggested that the NCO sword with vestigial shell was a real type that was inspected and accepted by the U.S. Army in 1848. In addition, this style was imported from a foreign maker. From what I gather, a lack of inspection stamps on imported swords was the rule rather than the exception and a lack of inspection stamps on the R&C should be the expected observation.

 

It is hard to say without seeing the sword, I suspect your sword is a M1840 NCO sword modified to remove or reduce the rear counterguard for ease of wear. This was unofficially done a lot during and before the CW, and after the CW the Army actually directed the modification. The 1840s is way too early for the variation made with no rear counterguard. You are right that Ames was not the only company producing this variant. In addition to the Rohrig & Co example pictured above, I have subsequently found an 1863-dated Roby example with FSS inspectors marks..

[reschenk]

Is there a reason some of the US Marine swords have no inspection marks? I've wondered about my short etched Roby for exactly that reason.

 

Cheers

 

GC

 

I think the real question is why some Marine swords are inspector marked. As​ide from the M1859 musicians' swords, no USMC swords were inspector marked, and there is no discussion of the process in the Marine Quartermaster documentation in the National Archives. I suspect it was because the M1859 musicians swords were produced on the same assembly line as the Army M1840 NCO swords and used many of the same parts, and thus were included in the inspection process. It would be nice to find some correspondence or other documentation discussing the matter, but unless/until it is found, this will remain a matter of speculation.

[rwporter]

The hilt on my 1848 is identical to the one pictured above on the Ames 1864 sword except that it’s a bit more dirty looking with a redish-brown patina. The vestigial shell also has the raised lip around the edge, just like on the 1864 model. You’re going to want to see pictures, so tomorrow I’ll have to see if I can make some and figure out how to post them. And after looking at my sword again while typing out this post, I am starting to wonder if the vestigial shell on mine was added to a hilt that was originally cast without a shell on one side. I definitely need to post some pictures.

 

 

 

[rwporter]

The images aren't the best, I only had my cel phone camera.

[rwporter]

I tried to get an image of the end to show that there was not a recent re-hilting, but the WD inspector mark on both the blade and the guard suggest that they were inspected at the same time and should be the same age.

[rwporter]

Inspector marks on the knuckle bow.

[rwporter]

Inspector mark on the blade. According to an appendix in one of the Thillmann books this is William Dickinson, 1848-1850.

[rwporter]

This is the date on the blade. The 184 are clearly stamped. The mark I believe to be a vestige of the number "8" is not clear in the photo, but then it's just not clear. I arrived at my conclusion before discovering the inspector's range as 1848-1850, so the last digit could only be an 8 or a 9.

[rwporter]

Sorry for the big images, I've haven't posted images before.

[reschenk]

I really don't know quite what to make of this sword. The shape of the rear counterguard is certainly the same as the CW-era counterparts, but as you noted in your post above, it appears to have been braised onto the rear of the guard of a M1840 Army NCO hilt from which the original rear counterguard had been removed, or, more unlikely, which had been cast without one. My question is when and why this might have been done. I don't think it is a modern. The matching patina on all parts look to be a genuine old, aged surface . Second, I think it is unlikely a modern forgery; this is entirely too obscure of a variation for any unscrupulous individual to try to forge. My guess is that it was done contemporaneously with the Ames on Rohrig examples in the 1860s. Why it would have been done is a mystery to me. Was it made as a prototype before the molds for the new variety were made? I suppose that's possible, but it seems that would have been more work than just making a new mold.. Did the Marines convert some older swords to the new specs? Again possible, but I can't imagine why they would bother - They had no problem obtaining all the musicians swords they needed through their Bent & Bush contracts. Like I said, a mystery to me.

[rwporter]

Let us suppose that the 1848 sword was modified during the period of the later swords, say during the Civil War. Would the brass used for the vestigial shell be the same composition as the brass used in the original hilt in 1848? Would it have looked the same 150 years later after weathering and the chemical changes that result in the present patina? If the composition of the brasses used 1848 and 1863 were markedly different, would that suggest that the 1848 sword was given its present form in 1848?

 

On the other hand, is it obvious to someone that the vestigial shell on the 1848 sword IS different from the rest of the hilt in its composition?

[R.Johnston]

More information about the Naval Academy sword.

 

The sword on page 200 in the Thillmann book came on the market recently and I was lucky enough to acquire it on

May 5. The scabbard is steel, and the screws are definitely not in the same place as screws on steel Emerson and Silver scabbards for Musician and NCO swords, so based on this and the sword that Sarge posted, I think it's safe to conclude that Ames made thirty special order steel scabbards for the Naval Academy to go with these swords and they are not Emerson and Silver replacements. More research is needed, but somewhere in the archives should be a copy of the original letter from the Naval Academy to Ames specifying the blade etching and the steel scabbard requirement.

 

I will post six photos (more if anyone wants to see them) and I haven't posted on this forum before but I assume I'll have to split them between several posts. Please excuse me if this doesn't work out as planned:

[R.Johnston]

Here are more photos of the Naval Academy sword:

[reschenk]

So You're the guilty party! When I saw this sword on the Horse Soldier site I couldn't believe it. Even the asking price seemed cheap, especially considering the prices Horse Soldier usually asks. I should, of course, have bought it on the spot, but I wanted to use some funds I was expecting shortly, When I checked back, it was gone. I had been hoping no one else would recognize this for what it is, but.... Oh well, he who hesitates is lost.

 

I ran across the correspondence relating to this sword in the National Archives while researching Marine swords. I think I still have my notes, but will have to dig them out. As I recall, however, there was little detailed design info in the contract or related correspondence. This is one of the things which frustrated me in researching Marine swords - the contracts, purchase orders, etc did not discuss the details of the swords. Often the description was something like "as sample in Quarter Master's office, 10 with 30 inch blades, 10 with 28 inch blades" .I presume these were worked out in personal meetings between the contractors and the ordnance/quartermaster reps dealing with them.