Jump to content

reschenk

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Another M1852 Navy officer's sword just sold on eBay. It was a good quality sword with a Made U.S.A. mark on the blade. (https://www.ebay.com/itm/M1905-USN-Dress-Sword-Made-1928-/224103250787?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=4O3CuGXe%2F4gBcFI9R4a0EzIs%2By0%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc) The officer' s date of service was 1927-1934, which suggests he likely purchased the sword near his date of commission, i.e. 1927. The M1852 Navy with these marks was probably contemporary with the similarly marked M1902 Army.
  2. One other observation. The "MADE USA'" marks are crudely stamped and often on a sword which otherwise looks to be of foreign manufacturer e.g. one having a brass proved slug. I understand The "Germany" country of manufacture is sometimes stamped on the tang to effectively conceal the origin on the complete assembled sword. Could the MADE USA stamp be a further deception? (I'm speaking of a Navy sword with the brass plug - haven't seen a M1902.)
  3. I checked my notes and you are correct, Jim Brown tells us L-A did discontinuing importing Eickhorn blades in Sep 1939, and I know of no other German supplier who sold blades at subsequent date. I just disremembered the date to be the US entry into the conflict. My bad. I still, however, suspect the Made-in-U.S.-marked blades are earlier than Sep 1939. In 1942 the Navy suspended officers swords for the Navy and Marines. I'm uncertain if the Army did as well, but i don't think much war production was dedicated to building officer swords.. You see a lot of Made-in-U.S. swords for them to all date from 1939 to 1942. My Navy sword does not seem crude and seems to date to 1925-1931. Do any other Forum members have dated example? Name-inscribed blades may also provide a clue by suggesting the dates of service. I would really like to nail the timeframe down.
  4. I'm not certain about about the "Made in USA" mark. I believe it was earlier. The driving factor was not the cut-off of blades from Nazi Germany - they kept up deliver right up to entry of the US into WWII. Not sure what the driver was for the use of these markings, but I believe they date to the 1920s or early 1930s, I have a Navy sword with similar marking which dates to the period between 1925 and 1931. I believe the Army sabers were contemporary.
  5. It is definitely an American sword, probably CW Union. Neither CSA nor any other entity use the "e pluribus unum" motto. It is extremely unusual not to have the "U.S." on these other side of the blade, although it was sometimes replaced with "U.S.M.C." on later sword used by Marine NCOs.
  6. I also believe the grip is original. Most were sharkskin covered, but leather is not uncommon.. Are the initials "U.S." etched on the blade?
  7. There were two prominent Solingen sword makers in the 19th century who merged in 1883 to form WKC. The one firm was Weyersberg and it used the king’s head logo to mark its swords. The other firm was Kirschbaum and it used the Knight’s head logo to mark its swords. After the 1883 merger, both heads side-by-side were used as the logo. This is what it shown on your sword. Later, WKC sometimes used the knight’s head alone as a logo, but never the king’s head.
  8. Varangian, you seem pretty savvy on cavalry sabers. I as I turn 80, I'm thinking of down-sizing my collection somewhat, including my Springfield M1872 cavalry heavy variant. This, of course, is the only real M1872 cavalry saber; those usually called that are the pattern 1880 Field and Cavalry officers' saber. The problem is I really don't how much to ask. I've only ever seen one listed, and it was in the $5k-range. Seems a bit steep, but is it reasonable?
  9. Etched names on Springfield swords are really rare. A great piece with a great story,
  10. The serial number is not the number of the sword but of the certificate of the document which approved the manufacturer to sell the sword as meeting all the standards for use by the Marines. I wish I had a list of all the serial numbers, when they were used, and by which companies. It would help date them.
  11. Does the decoration on the pommel show of oak leaves or laurel? Oak leaves were use during the war, laurel were later.
  12. Do you have a close-up of the hilt?
  13. You have a M1859 Sergeant's sword. It was copied from the M1850 foot officer sword, but had a number of differences. The hilt was plain brass where as the officers version was gilt; the grip was leather where as officer version was usually was shark skin; and the blade was initially plain polished steel whereas the officer blade was etched. (The etching on the officers' blade was the same as the Army version and did not include any reference to the Marines.) The scabbard was also quite different with two mount instead of three, i.e. a throat with a frog stud and the drag. At some point a change was made and the plain steel blades were etched with decorations to included the initials "U.S.M.C." in the central panel. The conventional date for the adoption the "U.S.M.C." is 1875, but this is almost certainly too late. These wide-bladed M1859 swords continue in service until replaced with a narrow-bladed sword with a different etching pattern after WWI.
  14. Before I read your comment on discarding the knot which came with this sword as unauthentic, I had never really thought about what knots these early swords used. I therefore went back to the regs. The Regulation on 1875 described the knot at follows: “Of three-sixteenths inch crimson and gold cord, with bullion tassel. The sword-knot will be worn with full dress only.” The illustration is not too clear The next Uniform regulation I have is 1892. It gives the same description of the full-dress knot, but also described an undress knot as “Of russet leather, to be similar in size and shape to the one adopted for full-dress.”. The 1900 regulation repeated the same verbiage. Neither the 1892 or 1900 regulations had illusrations. The description in the 1912 regulation was slightly different: “The undress sword knot shall consist of a single loop of braided tan leather cord of 3/16 inch in diameter and 13 inches long, with the ends secured in a tan leather tassel of the same design as the full-dress sworn-knot tassel”. Unfortunately they showed the full-dress knot but not he undress. The 1922 regulation described the knots as following: “493. Knot, sword, dress (fig. ), commissioned officers; leader, Marine Band. To consist of a single loop of three-sixteenths inch gold and scarlet cord 13 inches long, with ends secured in a gold-bullion tassel three-fourths inch in diameter and 2 inches long. “494. Knot, sword, undress (fig. ), commissioned officers; leader, Marine Band. To consist of a single loop of braided russet-leather cord three-sixteenths inch in diameter and 13 inches long, with ends secured in a russet leather tassel three-fourths inch in diameter and 2 inches long.” The knot in the 1922 regulation is obviously the one you took off your sword. The description in the 1922 reg of the undress knot is quite similar to those in the 1892, 1900, and 1912 regulations but without an illustration in is hard say for certain, but I suspect they were the same, so your knot might be correct. A question: Does anyone have a dress knot? I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one
  15. A great sword and a great history. Based on the style, I believe it was made by Ames for Shannon, Miller and Crane. It is unusual to find one with the ivory in such good condition. Normally cracks are found, especially around the opening for the knot, and this often results in loss of portions of the grip. I wonder if these early examples ever had the brass gold plated? The color is always uniform and does not show any wear-through of the gilt to the base material below. It looks like there never was a gold surface.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.