Jump to content

1902 Saber Question


bayonetman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sabers are completely out of my field. For whatever reason I have never gotten into them, possibly because a good friend collected them and I just stayed off of his turf.

However, I have a Model 1902 Officer's Saber that came with a grouping from a WW1 Lieutenant. According to family oral history, he was given this Saber by his parents when he graduated from ROTC in 1918. He then went to France and served with the 60th CAC.

I have no reason to doubt this, but sort of like to double check things when something has been in the attic for many years and it is always possible that someone "added" it to the group at a later time.

I will let the photos speak for it. If those of you who are knowledgeable about these would care to look it over and just let me know if this is a possible 1918 purchase, or is there something that would date it later for certain. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I wouldn't ask if I didn't want to know. It is either nickel or chrome, and in nice clean condition except for a little flaking around the pommel.

post-66-0-24851400-1483400950_thumb.jpg

 

post-66-0-95636100-1483400967_thumb.jpg

 

post-66-0-09270000-1483400981_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks right.

 

Lilley used the "The MC Lilley & Co Columbus Ohio" etch from 1865 to 1931.

 

And the scabbard is mild steel with the blade tool steel....both nickle plated. The handle is probably horn. Bakelite didn't become common until 1922.

 

The M1902 is an evolution of the French 1882 Infantry officer epee, the Italian 1888 pattern sword...both of those stemming from the British 1822-pattern (sometimes listed as 1821) swords. Google them for a comparison.

 

You have one of the better 1902 examples. The later German and Spanish models simply don't compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bob. I looked at the grip under 10x magnification and it does appear that it might be horn, doesn't look like Bakelite.

 

One of the things I was worried about was the lack of the 6 pointed star PROVED mark on the right ricasso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I was worried about was the lack of the 6 pointed star PROVED mark on the right ricasso.

 

Oldswords.com has 42 vintage 1902's to look at if you want to subscribe. Under "Resources"; "Gallery". Not all used the "prooved slug", which I believe was largely meaningless anyway on post-1900 swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing here that would prevent it from being dated to 1918. M.C. Lilley produced sabers under that particular mark during that time frame. The handle isn't horn, it's some sort of composite like perhaps gutta percha. The blade etchings are correct for that period of Lilley manufacture, being a nearly direct copy of the 18" etch used on the first M1902s produced at the Springfield Armory.

 

The "proved" mark you mention isn't a very reliable indicator of date, and IMO indicates a later, probably post-WWI manufacture.

 

Nice saber!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The handle is probably horn. Bakelite didn't become common until 1922.

 

Gutta percha-like grips were used from at least 1912.

 

The M1902 is an evolution of the French 1882 Infantry officer epee, the Italian 1888 pattern sword...both of those stemming from the British 1822-pattern (sometimes listed as 1821) swords. Google them for a comparison.

 

The development of the M1902 is described in a letter by the person who developed it:

 

30a9vnq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting letter. The French sword Allien is referring to is undoubtedly the 1882 Officer's Epee. Except for a little less curve in the blade, a dead ringer.

 

399747621.jpg

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sword-M1882-French...=item4cfb1fb62f

 

I also wouldn't write off horn. I have a partial 1919 Lilley catalog that clearly mentions horn for the handles of its presentation M1902's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting letter. The French sword Allien is referring to is undoubtedly the 1882 Officer's Epee. Except for a little less curve in the blade, a dead ringer.

 

The French sword he was referring to in the first paragraph was not the M1882 Infantry Officer's, but a French staff officer sword that was the basis for the M1872 Staff and Field Officer's Sword, which that paragraph describes.

 

There are no French swords mentioned in the development of the M1902, only "the information our Mr. Allien gained during his numerous trips to Europe". I see no similarities between the French M1882 and the M1902 in gripe, pommel, or blade designs. The guard is similar, but even the construction techniques between the two are different; the first M1902s had the pommel peened on, whereas the M1882 was secured with a screw. People see the similar guard, which is one of the distinctive features on the M1902, and jump to the conclusion that one was derivative of the other while ignoring the dissimilarities. IMO, this conclusion is unfounded.

 

The Italian M1888 Cavalry Saber, with the curved blade with unstopped fuller, finger gripe, and two-ring scabbard with the distinctive drag is, to my eye, a much closer match to the M1902 than is the M1882.

 

I also wouldn't write off horn. I have a partial 1919 Lilley catalog that clearly mentions horn for the handles of its presentation M1902's.

 

The first M1902s, made at the Springfield Armory, were horn-griped. Some M1902s continued to be horn-griped into the late 1920s-early 1930s, so for a saber of 1918 date, horn gripes are definitely possible. But horn gripes on the M1902 are not highly polished, and always show some grain. The black gripe on the M1902 the OP shows does not, in those pics, have the grain or color of horn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...People see the similar guard, which is one of the distinctive features on the M1902, and jump to the conclusion that one was derivative of the other while ignoring the dissimilarities. IMO, this conclusion is unfounded.

 

 

Right.

 

399747621.jpg

399750824.jpg

 

It's also clear why the US board largely copied the M1882. It's difficult to find a more elegant design having its simplicity and function. While I prefer the straighter blade of the M1882, the finger-grooved handle of the M1902 makes it a comfortable sword to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right...It's also clear why the US board largely copied the M1882.

So you focus on the one resemblance between the two models and ignore all the differences, and hold to a conclusion not supported by period documentation. The board did not "largely copy" anything. They approved a model from among several choices presented by Mr Allien, the Ordnance Department, and doubtless some other civilian suppliers. They "picked one", they didn't make one.

 

As the letter above shows, the one they picked was a saber designed by Mr. Allien, using European influences, his own thoughts, and the input of an acknowledged military swordsman. Mr Allien acknowledged presenting a foreign pattern without change for the M1872 sword. He seems rather proud of the M1902 and claims it as his own, which would indicate that, at least in his own mind, what he came up with was new and different.

 

Which European designs influenced him, or even if any designs influenced him as his letter only indicates "information", we do not know. Perhaps there is something extant in the records of the Allien company, but to date those have not been found. We certainly cannot point out a single model with one similarity and claim "this is the base from which it was modified", because apart from the lack of documentary foundation for such a claim, there were several European designs which shared characteristics with the M1902. One of which, as I mentioned, was the Italian M1882 Cavalry Officer's Saber, which is often confused with the M1902.

 

Let's look at your M1882 and its scabbard as a whole, and not just the guard:

2vdny3l.jpg

 

Similar guard, yes.

Gripe: palm swell with wire wrapping, vs. finger gripe with no wrapping on the M1902.

Blade: straight with a deep, narrow fuller, no etching, vs. the etched, curved blade with a broad, shallow fuller on the M1902.

Scabbard: single ring with a symmetrical drag, vs. the close-set double rings and asymmetrical drag of the M1902 scabbard.

 

Now the Italian M1888:

29g1htu.jpg

 

Guard: three branched with quillon, like the M1902, but not as similar as the M1882.

Gripe: finger gripe with no wrapping, similar to that of the M1902.

Blade: curved and etched, with a broad, shallow fuller very similar to the M1902.

Scabbard: close-set, double rings with an asymmetrical drag, virtually identical to that of the M1902.

 

Which looks most like the M1902? Hmm? If you took that guard off of the M1882 and put it on a M1888, and shallowed the curve of the blade as GEN Kelton recommended, you would have a virtual copy of a M1902...whether or not that's what happened, I cannot say. All we can say is that "European information" contributed to the M1902 design.

 

the finger-grooved handle of the M1902 makes it a comfortable sword to use.

Actually, the finger gripe was one of the M1902s most despised features. When the XM1906 was being tested, the lack of finger grooves on the gripe, despite its odd design, was the one feature universally applauded in the reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting letter. The French sword Allien is referring to is undoubtedly the 1882 Officer's Epee. Except for a little less curve in the blade, a dead ringer.

 

399747621.jpg

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sword-M1882-French...=item4cfb1fb62f

 

I also wouldn't write off horn. I have a partial 1919 Lilley catalog that clearly mentions horn for the handles of its presentation M1902's.

 

I love it when my photos are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when my photos are used.

 

I guess I'm also guilty, as I got one of the pics I used from the same Ebay item that Bob linked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when my photos are used.

 

Actually, so do I. And I have over a thousand out there (below). It's a compliment, although for any other purpose other than a technical example illustrated with a temporary rBay photo, I seek permission.

 

In fact, this discussion ended when I didn't win a P1822 Artillery Sword in an active auction. (Most forums don't approve.) The P1822 being the obvious progenitor of the 1882, 1888 and 1902.

 

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/bSmalse...alser-index.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when my photos are used.

 

Actually, so do I. And I have over a thousand out there (below). It's a compliment, although for any other purpose other than a technical example illustrated with a temporary eBay photo, I seek permission.

 

In fact, this discussion ended when I didn't win a P1822 Artillery Sword in an active auction. (Most forums don't approve.) The P1822 being the obvious progenitor of the 1882, 1888 and 1902.

 

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/bSmalse...alser-index.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Actually, so do I. And I have over a thousand out there (below). It's a compliment, although for any other purpose other than a technical example illustrated with a temporary eBay photo, I seek permission.

 

In fact, this discussion ended when I didn't win a P1822 Artillery Sword in an active auction. (Most forums don't approve.) The P1822 being the obvious progenitor of the 1882, 1888 and 1902.

 

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/bSmalse...alser-index.asp

The P1822 is still leaning on my desk. If you want it, contact me through www.hand-tite.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Gutta percha-like grips were used from at least 1912.

 

 

 

The development of the M1902 is described in a letter by the person who developed it:

 

30a9vnq.jpg

Is this the same General Kelton as referenced in the letter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Kelton If, so can anyone clarify the time-line of the 1902's development and approval because General Kelton appeared to have died in 1893.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...