Origins of the M1830, M1841, and M1852 Naval Officer Sword: Preliminaries

[Father V]

So as far as I can tell, no one has attempted a complete breakdown of the various elements of the designs, which as we will see is a hodgepodge of elements both borrowed and adapted with some original flairs along the way. Before we get to the detailed analysis, first we’ll get the official documentation out. Texts are listed in order of relevance, not as they were ordered in the original document.

 

M1830

Illustration: Tily’s 1959 article in Military Collector and Historian. See https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/394398-general-order-1-may-1830-regarding-uniform-of-the-us-navy/ for complete citation and text.

Text of relevant 1830 uniform Regs:

”Swords

Are to be cut and thrust, the blade not exceeding 30, nor to be less than 26 inches in length, to be slightly curved; breadth of longest blade, one and three-tenths inches, of shortest, one and two-tenths inches. The gripe of those for Captains, Masters Commandant, Lieutenants, with other commissioned officers, and Midshipmen, to be white; other officers entitled to wear swords, to have black gripes, all to be yellow mounted, and with eagle heads and black leather scabbards.—

See pattern.”

 

“Gripe” is indeed the period spelling at that time in the USN. The document doesn’t make explicit which officers besides commissioned are entitled to a sword. 
 

M1841

There are historical complications with the uniform regs of 1841, and especially the illustrations. See the 2nd note after the charts (labeled **) here: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/396291-part-1-gold-lace-charts-midshipmen-photos-and-documentation/

 

I’ve seen at least two different sets of illustrations, one with portrait (horizontal) orientation, the other with letter (vertical). We can tell they are different because of different text in the caption text for the cap. I think it probable that the 1st is newer than the 2nd, as the 2nd one doesn’t have rings on the mountings as the 1841 text regulations only allow for perpendicular wear, that is in a frog, whereas the 1846 effective regulations only allow slings suspended from the belt. In practice, it was probably individual officer preference, but since these were official illustrations, the illustrator is more likely to follow what was written. Also, the 1st also has folding damage making it more likely to have been sent separately, like the Revenue Marine illustration mentioned here: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/396595-1844-revenue-marine-official-uniform-illustration/#comment-3078945

 

^From Sgt. Booker’s Internet Archive material: https://archive.org/details/Picture001a/Picture 013.jpg . He also posted this on our Forum but in lower resolution: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18237-1841-regulations-for-the-uniform-and-dress/#comment-125262

 

^Tily, Uniforms of the United States Navy, 1964 pg 90 as photocopied by Sgt. Booker https://ia600901.us.archive.org/29/items/1852USNUSMCRegs/Plate 024 Regulations for the Uniform and Dress of the Unite.jpg. For whole book: https://archive.org/details/uniformsofunited00tily , though Internet Archive is still being repaired on the backend as of this writing.

 

Text:

“SWORDS AND BELTS.

The swords are to be cut and thrust; the blade to be not less than twenty-six inches long, and not less than one inch wide at the hilt. The belt must be made with a frog, so as to wear the sword perpendicular; grip to be of white, scabbard to be of black leather, mountings to be of yellow gilt. Belts for undress to be of black leather; for full dress, the belts to be of white webbing, both to be one and a half inche wide; the mountings must be yellow gilt. The swords and mountings, and the mountings of the belt, to be according to pattern. Belts shall be worn under the vest. Swords are always to be worn with uniform, when absent from the ship on duty, or when on leave upon foreign stations.”

“…Epaulettes are never to be worn without swords, when absent from the ship.”

 

From revised regulations effective Jan 1, 1846:

“SWORD BELTS.

Belts are to be of black glazed leather, one and a half inches wide, with slings of the same leather, three-fourths of an inch wide, with swivels, and a hook in one of the rings to suspend the sword ; the mountings must be of yellow gilt. Belts shall be worn under the coat.

SWORDS.

Swords are always to be worn with uniform, when absent from the ship on duty ; or when on leave on foreign stations. Swords and belts, presented to officers for public services, may be worn in full dress instead of the regulation sword and belt.

GEORGE BANCROFT,

Navy Department,

June 4th, 1845.”

 

”EPAULETS.

Captains, Commanders, and Lieutenants only, are to wear epaulets, and they shall wear one on each shoulder, over the shoulder strap ; yet never without swords when absent from the ship.”

 

M1852

^From an auction site for an original 1852 order book. https://www.jamesarsenault.com/pages/books/7508/regulations-for-the-uniform-dress-of-the-navy-and-marine-corps-of-the-united-states-from-the

 

Text:

“Sword and Scabbard.

For all Officers--shall be cut and thrust blade, not less than twenty-six nor more than twenty-nine inches long, half basket hilt, grip white: Scabbards of black leather. Mountings of gilt; and all as per pattern.”

 

“Uniform is to be worn by all officers who may be attached to any vessel of the Navy, Navy Yard, Station, Recruiting Service, Hospital or other Naval Service for duty, unless absent from the station on leave.

Officers are required strictly to conform to the uniform prescribed wearing either the full dress, undress, or service dress, viz:

Full Dress - Full dress coat, epaulettes, sword and knot, cocked hat and laced pantaloons.

Undress - Frock coat, epaulettes, sword and knot, cocked hat, and laced pantaloons.

Service Dress - Same as undress, except that the prescribed cap shall be worn instead of the cocked hat, pantaloons without lace or cord; epaulettes and swords, or either, may be worn or dispensed with.”

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/1852.html

Visual comparisons without reference to design origins

 

The M1830 & M1841 are similar designs. Here’s my quick reference of similarities:

Besides the most obvious and not listed eagle pommel there are several commonalities:

*shape of knuckle bow with two leaf details at the top & bottom

*acorn finials with leaf motif on the quillons 

*2 acorns on the folding guard with live oak leaves in 2 groups of 3

*anchor as first design on the blade

*motif of acorns & live oak leaves on the blade

*3 mounts on the scabbard with similar curved design of leaves at top and/or bottom of each mount, with the symmetrical drag/boot being nearly identical. (Note although this piece in the 1841 illustration appears to be slightly different, the other version has an identical element, so I think it probable that the missing knob on the illustration used for comparison has an artist’s error).

 

There are differences, though. Here’s that:

*1830 has feathers on the grip, 1841 does not require it. As we will see later, manufacturers took that change to mean any carving was acceptable.

*the arrangement of the rope on the anchor on the blades are different. In 1830, the rope trails to the right (from the perspective of the anchor, not the viewer) from the ring past the back of the stock/crossbar and winds in front, then in back, then in front again on the shaft then back under the left fluke and forms a loop under the center of the anchor as it comes to the tip centered below the fluke & loop. In 1841, the rope trails to the left and under the stock and continues underneath past the shaft then crosses in front and under and stays underneath the fluke forming a loose S as it trails downward to a point roughly in the center.

*also on the blade, the number of acorns is different, with 3 pairs & a single 7th acorn on the cutting edge side in 1830, with only 2 pair in 1841.

*the anchor on the middle mount is the same except for the ending which is to the left side in 1830, but down and center for 1841.

*there are 3 pairs of acorns on the drag in 1830, 2 pair in 1841.

*the 1841 illustration with no carrying rings has a star frog button surrounded by 2 concentric circles.

 

As I’m not sure if the cutting off of the feathers on the back strap in 1841 before it reaches the quillons is an intentional detail or not, I have not listed  or marked it.

The M1852 was a significant shift away from eagle pommel designs that stretch back far before the 1830 regulations. Nevertheless certain design motifs are related.

*leaves right before terminating an element. This was present on the knuckle bow & quillons of the earlier design and was used on the guard in 1852.

*oaks & acorns are continued as a motif, but the leaves are switched from live to the lobes of common oak. 
*a broad fuller is specified in the 1852 design in contrast to the previous ones. Just as manufacturers took the lack of such details in the official design to mean they could use different blade designs, so too did the showing of this detail in 1852 mean that most manufacturers would use a broad fuller. In fact, most use a Montmorency blade even though the additional narrow fuller is not included in the drawing, including the initial 1852 issue provided by the Navy to the officers that purchased them.

*3 brass/gilded mounts is retained.

*As per the text of 1830 and 1852, the blades are slightly curved. Although it was not explicitly stated in 1841 and the lack of an illustration of the tip would allow a straight blade, it appears that the manufacturers understood that the blades were to be slightly curved. Even the most documented non-regulation hilted sword had a curved blade.

https://www.horsesoldier.com/products/edged-weapons/swords/22124, https://acwm.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/4F93111D-6138-4FF3-9FC1-593994451912, https://archive.org/details/lifeservicesofjo00maff/page/n11/mode/thumb . “Cut & thrust” doesn’t require a curved or straight blade, even in the West (in the East of course, thrusting was possible in very curved swords such as the 18th century kiliç https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij which possibly influenced pipeback blades through exposure in the Egyptian theater of the Napoleonic Wars).

 

The next set of posts will be dedicated to the individual designs, going into each element of their design and probable derivations, since by and large US swords are largely derivative, though at least when it comes to Naval Swords, with a stubborn desire to put an original touch on the end product. Equally important is how manufacturers actually implemented the designs, especially the initial 1852 Ames issue, as those 500 were inspected and approved unlike every other Naval Sword until relatively modern times.

[INIMICUS]

Thanks great info, thanks for sharing.