Having tried multiple times to get this all in one post, the editor app isn’t allowing it. Not sure exactly how to divide it. I think I’ll do some background, then follow up posts for Blade, Hilt, and Scabbard.

 

Important reference posts:

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/401831-origins-of-the-m1830-m1841-and-m1852-naval-officer-sword-preliminaries/ (graphic comparison of designs)

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/402133-origins-of-the-m1830-usn-officer’s-sword/&do=findComment&comment=3110055 (M1830)

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/403283-origin-of-the-m1841-usn-officer’s-sword/&do=findComment&comment=3116241 (M1841)

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/406584-origins-of-the-m1852-us-navy-officer’s-sword-museum-holdings-including-exclusive-photos/&do=findComment&comment=3135271 (M1852 Ames initial issue in museums)

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/400834-us-navy-uniform-swords-project-sources/&do=findComment&comment=3102801 (Bibliography)

 

Unlike the M1830 & M1841, where no author had given an opinion on the origins of the design, some authors have given an opinion on the M1852 though none quote internal documents on the subject, and there may be none. Some authors say it’s based on the Army 1850 Foot Officer’s Sword (e.g. Tuite pg 99, Crouch 1999 pg 85) others say the same year’s Staff and Field Sword (Hickox 1992 ed pg 41 https://archive.org/details/collectorsguidet0000rong/mode/2up, Field Bluejackets 2010 pg 258), others take no opinion (McAulay 1999, Rankin 1972, Furr 1999, Peterson 1965, May & Annis 1970 pg 190-191 https://archive.org/details/swords-for-sea-service-volume-one/page/190/mode/1up ) and one French author who says both and derives them all from the 1845 French Infantry Officer’s Sabre often called the adjudant, for one class of officers who had this as their regulation sword.


^Robby Joffo, Gazette de Armes Jun 1996 n° 267, “LES ARMES BLANCHES RÉGLEMENTAIRES U.S. d'inspiration française au XIXème siècle. 2ème part.”

 

So, why all the confusion? We’ll have to mention at least these 3 possible influences and where they came from, correct some misinformation on the derivation from the 1845, and since neither the M1850 Foot Officer’s nor the M1850 Staff & Field are a straight borrowing of the M1845, where the other parts of the design might have come from. Lastly comes the main topic, which is the exact derivation of every element of the Navy’s design, which just like the M1830 & M1841 are not direct copies of anything but rather a hodgepodge of borrowings & transformations. 

The Army M1850 Foot Officer’s Sword/M1850 Staff & Field

 

Thilmann is the most rigorously researched of the current books on these swords. For the references to his work and the most important of the others see the bibliography post. Citations of the other sources not explicitly mentioned (e.g. Furr 1999) are available upon request but can be found with a Google search and some creativity. The M1850 swords is covered in volume 2, “Army Swords”

 

Using Thilmann’s unparalleled detail on initial issue swords, we can identify an example of each at the Smithsonian with their generous internet usage policy. 
https://www.si.edu/object/ames-manufacturing-co-model-1850-foot-officers-sword:nmah_440547



^Detail of the double fuller in the middle section of the blade. Screenshot using their zooming tool. Image similar on the other side of blade.

 

1850/1 (earliest known date stamp is 1851) Staff & Field
https://www.si.edu/object/ames-manufacturing-co-model-18501851-staff-officers-sword:nmah_441636

^detail of the double fuller, similar arrangement on other side. Digital magnifying using their online utility.

 

At a glance, the blade design, single finial of the guard quillon, knuckle bow, grip wrap & wire, scabbard boot cap shape, and pommel cap are similar, while the half basket guard is different in dimensions and design. The Infantry Officer’s has a single branch away from the blade with floral decorations in between, while the Staff & Field has two branches and both branches have decorations in between. The set closest to the blade is similar in both designs, but the further branch space has the letters “U S” and further spaced out florets than the first section. 

Now let’s get a look at the French 1845. Thilmann only had the benefit of L’Hoste’s work (he cites L’Hoste’s, Les Sabres Portes par L’Armee Français pg 279, on pg 232 with actual endnote on pg 395), and L’Hoste didn’t have a lot of full length photos including pg 279:


(Note: It is for this reason that I think Thilmann misunderstands the French sword, for he says this: “The Model 1850 Foot Officer’s Sword is almost an exact duplicate of the French Model of 1845, whereas the Staff & Field hilt and blade represented a change in scale.” vol 2, pg 233).


In any case, just as Thilmann instantly superseded all previous works on US Army swords, so too did Ondry on the specific type of sword the French call a “Sabre” from 1815-1941. Note that what the French mean by a military sabre is not always what we mean by saber in US parlance. As far as the French are concerned, the M1850 Foot, M1850 S & F, and M1852 are all sabres. Also complicating the discussion is the use of these words in modern sport fencing. For this post, if the French or British call it a sabre, that’s what I’ll call it using that spelling. Otherwise as an American, I’ll use our own conventions & spelling unless I note otherwise.

 

There’s one at the Smithsonian with the proper dating on the back/spine of the blade, but the model year and type is mislabeled: https://www.si.edu/object/french-model-18501848-staff-and-field-officers-sword:nmah_440411 . The French Wikipedia page, oddly enough, not only has an article on the sword but on the proper type for upper officers with a straight blade and larger half-basket. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_modèle_1845. Because there’s so much confusion on this type of sword out there, let’s get the photos from Ondry then use other examples that conform to his information. I’ll be as sparing as I can under fair use on Ondry’s books, but as his are the latest and best, it’s hard to avoid direct usage.



^Ondry, Sabres Français 1830-1870: Du coq à l’aigle Tome 1, pg 150. Since all of Ondry’s books on the subject are called “Sabres Français”, I’ll abbreviate references to SF and enough of the subtitle to distinguish which is meant. In the case of 1830-1870 I’ll use the English “V(olume)” even though the original is “Tome”.

 

Google translate: “Sabre whose leather scabbard is striking with its large grooves on each side, however the overall appearance indicates that it is a well-made 1845 model” . I think he’s referring to the divots in the leather when he’s referring to grooves. Let’s get another one with better detail on the decorations.

 

Here are 2 more examples of the M1845 (1847 & 1848) with different angles:


 ^SF 1830 etc, v 1, pg 146.


The 1845 I was able to obtain via a NaturaBuy auction is marked similarly to the top one but with “H P” and same year as the bottom one but a different month.




Smithsonian using their magnification tool:





We can now clear up one issue, and that is the blade design. For the M1845 for junior officers, we’ve got one primary broad fuller that goes from the ricasso all the way to the tip. It has some sort of narrow fuller that starts at the hilt (starting even within the ricasso) gradually narrowing until the last part of the blade, where the narrow fuller gradually broadens until it becomes almost as broad as the primary fuller at the tip. Such a structurally prominent false edge section cries out to be sharpened thus allowing back cuts. Regardless, and this is important, THE BLADE OF THE M1845 IS NOT SAME AS THE M1850. Since Thilmann among others doesn’t get this right, it can’t be emphasized enough.

 

Where did the M1850 swords (and thus the M1852 which most likely took their cue from the Army) get their blade design? This question occupied not a few months of my research. None of the sources quoted above (including the French one!) have noticed this major detail, even though the French article illustrates both the M1845 & M18500 side-by-side with full-length photos. The text ignores the fullers, and concentrates on the edges (“tranchant”). There’s at least one typo. It’s quoted as “1860” twice, but should be “1850”. The captions have the correct year.


^same citation as above, but page 47 instead of 49.

 

My initial hypothesis was to follow the opinion of an antique sword dealer who stated his opinion on a helpful YouTube video, and one of the only a few videos on the platform with any detail on the M1845: 

Something not well known in English speaking circles is the project of blade design simplification that occurred in France from 1821-1822. Starting with the Infantry Officer’s sword, then following with the M1822 Light Cavalry both officers & troopers, then Heavy Cavalry both officers & troopers, all adopted the same arrangement of fullers, one broad on both sides, another very narrow towards the top center of the blades. See also https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_modèle_1821  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_modèle_1822 (note that both of these articles don’t include Ondry and so are out of date, but it’s not like the older sources are completely wrong on the broad points). Now, the outward appearance of the blades doesn’t tell you much. Infantry swords handle much differently than cavalry swords in general, and these French swords are no different. To say a blade design is similar to another model doesn’t really mean much if only outward appearances are included. I thus decided to test the hypothesis by taking genuine pre-1850 French infantry swords (1845, 1821) and an initial issue Army 1850 & Navy M1852 of similar length to saber fencers to see what they thought. I was looking for people with both modern sport experience and HEMA, and fortunately there was one in my area, as well as a couple of his students/fellow practitioners. The M1850 I have is the 30.5” type, the M1852 29”. I also brought along a light cavalry M1822 for comparison but even a total neophyte such as myself could tell the balance was different. Long story short, they would not commit to any of the blades being related in terms of how they handled, with the most dramatic difference in descriptions and impressions being from the M1821 (“Now this one is a real duelist’s weapon”) & M1845 (“This one is a chopper.” He didn’t mean it was like an axe. Matt Easton made a similar comment using a various form of “chop” as well. Another way Matt puts it is “quite a lot of authority”. 

11:40 & 14:44 especially.) The result of the experiment was ultimately that the 1850’s US blade design wasn’t directly based upon the French swords in terms of handling.

So, we ought to go into more detail on the origin of the 1821-1822 blade design, it being so influential on American swords. This type of blade in French is called a “Montmorency” or “à la Montmorency” as the French Wikipedia articles also call it, though not just Wikipedia. In fact, all the sources both old & new call it that. It’s a proper noun, not a general common noun, so for an origin we need some person or unit. Some authors suggest a unit, but when push comes to shove, they don’t actually identify it in a way that can be verified in other sources. It was only by taking a look at the incredibly rare (in fact produced in limited numbers on purpose as I later discovered) Christian Blondieau (sometimes spelled Blondiau) book, Sabres Français — 1680-1814, that I finally got the full scoop on this. I will summarize his information in a table. Before that, the problem in identifying the unit comes from the convention of naming it after each nobleman who commanded it. A second issue is that the unit was reclassified twice in close proximity to the era of the Revolution. Lastly, in addition to the Revolution wanting to do away with noble titles, it appears they still desired an orderly system, so they decided to assign numbers to units instead. 


1673 Regiment raised as dragoons, Marquis of Firmarcon
1678 Barbézières
1692 D’Estrades
1700 Belle-Isle 
1709 Bonnelles
1727 D’Armenonville
1742 Surgère
1745 D’Aubigné [At this point the author says names of commanders were engraved (“gravé”) upon their blades]
1761 Comte (Count) of Choiseul-La-Baume
1763 Comte of Custine
1780 Marquis of Lescure
1784 “Comte de Laval de Montmorency”

 

The Count was the last commander while the unit was classified as traditional cavalry. We don’t know exactly when “dragon” (dragoon in English) units went from meaning mounted infantry to being light cavalry, but certainly by 1784 it was so.

 

1788 Unit converted to chasseurs called “Evéchés” . The name is derived from “Bishop” but I’m unsure if the nobleman commanding was a Bishop also or if it’s a jurisdiction of some type that in its ancient history had a Bishop associated with it.

 

1791 Unit converted to 2nd Regiment of “Chasseurs à Cheval,” (literally “horse hunters”, a sort of light cavalry unit specialized for speed without one of the previous prestigious titles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasseur . It is entirely possible that the unit kept their old cavalry sword, because the regulation chasseur à cheval sword didn’t have the double fuller design. Some authors posit an official granting of their old sword to the unit for meritorious action, but as frequently happened it could just be a baptism after the fact of what they were already doing.


Blondieau includes photos of this sword (pg 85):



You can see the broad and narrow fuller arrangement. These swords are still being traded today, though they’re relatively rare obviously.








^from a previous sale: https://www.galeriedemars.fr/catalogue-magasin/3942-1925-sabre-des-dragons-de-montmorency-devenus-chasseurs-a-cheval-des-eveches-1776-a-lempire-fr-ancien-regime.html#/1-sous_categorie-reglo_france/4-classification-collection/5-pays-france/10-etat-tres_bon/32-epoque-ancienne_monarchie

 

An even rarer superior officer version with gilded blade artwork mostly intact: https://www.galeriedemars.fr/catalogue-magasin/10717-7707-rare-sabre-dofficier-superieur-du-2e-regiment-de-chasseur-a-cheval-france-premier-empire.html#/4-classification-collection/5-pays-france/10-etat-tres_bon/61-epoque-premier_empire

 

This style of blade didn’t originate with the Comte de Laval de Montmorency’s unit. The particular design and other variations similar to it began appearing at least as early as the mid 1700’s:

^Grenadier sword with broad and narrow fuller arrangement on the right from the 1750’s, pg 36.

 

It wasn’t that the Montmorency regiment originated the blade type, but rather the design became associated with that unit after it was no longer officially in use, nor the fashion to make swords that way. At no point does it appear this blade design was the only type being used. Something I haven’t been able to determine is why this decidedly retro design became so popular after that. Part of that may be my reliance on Google translate and my lack of French skills. More research can certainly be done on this topic. All authors agree that this particular arrangement is included in “à la Montmorency”, though there’s some disagreement about how far to extend the definition beyond. Blondieau describes the blade design of the original:

 

”La lame, légèrement courbe, à pan-creux et gouttière, est dite « à la Montmorency» en souvenir du dernier chef de corps des dragons avant que le régiment devienne chasseurs à cheval.” pg 58

 

”The slightly curved blade, with a hollow pan and gutter, is called ‘Montmorency style’ in memory of the last commander of the dragoon corps before the regiment became horse hunters.” (Google as modified by me)

 

The direct translation is unhelpful as we don’t use that exact terminology in English to describe blades, but “hollow” is used for “hollow grind.” Let’s see if this is what is intended. Ondry has a French-English glossary in a book I didn’t list yet, Sabres Français de la IIIeme Republique (2015) which covers sabers after the time period of this study. The glossary isn’t an excellent resource due to lack of checking the translations with the literature, and even if he had done a better job on that, British English and American have different terminology for swords. Regardless, the glossaries have a number of useful entries:

 

“Pan creux: partie assez large, peu profonde et à fond plat ou arrondi, évidée par la forge ou la meule. C'est un allègement de la lame. Il peut être simple ou double et voisiner avec une ou deux gouttières.” pg 14

 

“Hollow pan: fairly wide part, shallow and with a flat or rounded bottom, hollowed out by the forge or the grindstone. It lightens the blade. It can be single or double and have one or two gutters.” (Google as modified by me)

 

I believe that matches the technical term of a hollow grinding from blade manufacturing, though specific to fullers as opposed to edges. One example: https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/blogs/articles/sharpening-a-hollow-ground-knife?srsltid=AfmBOoqveCm9boE_xzHd4GtcX_VKx9LIGbdfBLKkshqHP3lIxNvezJEP


Google translate likes to translate “gouttières” as “fullers” but as English currently has only one word for both types, I’ve chosen the more literal “gutter” (minus the “blood” part that was inaccurate anyhow). These narrow channels I don’t think are formed by hollow grinding, so two words not only helps distinguish them visually but also by technique and function. Hollow grinding mechanically removes material and thus mass, whereas other techniques don’t necessarily. Also it’s possible to combine techniques, forging a rough wide groove then grinding for final characteristics. I’m not an expert in blade formation so any errors in understanding fullers are entirely my own. In French, broad and narrow fullers always use two different words in the literature.

Part of my translation comes from a discussion of Tod Cutler & Matt Easton where Tod called a broad fuller a “hollow grind” at about 4:55 here 

(“…at the end of the hollow grind.”) and there he’s discussing the technique for forming the fuller. Single or double refers to the same side of the blade. A single broad fuller on both sides of the blade would just be called a single.

This isn’t a French sword forum but a US Militaria forum, so I’m not going to try to settle all the debates and disagreements about what counts as a Montmorency blade in modern terminology. Having discovered that everyone agrees that a Montmorency is at least a single hollow ground fuller (on both sides) & a single narrow fuller at the center back (on both sides), we have firm proof that the design is French, originally dates to the mid 18th century, became associated with a particular unit with surviving swords that fit the description which is how over 200 years later it’s still referred to, was used in a substantial number of French sword designs in the 1820’s, and was borrowed at least once by the US military before the 1850’s, we have sufficient information to form theories on how it originated for the 1850’s swords. Matt Easton has said on more than one of his videos that this design is also uniquely French, though there are some similar characteristics on non-French or non-French-derived designs. As a side note, Matt also seems to err when he calls it a Montmorency fuller from what I’ve seen of French sources. A blade is a Montmorency or Montmorency style or à la Montmorency, not the narrow centered fuller by itself. He admits to less knowledge on French swords than British ones, though.

 

Let’s do some comparison photos:






Some caveats. I have 2 original issue M1852’s but in neither case are they completely original regarding blade, hilt, and scabbard. The longer, a 29” (topmost) came to me with a leather wrap and the wrong wire, as well as a loose hilt, and only the top two mounts of the scabbard. I had the restorer re-wrap with shagreen & proper type of wire, so please ignore that in your visual comparison. The shorter was probably originally a 26”, though it measures 25.5” currently without disassembly. The blade & hilt are original but there was no scabbard and the scrap of leather that came with it is most likely not original, but at least it protects the blade. It’s helpful for a number of reasons including the typical bending damage to the finial that is also found on my Army M1850, but not the Smithsonian’s.

 

Comparing the French Montmorency style of the 1820’s and the American Montmorency of the 1850’s yields some interesting results.
-the broad fullers extend further up the length of the blade of the French swords and the narrow fullers start further up.
-the 1820’s French sabres have off-center points, whereas the M1845 & American swords have centered points (often called spear points). As it turns out, the majority of French historical regulation sabres have off-center points as near as I can determine from Blondieau & Ondry. French épeés, almost exclusively thrusters, all have central points. The British designs are mostly centered (with the famous exception of the P1796 light cavalry and some others). One of those ironies of history is that French cavalry doctrine of this period (1820’s) apparently favored the thrust but the off center points made that more difficult, and British doctrine favored the cut but they had spear points. Americans had no trouble mixing and matching.
-all these have stopped fullers, i.e. near the hilt, the fuller ends (stops) in sharp right angles at the ricasso, as opposed to unstopped or rounded end at the bottom like the top. Both in French & American blades, unstopped broad fullers are occasionally found in the time period following the initial design.
-except for the M1821, all have short ricassos of roughly the same size. The M1821’s ricasso is very short in comparison. Later model M1852’s, even at Ames, are longer.
-except for the trooper’s M1822 which was designed to be plainer, the pommel caps have a similar style viewed from the side, with foliage bordering the edge of the cap piece as seen near the joint with the crossguard. That’s true even of the M1821. We’ll discuss this more in the hilt section below. 
It’s hard to see from these photos, but the M1845 is a horn grip whereas the American swords are sharkskin wrapped around something else. In the case of my 29” M1852, I know the inner material to be wood, which the restorer thinks is original but still needed some glue-based repairs before it could be used.



-typical of French sabres (but not of French Naval sabres, oddly), none have a backstrap on the grip, including the US swords influenced by them. 
-the hilt cants downward near the cap. Matt Easton says this assists in bringing the point on line (with the forearm). Since that influences the handling of the blade in combat, that should be counted as an integral part the design.

 

We’ll make some more comparisons later when discussing particular design choices of the M1852.

BLADE

As with the previous models of US Naval Officer swords, we’ll begin the specific tracing of origins of the design with the blade. One simply cannot intelligently discuss a fighting sword without talking about the blade. It is not a given in the literature that this is a fighting weapon, but given its origins in the French infantry and characteristics, this post presumes the initial issue M1852 was indeed a fighting weapon of last resort like any officer’s sword in this time period. An officer’s primary weapon was and is his men. Nevertheless, backup sidearms were still necessary and useful tools of self-defense. In the Navy there is evidence that some officers chose a cutlass as their actual combat sidearm (we have authentic artifacts with fancier hilts than were enlisted issue, some even with inspected blades), but there is no evidence that it was the only choice made by officers. Unlike British practice of this time period where officers had a lighter version of the standard model sword for parade/ dress (McGrath & Barton, Ch 3, section labeled “Dress Swords”), the US only had mention of presentation swords that could be used in full dress (uniform order of Secretary Bancroft, June 4th, 1845: “… 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.“ https://thenavycwo.com/the-archives/uniform-regulations?task=download.send&id=100:regulations-for-the-uniform-and-dress-of-the-navy-of-the-united-states-of-america-1841&catid=15). As we’ve already seen, the general arrangement of fullers was borrowed from the Army M1850 model(s) for which model, unlike the earlier M1840, Ames was the original manufacturer.

 

It is here that I’ll insert an opinion and that is that the American 1850’s Montmorency blades were based on the Ames interpretation of the M1840 Cavalry saber, not directly on the French designs. That saber’s history is rather complex. Thilmann tells us that the original 1840 run was a contract job through the Prussian firm S & K (Schnitzler and Kirschbaum) which was one of the many skilled bladesmith/cutlers based in or near Solingen in modern Germany then Prussia, which has been a center of sword production at least since before the establishment of the United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen (mostly undocumented article. Finding a proper citation for the beginning of production is surprisingly difficult. “Middle Ages” is mentioned by some without citation, but all agree it’s been a long time and it’s considered common knowledge. Solingen blades are found all through the history of the US from early times. In particular, the original Horstmann in the US was Prussian and had commercial relationships back in the home country that he used to import blades. As referred to in previous posts, Horstmann didn’t manufacture swords or buttons, but did supply them to military officers as a sort of one-stop-shop of his day, and his sons retained German language skills for this trade after Wilhelm died. Widmann also only hilted blades he imported mostly from Solingen. See Bazelon’s Horstmann’s book).

 

Even later when Ames was the official contractor, the Mexican War outpaced Ames’ manufacturing capacity so S & K was one of the companies who met demand. Note that tracing this information through Thilmann’s first volume requires jumping around in the book. Here are the most helpful pages: Schnitzler and Kirschbaum’s M1840 1st Contract (and even a possible 1839 trial model) 366-372, 2nd Contract of 1847 pg 372-375. Ames M1840 pg 66-79, and color photo of Officer’s type pg 37. Both with the French 1822’s & US M1840, the trooper & officer versions are substantially the same within model types. The main difference is some decoration work on the hilt and sometimes blade in the officer models, and since officers were expected to purchase their own swords, more variations in length and details. The Smithsonian has an example of a quite rare 1845 (1st year of actual recorded deliveries) stamped trooper Ames M1840 https://www.si.edu/object/np-ames-model-1840-heavy-cavalry-saber:nmah_440206

Note that unlike the later swords, these have the off-center point.

 

Their 1852 with this sword:

Note that although these swords are substantially different in actual length, proportionally they’re similar when it comes to the broad fuller. The narrow fuller of the Ames M1840 starts a little higher up the blade than the later swords (screenshot of magnification using their tool):

This is different from the S&K which more closely matches the French M1822. Here’s an 1840 S&K from Thilmann vol 1 (brightness digitally modified to better show top of broad fuller. Most of the sabers in this section are Jim Brown’s). It’s also entirely wouldn’t have been difficult for a Solingen company to get ahold of actual French M1822’s in any case.

From this I conclude that the fuller arrangement for the M1850’s & M1852 was inspired by the Ames M1840 Cavalry blade. We don’t know as far as I can tell why the Army chose a spear tip in 1850, but the Navy specifically described their swords as “cut and thrust” since at least 1813 regs (effective 1814) https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/1814.html  (they still do in the current uniform regs even though the modern blade design makes it a poor choice for cutting). Matt Easton explains in a number of his videos that a centered point assists with the thrust (including in the one already mentioned in the M1845 section). As a matter of fact, all 3 model officer swords of the USN had spear points, and the majority of pre-1830 swords as well. The only edged weapons for naval officers that didn’t have spear points were certain models of dirks. Before then, the 1802 order mandated the small sword for dress (a pure thrusting weapon) and a hanger for undress https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/1802.html . “Hanger” etymologically just means it hangs from the belt, but generally is considered a kind of short (varies by author. Somewhere between 20-30” depending), slightly curved single-edged cut & thrust sword. Some classify them as backswords but no particular tip configuration is implied in any of these terms. One of the most popular types of pre-1814 naval swords owned by US naval officers extant was actually a spadroon based on either the British infantry regulation 1786 or P1796 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadroon, and sometimes even the Naval P1805. These swords, traditionally identified with the “shearing sword” of certain manuscripts, were more tailored to the thrust but still had some cutting ability. As such they weren’t small swords or hangers, but British officers used them so apparently the US followed suit. In France (1804), Britain (1805), and the US (1830), naval swords weren’t of any regulated model until the 1800’s and thus quite late. Regardless, spadroons were spear-tipped in line with their thrust-centric function and straight.

 

We know for certain that the initial issue M1852 came in 3 sizes because we have a written notice of delivery July 19, 1852 in those 3 sizes, quoted by McAulay, Civil War Small Arma of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (1999) on pg. 31, citing National Archives Record Group 74 (Navy Ordnance), Series 19 (Letters Received from Navy Yards 1842-1884), Boston Navy Yard. I think that’s https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2133281 (the listing says there are 49 volumes just in the Boston Navy Yard series!)

 

”Boston Navy Yard

M1852 Officer’s Sword Delivery

July 19, 1852

 

12 New Regulation Navy Officer’s Swords 29 inches in length          $204.00

11 New Regulation Navy Officer’s Swords 27 1/2 inches in length     187.00

12 New Regulation Navy Officer’s Swords 26 inches in length             204.00

35 Belts and Clamps                                                                                    192.50

2 Packing Boxes                                                                                               4.50

   Paper                                                                                                              1.75

Total Invoice                                                                                               $793.75

 

Note that such a short service sword was not necessarily the norm in other navies of the time. Britain was apparently under the orders of 1847 which required 31 1/8” according to May & Annis vol 1 pg 46 https://archive.org/details/swords-for-sea-service-volume-one/page/46/mode/1up. It’s unclear how naval officers & and manufacturers interpreted the French 1848 changes, as it only lasted until 1853 and insufficient individual examples have been measured. We’ll talk more about French naval sabres when it comes to the half basket & finial designs, as up until now French naval sabres had no influence on USN swords and even for the M1852 the influence is minimal but not zero. Regardless, Ondry says the M1837 was 77 cm long (about 30.3”) and the M1853 was 68 cm (26.8”). He says about the 1848 that the blade design was a repeat of the M1837 but of a smaller size (“mais est de plus petite taille”) SF 1830 vol 2 pg 148, but that’s not committing to very much. Such measurements only applied to examples from the official manufacturers selling privately. Officers in France, as in Britain and the US, had to purchase their own swords and so could buy wherever they chose so long as the weapon conformed to regulations or custom. Certainly more research can be done on the topic. What we can say is that USN didn’t abandon its traditional usage on length. 

One of the least important elements of blade design as a weapon is etching or decoration patterns, but for collectors they can help date the sword or the beauty of them can influence their desirability. As it happens, even the initial issue M1852 in the opinion of Peter Tuite (pg 102) didn’t necessarily have the same pattern in all instances. The official pattern only included the obverse:

 

In that case, let’s get as much of a typical pattern down that we can.

^https://www.jamesarsenault.com/pages/books/7508/regulations-for-the-uniform-dress-of-the-navy-and-marine-corps-of-the-united-states-from-the

For the obverse, the best example is the NH example from my museum post for which I requested and was granted permission to use their photos for a section post:

^https://www.nhhistory.org/object/2005900/sword

An internet seller had an incredibly well preserved one and took detailed photos: https://www.horsesoldier.com/products/edged-weapons/swords/21980 (supplemented from elsewhere as noted)

 

Obverse:

 

The circle of stars/cartouche in 3 cases known have initials in the middle. See the museums post.

This is quite a complicated element. Let’s get an extreme

closeup from another source: https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

There’s a USN on the flag!

Reverse:

 

Alternate from Collection of T.Nardi:

3rd view from Smithsonian:

There might be some canon balls underneath, but that detail has worn off on almost all examples.

 

To my eye the wheels etc are rather crude and so I’ve provided more than one conf

 

There might be some canon balls underneath, but that detail has worn off on almost all examples.

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

 

Continuing:

Anchor from NH:

U.S.N. from NH:

Final element of reverse:

This element could be clearer so let’s turn to the best preserved sword online with the best photos including extreme closeups.

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

It’s acorn & oak! Who would have known from the other sword images?

It really doesn’t like my post and is even not allowing me to access photos now. I may have to post a completely different time and continue in a part II.

HILT

 

Half-basket

In 1850 for both types the Army adopted the half basket design on the M1845, with some variation when it came to the Staff & Field which took more inspiration from the half basket of the Superior Officer’s version rather than Junior Officer’s/Adjudant but transformed it and added the US letters. The French first adopted this style of what is sometimes called a pierced guard on 20 July 1837 for the new naval sabre, followed very closely by the model for the Chasseurs de Vincennes. Since the two models appeared in the same year, some older authorities say the design came from the Chasseur sabre, but Ondry says the Navy version came first SF:1830 etc, V 1, pg 135. Moreover, the Chasseur sabre wasn’t a regulation sword:

 

“Une précision, ce sabre, bien que fort utilisé et pas rare, sauf la primière version à fourreau en cuir, n'a jamais été réglementaire.”

“A clarification, this saber, although widely used and not rare, except for the first version with a leather scabbard, was never standard issue.” (Google)

 

The naval sabre of 1837 had a pipe-backed blade and can be ignored for this discussion. We’ll use the photos on pg. 126 &128 of SF:1830 etc, V 1.

 

Like the M1850 Staff & Field, these had a larger basket with an implied 2 branch amount of space to decorate. Unlike the US swords or the M1845, the decorations between the branches aren’t generic rosettes but acanthus. The finial decoration is a generic rosette though. Unlike any design that came after, the small shell that protects the fingers is decorated in a similar manner to the main guard.

 

The next naval sabre was the M1848 which has only been accurately described and accounted for in the most recent wave of scholarship (Admiral Schérer’s 2011 Les Uniformes des Officers de la Marine 1830-1940 is the first book on pg. 124 but it’s possible that it was described accurately as far back as the Gazette des Armes, n°236 (9/1993). I didn’t get a chance to see the article before posting here. Certainly, L’Hoste wasn’t aware of it as there are various inaccuracies on pg 285, 287). Admiral Schérer’s most recent article on this appears to be the one on his website https://www.marins-traditions.fr/_files/ugd/c3f5ca_9a61835bbf284bb0af32e1908729df10.pdf (2024). 

(from pg 3. In 2011 he credited this to an 1850 fascicule of Auguste Bry). The Admiral apparently never had a physical example to photograph so we’ll have to turn back to Ondry. In SF:1830 etc V 2, pg. 1848, he gives the official source, Bulletin Officiel de la Marine tome II de 1848 page 501, signed 1 December 1848 by Eugène Cavaignac. This obviously occurred after the M1845 borrowed a similar design from the M1837 and represents a simplification of the older style but also putting a distinct look to the naval weapon. First and foremost, the French navy decided on the common oak as part of their design, unlike the Army. Second, the first appearance of the stylized dolphin (used in a similar form in French military design at least as far back as the Dauphin, the heir apparent to the throne under the old Monarchy, but having lost that association by the 1840’s) on the finial. We’ll come back to the dolphin head further down.

^combo of v1&2 to compare the two models. In addition to the finials, the shape of the half basket is subtly different and the 1848 has an artistic cable/line wrapped around the outside of the branch. The photos of the 1848 laid aside a typical 1837’s show a similar basket size

 

Unofficially, the implied second branch had already dropped out certain examples of the 1837 before the 1848 officially dropped it as Ondry shows in SF: 1830 etc V 1, pg 131 detail.

The middle example is a non-regulation version of the 1837 that dropped the sub-branch. The left is a mostly standard 1837 but with the cording wrapped along the edge branch that eventually became standard in 1848. Note how the basket guard has shrunk in size by 1853 (far right) to be more like the M1845 than the M1848. 

 

Let’s see a comparison of the French infantry M1845 and the US 1850’s swords:

Top: M1852 26”, Mid M1850 Foot, Bottom M1845 Adj

Left M1845 Foot (horn grip) Right M1850 Foot Initial Issue

L M1850 init issue R M1852 init iss.

It’s fairly clear that the M1850 Foot Officers did indeed borrow heavily from the M1845, but it’s far from a straight borrowing to the M1852. The motif of common oak is borrowing from the French naval sabre M1848 but artistically different with very prominent acorns. Using letters is borrowed from the M1850 Staff & Field and possibly the idea of further spaced elements. The decorations are rather crammed in the half-basket for M1845/M1850 in comparison. The size of the basket is far more comparable to the Foot Officer’s than the Staff & Field. Unlike any of the Army swords, the M1852 doesn’t use a secondary branch. In short, while there is some arguable influence from the Staff & Field, the M1852 is a mix and match with original twists on the half basket, but more like the Foot Officer’s than the Staff & Field. Note also that the USN didn’t borrow the decoration on the outer branch.

 

Finial

The generic rose of the M1837, M1845, M1850’s (and even the M1821) is not used here, though the design single finial is, as opposed to the M1830 & M1841. What is borrowed is the dolphin’s head, but it is transformed from pointing towards the opponent to facing the user.

Pommel cap

Although it is very difficult to see, the foliage for the M1850 isn’t quite as detailed as the M1845 and the M1852 is changed to oak and acorn.

 

M1845 (note there are berries/fruit among the foliage)

M1850

M1852. 1st 26”, 2nd 29”.

The end of the pommel cap is a so-called Phrygian bonnet on the French swords & Army 1850’s. That bonnet really stylized and no one can be faulted for failing to see this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phrygian_cap_on_pole.svg

 in this:

^M1821

 

Regardless, the Navy really only pays lip service to that design. I wouldn’t call it a bonnet phrygian at all. It rises a little above the side rim and that’s the only bow to the other swords.

^Top to bottom: M1852 29”, M1852 26”, M1850 Foot, M1845 French, M1821 French

^M1852’s with flash

 

On very well preserved examples one can see the intention was to display the eagle perching on a coil of line/ rope.

^https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

 

Others have noticed the oddity of a left (from the eagle’s perspective) facing eagle when most of the eagles were right facing at the time, but it was present on the official illustration. Compare to the illustration in the BLADE section.

 

Knuckle bow

The pommel cap showed an interesting detail of the knuckle bow as it attached there, and that was the stylized dolphin head:

You may recall that back in the M1830 derivations from the naval épée of 27 May 1804. I said to remember this detail, because even though there are some elements borrowed from French naval sabres this time, we still were not done with the old épée, especially since the relevant artistic element didn’t carry over to the new épée of 1819. More about regulation épées here: https://www.marins-traditions.fr/_files/ugd/c3f5ca_90a85479a89a45029dcce3a552e75832.pdf

^from an auction. Still up for sale, so no direct link: https://sailor-in-saddle.myshopify.com

 

The stylized dolphin head has been modified in two ways. First, the head has been turned, and second there is the suggestion of scales. It is, however, based on this head as the hood/mane is deliberately included in the American designs:

With the scales, and especially with the same artwork attached to a sinewy figure on the scabbard drag,

^https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

it is perhaps appropriate to call the transformed dolphin head now a sea serpent’s head.

 

It’s hard to tell on some of the photos, but very close to the next artistic element on the knuckle bow appears to be a structural element showing a joint. 

The end part of the knuckle bow seems to be French-style acanthus:

Note that real acanthus doesn’t look like the usual French artistic version, which in turn was based on Greek/Roman depictions on capitals (columns).

 

https://live.staticflickr.com/12/14682847_37341cc9e5_b.jpg

 

^https://www.flickr.com/photos/antmoose/14682847/in/set-355533/

 

^https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthus_(ornament) The “Gothic” in the list refers to the French-origin architectural & artistic style. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture

 

Handle (grip wrap & wire)

There haven’t been studies I could easily discover about fishskin species in US weapons, but there has been at least 1 on British swords, though not well referenced. https://swordresearch.org/SwordSearch/Documents/Shagreen.pdf . The proper word for the material is apparently “shagreen” in English, though that also can mean a superficially similar appearing leather from a horse or donkey or the like that has been patterned using seeds in processing. Concerning the material in general there’s a very good article here: https://ebenist.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Silverman_LR.pdf. In French, the standard word is “galuchat”, named after a particular artisan who used the material: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Galluchat (the change in spelling from the “ll” of the name to the “l” of the material happened early on apparently and the Wikipedia article has an image of such a spelling shift before the artisan even died). Regardless, since the material was used in Asia for weapons centuries before it became fashionable in 1700’s France as a premium material, and it later was used in France, Britain, and the US for sword handle wraps, Asia is the probable origin and either directly (Japanese swords) or indirectly (artistic items of high quality) it became fashionable in US officer’s weapons. Remember that almost all M1830 & M1841 naval swords were ivory or bone with no wrap, except occasional borrowings from British designs in individual instances, the shagreen grip only being regulation starting with the Royal Navy P1827 officers sword. When it comes to color, both in Britain and the US, it was officially white but unlike the British there are no extant initial issue M1852’s with white shagreen wrap like the pattern drawing, though I’ve seen at least one early Ames with similar features wrapped in white (https://www.horsesoldier.com/products/edged-weapons/swords/34216). A point of usage is that even in the British Navy there are indisputable examples of white grip wraps on P1827’s https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-79044 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-78637 there are also gray wraps: https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-78546 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-78542 . US naval officers bought these initial 500 directly from the government so it’s exceedingly unlikely they questioned the hue of the shagreen. The earlier models were overwhelmingly white using a solid grip (ivory or white bone) while actual white wraps are relatively rare until more modern times, though I’m not committing to any particular timeframe, not having studied post CW swords very much.

 

Wire according to T.Nardi is 24 gauge, 25 twists per inch via message of 2/16/2025. I haven’t seen this published anywhere. I really don’t know anything about the subject so simply present his opinion. Some of the photos give different impressions so let’s get the best extreme closeup of the best preserved example online:

 https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

The regular pattern of raised areas tends to suggest shark.

SCABBARD

Since leather was the primary material of naval swords in British, French, and American forces, complete and intact scabbards are more rare than the corresponding swords. Regardless, the scabbard reverse looks mostly like the M1850 Foot, which in turn is a simplification of the M1845

(Ignore the spacing of the middle mount of the M1852 above  (left) as although the part is original, it was put on a new scabbard. Recall the sharkskin has also been replaced).

From behind the Ames M1850 & M1852 top mounts are indistinguishable as they even both have an engraved company name plate. Note that the French one is longer and has more space from the ring to the top of the scabbard.

 

From the front, though, the 2 M1850’s are distinguishable and the M1852 unique. The front of the M1850 Foot & M1845 Adj look the same as the back on the top two mounts. The Staff & Field has a fancy detail on the ring:

The M1852 took the idea of decorating the ring to such an extreme that is difficult to see a ring at all.

^https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

 

The drag piece also mirrors the M1850 in the line details (and screw on the reverse) but the boot piece is different to accommodate the sea serpent on front:

These details are completely different from the M1845.

 

Tuite says that the drag was stamped with a “P” with no inspector mark, but I’m unsure if that was universal. The example we’ve frequently referred to does have it:

^https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-530196.aspx

 

Typical wear on these swords.

 

My next eventual post will be a detailed measurement of distal taper and such things as the thickness of the finial material. My suspicion is that the French M1845 was thicker in the bend leading to the typical bending found in M1850 Foot and M1852 Navy initial issue swords.

 

Another issue T.Nardi communicated with me was the seam of the sharkskin often being on the side and split. By no means every sword suffers from these issues, and given a new photo posted by Historic Beverly on their Facebook & Instagram page, my best explanation is that they started underneath the grip but had a tendency to pull to the side with use. 
 

The piece most likely to be damaged and needing to be replaced would of course be the drag, as furthest from the body and most likely to collide with something (as indeed my M1850 is deeply dented). As such, I think it highly likely that officers would have thought nothing of replacing it to have a functional sword. My supposition is far more scabbards are preserved with replacement drags than true originals. I haven’t actually seen any on any other auction than the one I keep using.

 

This has been a rather consuming project researching and writing. As I said, I’ll eventually post detailed measurements, but that’s not a huge priority as I need to send the two M1852’s back for further work. Hope it will be helpful to someone down the road.

The live acanthus keeps being omitted:

I recently found another example of the initial issue M1852 held in private hands: https://www.pbs.org/video/appraisal-1852-commodore-morriss-naval-officer-sword-kyi8hq/ . It is from a descendant of Commodore Morris. No measurements are given but the expert does take notice of the “1852” on the obverse.

 

This is presumably:

 

Morris, Henry W.
Midshipman, 21 August, 1819. Lieutenant, 17 May, 1828. Commander, 12 October, 1849. Captain, 27 December, 1856. Commodore, 16 July, 1862. Died 14 August, 1863.

 

In 1852, he would have been a Commander.