Magey, just wanted to note I very much like your well thought through and detailed posts, and that you explain your interests and agenda in collecting as well as ideas and observations throughout. It really adds a great deal to have these kinds of entries that offer insights into the areas of interest being discussed.
Your interest in the sword forms, both regulation and keenly on the non-regulation forms used by officers is indeed a topic not well covered in most discussions on military related swords. Frankly too many collectors simply collect by the regulation patterns with really delving into the esoterica that was far more common than many realize.
As you note, swords were of course, weapons, and as such obviously the notion that 'one size fits all' is clearly not effective. Officers in the 19th century, were traditionally swordsmen, and as such had their own requirements for the swords they would use in the field. Obviously this is why many officers swords outside the regulation patterns of the time were often termed 'fighting swords', and personally tailored or matching that officers preferences. The rank and file of course were issued the regulation swords and expected to deal with them accordingly.
Throughout the 19th century, regulation swords were constantly being reviewed, complained about, redesigned and altered. British swords were notoriously the object of considerable conflict, the debates between cut and thrust uses not withstanding. Brian Robson's book in 1975 well details much of this ("Swords of the British Army") . Also Richard Dellar's "The British Cavalry Sword: Some New Perspectives" and companion volume also is most valuable. I know you must already have these, but noting for readers.
I agree with the note that refurbishing antique weapons is typically compromising in the value, but it is of course a matter of preference. For me, as an arms historian, the weapon left in situ is key to understanding its specific history. Even repairs in its working life become elements of forensic examination.
The note on the Garden firm examples is a point well made. These are as Will notes quite rarely found. On that note, Will I have a question for you:
You note numbering on the spine of a sword, and it seems I have seen suggested that often swords destined for East India Company service were often numbered in this manner (Garden & Co. ?).
I have a Reeves pattern 1821 light cavalry saber, which is numbered 111, on the spine. Would this possibly be a weapon in this category?
|