Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards.
Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.
In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword.
|
I think it likely this sword is from the 1790s, perhaps from a naval officer who saw some Indian service, thus aware of eastern yelman-designs.
But much of this is supposition. The peen appears well-aged, so I do not think its a modern composite of old parts. I think, as you said, it is most likely Drury made this piece with a Solingen blade, Thurkle eagle, and did the rest himself for private purchase.
The naval possibility is wholly due to the size and type of blade, very much like a non-regulation officer cutlass. We saw them in the US Navy quite late as well, even post-regulation, but are very rare and desirable to collectors.
This piece was listed in a French auction as a British cavalry sword, which after your comment does make me wonder. The blade is far far too short for actual battle service and is designed to be a battle blade, so I do find this very unlikely. Though the size of the basket tells us it was made for a small man, my hand will not fit in it at all.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Cheers