M1840 Saber Spine Mark

[Jeff D]

Interesting thread Gentlemen, but, there is a very large bull elephant in the room. Since we are here to learn I will place a quote from William A. Albaugh III 's A Photographic Supplement of Confederate Swords In his Addendum Preface;
' In the past, those with a strong case of Dishonesty would take an artillery saber (with single fuller) attach the guard assembly from a yankee foot officer's sword, and lo and behold, this ugly hybrid became in the eyes of the uninitiated - a Confederate sword! The stamping of the three magic letters "C.S.A." removed any vestige of doubt.
When the fraternity grew wary of such trickery, the faker simply turned to some artist friend to etch the blade with fantastically pro-Confederate designs. These included not one, but several "C.S.A.'s", southern flags and mottos such as "Death to all Yankees.."
This type of quackery still persists and in some cases is quite accomplished, particularly when a genuine Confederate sword supplies the basic ingredient.'

All the Best
Jeff

[Hotspur]

I am not familiar with (don't own) Albaugh's work, aside from brief passages posted by others. Is this a quote from the 1960s? I do consider a lot of the old work of others (such as Peterson) as bibles but these are sometimes revised to correct assumptions and update information. In this particular quest of a sword's information, some of those very basic precepts still hold true.

Yes, it could have been etched at any time. There is a problem with the etching because of how the name reads when compared to history. Could a well meaning organization screw that up in a reunion effort? Sure it could but first we have to find the presentation of the sword and more specifically presentation to the person assumed. Why a cavalry sword for an Infantry officer would be another boggle.

My last spurt of reading regarding this was to find mention of the slogan itself "Carry The Crater" and why any would etch that without some common reference of its use. If my sword, yes, I would be going to the trouble to pursue a good diary and bio for the name and events. Specifically a presentation to him and when that occured. Not so easy at times.

One of my favorite lines from researcher Bernard Levine is the comments of "Look at the mark. Look at how the mark was made. Ignore what the mark may say (spell out)". With this sword being discussed, that is fairly sage insight but once determined how, the why of follows on its heels. To me, the attribution with a named sword is then the curiosity of why bother to etch a name at all if not supplied with ample storytelling (provenance, if true) behind it?

Attached is a sword Albaugh would love to pull apart in the passage quoted above. These attached really did have me wondering for a few minutes but then plonked them in the "remember this" file.

Cheers

GC

[Jeff D]

Hi Glen,

The first edition was published 1963, my edition with this addendum was published 1979. In your photo's is the top saber the same as the lower one, the scabbard looks different.

Jeff

[Hotspur]

Hi Jeff,

I'll have to look at my folder again and it may have been another artillery sword from the same source. One is showing the scabbard with the throat removed. Otoh, it may be a picture with the non-historical brass throat lumped in with those files. I know the fellow was selling more than one with brass retrofits. Someday I'll figure out how to show the thumbnails in folders automatically while browsing instead of just the names. Folder preference settings somewhere got confused between drives.

It was the etch itself that really might be of interest.

Cheers

GC

[celtan]

Hi Guys,

There have a lot of interesting contacts regarding our sword. I will let everyone know the most recent info as soon as I have time to wind down and write.

Also, just got the Photographic Supplement to my Albaugh's. Nice reading!

Best

M