Ames Mfg. Sword 1860 Logo ID

[JOHN42768]

Looking at a 1860 Ames sword. Question is about name stamp. The Ames is in a arch shape and not straight. Photos I have seen seem to be all straight. US &CEW marked all look correct, date is not clear due to rust. Would this be a correct logo? Thanks, John

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

It is correct. You don't see it neatly as often as the scroll logo or the block letters in a straight line. I believe it was only used in 1864.

 

[UCVRelics]

It is correct even being a little off center and was used 1863 1864.

 

[JOHN42768]

It is correct. You don't see it neatly as often as the scroll logo or the block letters in a straight line. I believe it was only used in 1864.

Thank you. The date I believe to be 1858,59 or 53. Photo leaves a lot to guess at.

 

[JOHN42768]

It is correct even being a little off center and was used 1863 1864.
View attachment 128496 View attachment 128497 View attachment 128498

Thanks. I've attached a photo of the date in question (185?)on other post. John

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

I agree the third digit looks like the lower half of a "5", but this sword could not be an 1858, 1859, or 1853. M1860s were not made in 1853, and although some were made in 1858 and 1859, they were inspected by "J.H." (probably John Hannis} Your sword was inspected by "C.E.W." (Charles E. Wilson). Wilson did not begin his inspector career until 1862. This, together with the fact Ames did not use the arched logo until 1864 (possibly late 1863) make it likely the third digit is actually the lower half of a broken, poorly struck "6". If it is a "5", it was an error - someone picked up the wrong punch.

 

[JOHN42768]

I agree the third digit looks like the lower half of a "5", but this sword could not be an 1858, 1859, or 1853. M1860s were not made in 1853, and although some were made in 1858 and 1859, they were inspected by "J.H." (probably John Hannis} Your sword was inspected by "C.E.W." (Charles E. Wilson). Wilson did not begin his inspector career until 1862. This, together with the fact Ames did not use the arched logo until 1864 (possibly late 1863) make it likely the third digit is actually the lower half of a broken, poorly struck "6". If it is a "5", it was an error - someone picked up the wrong punch.

Hi, The top of the pommel is JH. It sure looks like a 5 to me. John Thillmann book "Civil War Army Swords" shows Charles E. Wilson was an inspector from 1846-65. Seller is calling it 1864, but ???. I'm enclosing a photo of pommel. It doesn't look like it was messed with. I'm calling it a 1860 due to handle shape. See photo. Let me know your thoughts. T

hanks.

 

[JOHN42768]

I agree the third digit looks like the lower half of a "5", but this sword could not be an 1858, 1859, or 1853. M1860s were not made in 1853, and although some were made in 1858 and 1859, they were inspected by "J.H." (probably John Hannis} Your sword was inspected by "C.E.W." (Charles E. Wilson). Wilson did not begin his inspector career until 1862. This, together with the fact Ames did not use the arched logo until 1864 (possibly late 1863) make it likely the third digit is actually the lower half of a broken, poorly struck "6". If it is a "5", it was an error - someone picked up the wrong punch.

Richard, posting a photo from Americanswords.com of a Millard sword. Has CEW working 1862. Thanks

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

Hi, The top of the pommel is JH. It sure looks like a 5 to me. John Thillmann book "Civil War Army Swords" shows Charles E. Wilson was an inspector from 1846-65. Seller is calling it 1864, but ???. I'm enclosing a photo of pommel. It doesn't look like it was messed with. I'm calling it a 1860 due to handle shape. See photo. Let me know your thoughts. T View attachment 128562 View attachment 128563 hanks.

I will need to look at what John has to say, but I'm pretty sure those dates (1846--1865) are incorrect. Are you familiar with the new "bible" on inspector marks, Charlie Pate and Antony Daum's "U.S. Military Arms Inspector Marks"? It is the definitive work on the topic. It not only describes the marks and on which weapons they appeared, but also gives a bio on the inspector. It states Charles E. Wilson was born in Massachusetts in 1835 or 1836 (he would have been a tad young to be an inspector in 1846!) and was working at Springfield Arsenal in 1858, and in 1862 began inspection duties. He was sent to New York to inspect Millard sabers on 30 Apr 1862. He seems to have started inspecting Mansfield and Lamb cavalry swords from mid-1863 through 1864. His initials are also noted on Ames sabers dated 1862 and 1864. Bottom line, it seems the "C.E.W." mark is pretty well documented, and it is quite unlikely it would be found on an 1850s sword.

Whatever the date, the sword looks righteous to me. I don't think it has been messed with.

 

[JOHN42768]

I did read his Bio in Pates book, but didn't pay attention to the dates at that time. I just scanned through it and he was working at Springfield Armory at least as early as 1858. So he would have been 22 or 23 in 1858. Back then he was a old man. They had him bouncing around at different factories a lot. I should have it in a week, then I can see the date. With the JH on the pommel and CEW on blade, possible two inspections at different times? John

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

Possible but not likely. Just different inspectors looking at different parts. More often than not the initials on the blade do not match those on the knuckle guard or pommel.

 

[UCVRelics]

Its a model 1860 that we know. The blade has NOT been off the guard, that I am sure of. Its hard to tell from your photo of the date stamp but if you take some baby powder and put it on the date stamp rub it in good and then blow it off and tell me what you see. If it still a 5 the I'm going to go with @Richard E. Schenk that he pulled the 5 instead of the 6 out of the box and its a mis-stamp.

 

[JOHN42768]

Its a model 1860 that we know. The blade has NOT been off the guard, that I am sure of. Its hard to tell from your photo of the date stamp but if you take some baby powder and put it on the date stamp rub it in good and then blow it off and tell me what you see. If it still a 5 the I'm going to go with @Richard E. Schenk that he pulled the 5 instead of the 6 out of the box and its a mis-stamp.

I should have it in a week. I will let all know the date. I was going to use some bronze or copper wool, I'll try the powder first. Does 460 shipped sound like I made out alright or slit my wrist? It for sure has been there and did see the elephant. Thanks, John

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

I should have it in a week. I will let all know the date. I was going to use some bronze or copper wool, I'll try the powder first. Does 460 shipped sound like I made out alright or slit my wrist? It for sure has been there and did see the elephant. Thanks, John

Sounds like a good price to me. Other than the unclear date everything else looks fine, especially the grip which looks better than most.

 

[UCVRelics]

I should have it in a week. I will let all know the date. I was going to use some bronze or copper wool, I'll try the powder first. Does 460 shipped sound like I made out alright or slit my wrist? It for sure has been there and did see the elephant. Thanks, John

Sounds like a good price to me. Other than the unclear date everything else looks fine, especially the grip which looks better than most.

If it turns out to be a model 1860 with a 1854 stamp then is defiantly a mis-stamp and is just like a mis-strike at the US Mint worth a more money but in the case of a sword not as much as a coin. Keep us up to date.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

The date stamps were a solid one piece stamp. The dates were not stamped with 4 individual stamps, one at a time, where the worker/inspector could "...pick up the wrong stamp...". Just look at the straight line stamps on swords. Whenever you see date stamps, etc., that are individually stamped and uneven....you had also better see a big "Red Flag" to go with it!
J.

 

[JOHN42768]

The date stamps were a solid one piece stamp. The dates were not stamped with 4 individual stamps, one at a time, where the worker/inspector could "...pick up the wrong stamp...". Just look at the straight line stamps on swords. Whenever you see date stamps, etc., that are individually stamped and uneven....you had also better see a big "Red Flag" to go with it!
J.

I believe you are correct as to one piece die. I guess we will know once it arrives. Photo is difficult to determine. May very well be a 6 or a chipped die that was used. Got to keep the faith. Consensus was that it was not messed with, so we will see.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

I am quite sure we are all looking forward with great anticipation to what you are about to receive!
J.

 

[JOHN42768]

I am quite sure we are all looking forward with great anticipation to what you are about to receive!
J.

I'll bet I'm more anxious. What is your take as to if it had been messed with? Additional overall photo

 

[James N.]

All the anguishing over this very common piece reminds me of the paraphrased story my sword and militaria mentor, the late Robert Justice, used to tell:

When I was just a kid starting out collecting the only thing I could afford was an 1860 cavalry saber. Then when I was a little older and had a little more disposable cash, now I could afford - an 1860 cavalry saber. Now that I have more experience and a better job and am doing pretty well, I can afford - an 1860 cavalry saber!

In my lifetime they have gone from around $25 up to their ridiculous high of the early 2000's between $800-$1000 to where they've "settled" now. Here are mine, purchased sometime around 1980 or so:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/cavalry-and-dragoon-sabers-by-the-n-p-ames-co.109389/