Edged Wpns Advice on an 1860 Staff Officer's Sword

bobinwmass

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Location
Western Massachusetts
This arrived in the mail today, another online purchase from a well known internet dealer. For years I've been looking for a decent war time issued Model 1860 Staff Officer Sword ( also called the 1860 Staff and Line Officer Sword, or erroneously the 1860 Staff and Field Sword). They are much harder to find than the Model 1850 officer swords. Made up until 1902, you usually find the later ones being passed off as Civil War era. Later ones typically have a nickel plated scabbard with 2 carrying rings on the top mount, decorations on the scabbard drag and reverse side of the scabbard mounts, and decoration on the folding clamshell guard. This one has all the characteristics of a war time sword, and is an Ames to boot. It has a blued scabbard with a single carrying ring on the top mount and no decorations on the folding counterguard, drag, or obverse side of the scabbard mounts. I paid $1250, which while an awful lot, actually seemed to be a pretty decent price given the scarcity and look of the sword. Problem I discovered when it arrived - the sword and scabbard have apparently been cut down 2 inches. The blade measures 29 inches when they are typically 31 inches long. The work is rather well done and would be rather hard to notice if you weren't aware of the size it should be. In addition, since it was shortened by grinding away from the top and bottom of the blade, but not thinning the blade as you approach the end, the point of the blade is much thicker than the original tip would have been. The sword is in such nice condition that I don't see any obvious signs of damage that would have necessitated this alteration. Do you think it could it have been done at time of use because the owner was rather short? Then again perhaps only the tip of the blade was pitted and some subsequent collector or dealer had the work done to make the sword more presentable. I have a 3 day return privilege, and am currently planning on returning the sword, though a bit unsure as who knows when I'll find another decent war time Ames and at what price then. Hey sword experts out there, what would you guys do?

20210519_151713.jpg


20210519_152441.jpg


20210519_152421.jpg


20210519_152355.jpg


20210519_152334.jpg


20210519_152314.jpg


20210519_152233.jpg


20210519_152212.jpg


20210519_152144.jpg
 
It is a nice looking sword. I would think part of the reason for the shorting was to restore the grip. What does the pommel end look like?
 
Very pretty! However I would opine that in the absence of further evidence or provenance it's another - though admittedly one of the better! - of the literally thousands of specimens that followed the adoption of the pattern in 1872 for virtually all officers of the U.S. Army except those in the cavalry and artillery. As you noted, that regulation lasted until 1902 and the style was also copied by National Guard officers, Masons and other fraternities, the GAR, and even the KKK!
 
Very pretty! However I would opine that in the absence of further evidence or provenance it's another - though admittedly one of the better! - of the literally thousands of specimens that followed the adoption of the pattern in 1872 for virtually all officers of the U.S. Army except those in the cavalry and artillery. As you noted, that regulation lasted until 1902 and the style was also copied by National Guard officers, Masons and other fraternities, the GAR, and even the KKK!
Yes, but those later ones typically had those later characteristics that I mentioned. This one does have all the attributes of a war time produced Ames that I also mentioned, and as described and pictured in Thillmann's book. Given that confirmation in his book, I am pretty comfortable that it is war time vintage.
 
It is a nice looking sword. I would think part of the reason for the shorting was to restore the grip. What does the pommel end look like?
I'm unclear as to why restoring the grip would result in taking 2 inches from the tip of the sword, but here are a couple photos of the pommel end, and also compared to a war time Ames in John H.Thillmann's book "Civil War Army Swords" (Gotta give the credit as I am using a photo from his book). It does look like the tang may have had some recent hammering and it does have the slightest amount of play. But if they actually removed the hilt for grip replacement, again it was superbly done as usually the dome of the pommel is ground away a noticeable amount to do that, and absolutely none is ground away here. And that is a pretty small dome.

20210519_175555.jpg


20210519_175628.jpg
 
I'm unclear as to why restoring the grip would result in taking 2 inches from the tip of the sword, but here are a couple photos of the pommel end, and also compared to a war time Ames in John H.Thillmann's book "Civil War Army Swords" (Gotta give the credit as I am using a photo from his book). It does look like the tang may have had some recent hammering and it does have the slightest amount of play. But if they actually removed the hilt for grip replacement, again it was superbly done as usually the dome of the pommel is ground away a noticeable amount to do that, and absolutely none is ground away here. And that is a pretty small dome.

View attachment 401269

View attachment 401270
There is only 2 ways to do the regrip and that is to either weld a small piece on the pommel end of the blade or grind enough off the blade at the guard end so it will stick thru enough to re tang it. As far as the the rest of the 2 inches I would say the tip was broken at one time and was reground. At $1250 you would think you could still get one just as nice with out the issues. Just sayin:D
 
There is only 2 ways to do the regrip and that is to either weld a small piece on the pommel end of the blade or grind enough off the blade at the guard end so it will stick thru enough to re tang it. As far as the the rest of the 2 inches I would say the tip was broken at one time and was reground. At $1250 you would think you could still get one just as nice with out the issues. Just sayin:D
Thanks. Yes, I am aware what needs to be done to the tang end of the blade to re-assemble properly once the pommel is ground a bit to take it apart and replace a grip. I'm just not sure that was done here, and didn't see how that connected to shortening the sword at the tip as that was obviously done here. But the separate possiblity of a broken tip could be a possible explanation. I have decided to return the sword unless they are willing to agree to a lower price.
 
Update - the sellers report they did not catch the fact the blade was shortened, and to make amends for not noticing and putting in the listing, offered the choice of returning the sword, or refunding me $350 and I keep the sword. I am comfortable with that latter offer so as to put a decent looking example in my collection until such time (if ever) I find a better example. Unfortunately, with some 35 swords in the collection already, when I try to add a decent example of a type I do not have, they tend to get a bit pricey.
 
Yes, but those later ones typically had those later characteristics that I mentioned. This one does have all the attributes of a war time produced Ames that I also mentioned, and as described and pictured in Thillmann's book. Given that confirmation in his book, I am pretty comfortable that it is war time vintage.
Agreed that by far the majority of those produced post-1872 for non-military purposes were usually the crudest sort of junk, and even those following the Regulation pattern very often left a lot to be desired in terms of quality.
 
I have what appears to be an identical Ames M1860, albeit housed in a later style scabbard, which has a non-cut down 28" blade.
1621530955977.png


I have several other CW-war era M1860s by various makers with blade lengths from 28" to 32.5"; the average seems to have been about 30" give or take a fraction. Although 28" would be within the range of this model, looking at the photo of the tip of the blade your sword it does look as though it was cut down.

I suspect my pictured sword was probably made between 1868, when nickel plating became common, and the adoption of the the M1860/72 (or perhaps we should simply call it M1872) with the decorated rear counterguard. It is possible that the scabbard was a replacement for an earlier one when the regulations were changed to require nickel plated scabbard at all times, not just when in full dress. (I believe this was in about 1876.) The decoration on the drag is a bit different than those found on most M1872s, i.e. crossed flags on observe and star on reverse.
 
I have what appears to be an identical Ames M1860, albeit housed in a later style scabbard, which has a non-cut down 28" blade.
View attachment 401388

I have several other CW-war era M1860s by various makers with blade lengths from 28" to 32.5"; the average seems to have been about 30" give or take a fraction. Although 28" would be within the range of this model, looking at the photo of the tip of the blade your sword it does look as though it was cut down.

I suspect my pictured sword was probably made between 1868, when nickel plating became common, and the adoption of the the M1860/72 (or perhaps we should simply call it M1872) with the decorated rear counterguard. It is possible that the scabbard was a replacement for an earlier one when the regulations were changed to require nickel plated scabbard at all times, not just when in full dress. (I believe this was in about 1876.) The decoration on the drag is a bit different than those found on most M1872s, i.e. crossed flags on observe and star on reverse.
Wow, the etching on your sword just pops out! Thillman does picture/ discuss a couple of these swords that appear to be war time swords in later style scabbards.
 
Your sword looks just too good to be just some "bubba" fix. I wonder if the shortening was a period modification to accommodate a short customer? When the Marines adopted the M1840 NCO sword for musicians of the Corps in 1859, the swords they purchased from Horstmann had 31" blades which were too long for many of the teenage musicians at the time. The Quartermaster therefore directed the blades to be shortened as required to accommodate the boy musicians. Does your scabbard show any signs of shortening? If so, it is not eviednt from your photos.
 
Last edited:
Your sword looks just too good to be just some "bubba" fix. I wonder if the shortening was a period modification to accommodate a short customer? When the Marines adopted the M1840 NCO sword for musicians of the Corps in 1859, the swords they purchased from Horstmann had 31" blades which was too long for many of the teenage musicians at the time. The Quartermaster therefore directed the blades to be shortened as required to accommodate the boy musicians. Does your scabbard show any signs of shortening? If so, it is not eviednt from your photos.
I agree it was no hack that did the job, and was also wondering if done at time of use to accommodate a shorter individual. I have heard of this being done, and also am aware that makers like Horstmann and Roby made shorter variations of some regulation swords, again likely for some height impaired customers. While still a good job, I think the scabbard shows evidence it could have been shortened. The brass drag has some wavy appearance at the very bottom that could be from tapping it back onto a shortened scabbard, and on one side there is just the slightest crack in the brass where the drag joins the scabbard, possibly from the stress of being forced onto a scabbard that would be a bit wider now if a couple inches had been removed from the bottom.

20210521_111519.jpg


20210521_111554.jpg
 
Perhaps it was passed down from a father to a son when the son obtained a commission in the army; and the son was just a bit shorter than his dad.
 
Back
Top