M1860 unit markings?

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Was it common practice to place unit markings on the swords used in the civil war? I know it was in Germany and Britain but I don't know if I've seen too many on American swords of any era.

To my own untrained eye, they look a little sloppy or inconsistent, especially the stamp on the pommel.

Attached are some photos of a sword a dealer on Facebook is offloading. I'm not personally interested in the sale but am wanting to use it as an opportunity to learn.

Also attached are the photos he provided of what he calls an American 1850, does anyone know if it verifiably an American piece? I always thought the metric for identifying the French 1845 style blade was if it had either shagreen on the grip or etching on the blade (or both).

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

Unit markings are not as common on US swords as they are on European, but you do see them from time to time. Often they are just rack/inventory control numbers to help the supply folks keep track of their items and keep them stored in the right locations. It is not often possible to associate these rack numbers with specific units.

I do not believe the "1850" is American. The hump in the grip is too high for most American M1850s, the ricasso is too short, and the grip appears to be buffalo horn, commonly used on French swords but seldom on American. As you note, the lack of etching is also a counter indication. I am not familiar with the makers' mark stamped on the base of the hilt, but hopefully one of our members who collects European swords will recognize it.

 

[UCVRelics]

Was it common practice to place unit markings on the swords used in the civil war? I know it was in Germany and Britain but I don't know if I've seen too many on American swords of any era.

To my own untrained eye, they look a little sloppy or inconsistent, especially the stamp on the pommel.

Attached are some photos of a sword a dealer on Facebook is offloading. I'm not personally interested in the sale but am wanting to use it as an opportunity to learn.

Also attached are the photos he provided of what he calls an American 1850, does anyone know if it verifiably an American piece? I always thought the metric for identifying the French 1845 style blade was if it had either shagreen on the grip or etching on the blade (or both).

View attachment 310330

View attachment 310331

View attachment 310332

View attachment 310333

View attachment 310334

View attachment 310335

View attachment 310336

View attachment 310337

View attachment 310338

View attachment 310339

View attachment 310340

View attachment 310341

View attachment 310342

View attachment 310343

View attachment 310344

The one with the J&M oval marking is a French model 1845 officers sword. The second which appears to be a model 1860 Cavalry sword but the US and JH really don't look right to me. There should be an Ames makers mark on the other side. Lets see if we can get another set of eyes on it paging @Package4 and @Richard E. Schenk

 

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Thanks for the replies so far guys.
@richard E. Skenk That's sort of what I thought, I asked him about the foot officer sword and he stated there's no American iconography or etching at all as well, but something "that looks like" an American makers mark. Never supplied a photo of that.

@ucvrelics do you think the 1860 is authentic in and of itself, or just some maybe fake stamping on it?

 

[UCVRelics]

Thanks for the replies so far guys.
@richard E. Skenk That's sort of what I thought, I asked him about the foot officer sword and he stated there's no American iconography or etching at all as well, but something "that looks like" an American makers mark. Never supplied a photo of that.

@ucvrelics do you think the 1860 is authentic in and of itself, or just some maybe fake stamping on it?

With the funky US, JH and date plus no photo of the makers mark which should be an Ames I would steer clear of it.

 

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Thank you for your input. The seller is someone who claims to have quite a number of years in the antique dealing business, and I've seen unsavoury things from them before but it mostly stays private.

They're asking just under 1400USD for the two of them.

 

[UCVRelics]

Thank you for your input. The seller is someone who claims to have quite a number of years in the antique dealing business, and I've seen unsavoury things from them before but it mostly stays private.

They're asking just under 1400USD for the two of them.

All I can say is WOW

 

[Package4]

The one with the J&M oval marking is a French model 1845 officers sword. The second which appears to be a model 1860 Cavalry sword but the US and JH really don't look right to me. There should be an Ames makers mark on the other side. Lets see if we can get another set of eyes on it paging @Package4 and @Richard E. Schenk

The M1860 looks OK except for the markings as @ucvrelics say look a little off, it could be that the sword was very heavily cleaned, the pitting is fairly severe. I would stay away, just because M1860s in good shape are not that expensive.

The CS stamped on the pommel is bogus on the M1860 and the foot officer's sword is definitely French and appears to be cut down, the smaller fuller on the spine is indicative of a French sword.

 

[Glen_C]

Someone with the Jean l'Hoste book(s) will know the French cutler JM. It is interesting (to me) that there are no poincons and not blade marked to Coulaux & Cie Klingenthal. So, the blade origin somewhat of a blank. The entire sword may have been produced elsewhere and sold by the cutler. Considering the incredible numbers of the 1845 being used, an American association is a bit of a stretch without the aforementioned traits but surplus was shipped in bulk.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/2865510417/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
(fwiw, selling at about $44 plus shipping from France)

The light cavalry sword might be a Nardi, or someone else's re-wrap, the leather is wrong for the period. A blade seated on the bumper/seal leather washer looks period to me.

Huge bucks, I would move along with little to muse about but the hilt markings don't look like 20th century add ons to me. Considering the fifty years or so of the service life, one could wonder more. I would expect to have also seen JH on the pommel end as well.

Cheers
GC

 

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Thanks for your input Glen. I was a bit thrown off by the mark as I didn't recognize it. Looks like the L'hoste book will be on my purchase list again, if nothing more than to work out these poincons and brass marks.

 

[Glen_C]

Books I have meant to spend are are the l'Hoste series of books and the more current American Civil War authors but I am still digesting earlier Americana. I have some cheat sheets for poincons that was shared with me but not the cutlers marks.

With the cream puff of a light cavalry sword already in your stable, I imagine you were more looking at the 1845. The French service swords with scabbards are fairly plentiful.

Cheers
GC

 

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Yeah, not looking into the cav but to be honest more using an opportunity learn. Which seems to have been a good opportunity to snatch onto as someone apparently bought the lot. Good lord.

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

I see the owner posted it for sale on a Facebook site, If you want to see more photos of it,, check in out here:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...set=pcb.2744430115584784&type=3&theater&ifg=1
He was asking 1100 pounds and apparently found a buyer. Way more than I would have paid.