Edged Wpns Millard M1860 sword

[UCVRelics]

Deleted

Lets keep it civil as there is need for that.

 

[UCVRelics]

Deleted

I said "lets keep it civil" and I won't say it again.

 

[hink441]

Here are more pics. I can't see any markings, I wish I could see some marks.

 

[bobinwmass]

Very good pics. In these I can't see anything either, so I'm stumped. Appears to be a saber that was never submitted for inspection. I wonder if the company would have kept an example or two for quality comparison, or held on to some that would not pass inspection hoping to sell at a later time. All speculation on my part, but certainly a mystery. Thanks for posting, I enjoyed looking and trying to figure it out.

 

[Patrick H]

So, I guess something 150 years old is supposed to look like it was made yesterday!! If you think it is ugly, that's your opinion that needs to be kept to itself. That's just common courtesy. There is always someone who feels they have to offer a negative opinion on someone else's possession. I don't have to agree with your opinion and I don't have to prove you wrong.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt it was offensive. I saw a thumbs down, too. I chose to report the offending post. I think it's extremely rude for people to make that kind of comment.

 

[1867crete]

I've always loved the 1860. Simply design I had a chance to buy one at a steal of a deal and condition, in my 16 Ignorance I missed my chance. I think this is a gem and would be proud to own it! Thanks for your post!

 

[R. Porter]

It seems to me that when an American made sword turns up without inspectors marks it is quickly labeled "private purchase" or sold to a state militia. However, swords were picked up off the battlefield after the fight or turned in by unit commanders who said they were too damaged to use. These swords were then reconditioned or turned into parts to recondition other swords. Part of that reconditioning could involve polishing the blade which might cause anything stamped on the ricasso to disappear. I couldn't help but notice the abrasion lines on the ricasso in question. If the hilt or just the pommel were replaced, other acceptance stamps may also disappear. I suspect that more swords were reconditioned than we realize and earlier swords are much more likely to have had it done. Perhaps this was a private purchase or militia sword; or just maybe it was a U.S. contract sword that was reconditioned at an armory (like the Jefferson Barracks Armory in St. Louis, MO; J.B.A. ?) and reissued to troops in the field.

 

[Patrick H]

It seems to me that when an American made sword turns up without inspectors marks it is quickly labeled "private purchase" or sold to a state militia. However, swords were picked up off the battlefield after the fight or turned in by unit commanders who said they were too damaged to use. These swords were then reconditioned or turned into parts to recondition other swords. Part of that reconditioning could involve polishing the blade which might cause anything stamped on the ricasso to disappear. I couldn't help but notice the abrasion lines on the ricasso in question. If the hilt or just the pommel were replaced, other acceptance stamps may also disappear. I suspect that more swords were reconditioned than we realize and earlier swords are much more likely to have had it done. Perhaps this was a private purchase or militia sword; or just maybe it was a U.S. contract sword that was reconditioned at an armory (like the Jefferson Barracks Armory in St. Louis, MO; J.B.A. ?) and reissued to troops in the field.

I had not thought of this possibility--nor even wondered when government armories first began reburbishing weapons. This seems like a reasonable possibility to me.

 

[R. Porter]

I had not thought of this possibility--nor even wondered when government armories first began reburbishing weapons. This seems like a reasonable possibility to me.

Every time I see a cavalry sword with a number stamped on the knuckle bow and the same number stamped on the pommel cap I wonder if the hilt was taken off of a sword with a broken blade and remounted on a new blade. If an armory or cavalry unit were placing rack numbers on a sword, why would the put it on twice within an inch or two of each other. On the other hand, if you were keeping two parts of a hilt together so they could be remounted together you might do just that. How often do sabers with these numbers also have blade stamps? Obviously, if the swords in question are foreign import model 1840's there probably was nothing on the ricasso anyway. If you see the same thing on a model 1860 you might wonder where the blade stamps went since it seems like everybody that supplied a model 1860 blade had it stamped. If you check these stampless blades you can sometimes see traces of something that has been all but polished out of the blade. However, the Ames scroll logo is often missing when the rest of the stamps are still recognizable; this should give more weight to the argument that a polished blade will eventually lose it's identifying marks. Sometimes the hilt numbers are different, perhaps the hilt was rebuilt from more than one sword hilt. You can also look at the pommel cap for traces that it has been reattached. Are there scratches or dents? Is the top of the pommel flat? Removal and reattachment might have been done later, after the war, to replace a grip or nickel plate the blade. There may have been a lot more going on with a sword than we realize. Now, having written all of this, I have to stress that I am far from an expert on swords and if anyone can add to or correct anything I've posted I would welcome the additional knowledge.

 

[hink441]

This is all great info and I agree with the refurbishment of broken swords was common, but, in my opinion, my sword doesn't show any indications of any reworking or repairs.

Thanks to the sharing of info in this thread, I now believe this particular sword was possibly a contract overrun, or a failed inspection sword or even possibly one of the first 500 elsewhere produced swords.

 

[R. Porter]

This is all great info and I agree with the refurbishment of broken swords was common, but, in my opinion, my sword doesn't show any indications of any reworking or repairs.

Thanks to the sharing of info in this thread, I now believe this particular sword was possibly a contract overrun, or a failed inspection sword or even possibly one of the first 500 elsewhere produced swords.

It's my understanding that failed inspection swords had a letter "C" stamped on them for "condemned." I suppose this was so the maker wouldn't try to slip it back into the bunch being proved or try to slip it back among swords being proved in the future. There was a sword on eBay for a while with a blade that looked old with nothing but a "C" on it mounted with a hilt of odd looking brass. The form of the hilt looked fine but it looked unfinished, like it was not polished. I puzzled over that for months until I found another sword with a hilt made of similar looking brass. It was identified as a sword put together by Bannerman. Apparently he got the blade as surplus from somewhere and cast the hilts himself. So the takeaway on that was that there were rejected blades that Bannerman got from somewhere and he made his own swords. I haven't seen many blades with a "C" but I do have one with an Ames one line address and no other marks, so it wasn't accepted by the federal government. Maybe it was taken by a militia company. I think I also have a model 1840 NCO sword with a "C". I would suspect that most had their letter "C" ground off and were sold to militias or individuals as private purchase since, according to some, swords could be rejected for trivial flaws.