Real or Repro?

[Bonedaddy]

A friend's saber. I can see no maker's mark on either side of the blade, just the 1861 date.

Need opinions as to real or repro and reasons why. Thanks.

 

[bobinwmass]

My vote is repro, due to poor quality casting on hilt, lack of defined fullers on blade, crude design of etching on blade, thin carrying rings, amongst other things that don't look right to me.

 

[scooter748driver]

Yeah, repro to my eyes

 

[gjpratt]

My vote is repro, due to poor quality casting on hilt, lack of defined fullers on blade, crude design of etching on blade, thin carrying rings, amongst other things that don't look right to me.

And "other things" -- Flat blade is incorrect and artificially aged and pitted. The decorations on the blade are likely cast instead of etched to my eye. And they match no pattern or style I am aware of.

This is supposedly a staff and field sword which were usually of the highest quality because they were regulation for the higher level officers. The crudeness is inconsistent with the sword's intended use and purchasers.

 

[bayonet]

I'd say repro too. I've never seen the wire end into the grip like that at the back. Cast not etched on the blade. The hilt also looks very poorly cast. Not sure on the scabbard.

 

[Bonedaddy]

Thanks so much for all the replies. I'm no expert but I had doubts also.

 

[R. Porter]

I thought the hilt looked more than a bit off, but the alarm bells really went off when I saw that 1861 date with its individually stamped digits.