Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: What Did I Buy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704

    What Did I Buy?

    In June 1810 James Winner received a contract to produce 500 horseman's sabers. It took him until April 1811 to deliver the first 100 swords, of which only 22 passed inspection. He was unable to complete the contract "because of intemperance". In October of 1811, therefore, Abraham Nippes was given the contract to complete. A distinctive feature of these swords is Winner's signature hilt design in which the knuckle bow is fixed through a slot in the pommel. My understanding is that the contract swords were inspector marked with "P" (or possibly "V") over a "W", probably for US inspector Martine Wickham.

    I just bought the below early American horseman's sword. Usually when this model is sold, it is identified as a James Winner and/or Abraham Nippes contract of 1810 horseman sword. Here are a couple examples of previous sales:

    - http://historical.ha.com/itm/militar...a/6083-52362.s

    - http://www.sailorinsaddle.com/product.aspx?id=1261

    My problem is that my sword is totally unmarked. Although it is possible the marking could have been worn/polished off, I doubt this is the case - the blade still seems in too good of condition for that. Other possibilities:

    - It is a Winner/Nippes saber made for the 1810 contract which was rejected, or was accepted but for some reason not marked. (I am skeptical the government would have accepted the swords without inspecting and marking them.)

    - It is a Winner/Nippes saber made IAW the 1810 pattern, but sold directly to militia elements rather than the Federal government.

    - It is a look-alike made by one of the other Philadelphia makers, perhaps using Winner/Nippes-provided hilts. There were apparently a number of makers including John Joseph Henry and Henkels. I really don't know much about these other makers' swords and how to differentiate them from the Winner/Nippes products. If any members have such info, I would appreciate their comments, especially as they apply to the current sword.

    I believe the militia alternative is the most likely. Assuming this is the case, would it still be proper to refer to these unmarked sabers as Winner/Nippes M1810s? This was done with the two sales cited above, and there actually seems to be good precedent for doing so. During the Civil War contractors sold swords not only to the Federal government, but also directly to various State militias. These uninspector-marked swords are still routinely referred to as M1840 NCO swords, M1840 Artillery sabers, etc. What do you think - would you call this unmarked sword a Winner/Nippes M1810?

    Name:  M1810 Winner Nippes 1.jpg
Views: 658
Size:  37.7 KBName:  M1810 Winner Nippes 2 comp.jpg
Views: 662
Size:  22.8 KBName:  M1810 Winner Nippes 4.jpg
Views: 654
Size:  89.8 KB

    Dick Schenk

    P.S. Does anyone have a good link to the ASOAC article "PHILADELPHIA GUNMAKERS AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE 'MARYLAND SWORD'"? I know I have seen this article on line, but for the life of me I can't find it now.
    Last edited by Richard Schenk; 07-27-2016 at 09:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Great question Richard. I do not know that I know the answer but I do have some thoughts. We know the m1798 horseman saber, Starr. Buell and Greenleaf and the Rose all follow the same blade pattern, small fuller top of blade with curve to tip point. We also know the m1812 Rose and Starr follow the same pattern, flat blade with clip point. It stands to reason the Winner, Nippes and Starr m1810 would also follow the same pattern. The blade on the Starr m1810 follows closely to the m1798 pattern, small fuller at top of blade with curve to tip point. While the Starr m1810 does not have a "P" proved mark it does have the "V" verified mark and I would assume the Nippes and Winner sword would also. All of these guys seem to have made extras to be sold to states and as the V stamp is usually deep, I like you doubt that it rubbed off. I think your sword is a Nippes product because while it does have the Winner drop to the pommel and the slotted pommel it looks short in photos. Winner pommels tend to be longer in my opinion. The other reason is I believe Nippes swords have a distinct flat sided grip as your sword appears to have, less rounded than Winner, Starr, Henry or Derringer. Rose tend to be a bit flat sided but have a distinct belly in the grip. I would assume Henkels similar to Nippes because of relationship. I will post photos tomorrow when I go out to sword room and elaborate more on my theory. I think if I remember correctly Bezdek said there were upwards of 30,000 swords made for War of 1812. So there are way more unmarked than marked. Wow what a beauty you have, nice leather and great blade. I will post more on these in the next few days. I have few facts but lots of theory. Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nipmuc USA
    Posts
    11,927
    I have a copy of the ASOAC article saved

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9A...ew?usp=sharing

    I think I have most of the sword relevant articles from them saved in my revolving documents. Feel free to browse
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?...3M&usp=sharing


    Cheers

    Hotspur; I did have a link for all there files saved somewhere but the bookmarks I have are not current.

    Ah, here it is. Hiding in plain site. One to bookmark yourselves. The list through Archive.org
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111018...letinindex.htm
    Last edited by Glen C.; 07-28-2016 at 10:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Glen C. View Post
    I have a copy of the ASOAC article saved

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9A...ew?usp=sharing

    I think I have most of the sword relevant articles from them saved in my revolving documents. Feel free to browse
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?...3M&usp=sharing


    Cheers

    Hotspur; I did have a link for all there files saved somewhere but the bookmarks I have are not current.

    Ah, here it is. Hiding in plain site. One to bookmark yourselves. The list through Archive.org
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111018...letinindex.htm
    Glen,

    - Thanks much! I used the usual search engines including Google and Bing, but for some reason they would not show these links. I knew the Maryland sword article was on line somewhere because I had read it some time ago - I have no idea why it is now so hard to find.

    - I remembered the article dealt with the M1810 sword and its various makers, and was hoping it would help differentiate between them. Unfortunately, it is not too useful in this regard. The article includes side-by-side photos of the Winner, Nippes, and Henkels swords as well as their Virginia Manufactory Artillery prototype. The Virginia sword is easy to differentiate, but I really can't see a much if any difference between the Winner, Nippes, and Henkels examples.

    Name:  M1810 Comparison comp.jpg
Views: 590
Size:  70.5 KB

    - The text leads me to believe there really is very little or none. Winner initiated the design which was used for the 22 sabers he delivered. When Nippes took over the contract in October 1811, he continued the same design "with the exception of widening the knucklebow slightly which resulted in the familiar “spooning” effect caused when the knucklebow is inserted into the pommel cap". Since Nippes had only delivered 210 sabers by the time of his death in December 1812, I presume the remaining 268 of the contracted 500 sabers were made and delivered by his stepson Danial Henkels who took over the operation after Nippes' death.

    One thing I didn't recall is that James Winner had apparently delivered 107 sword blades in December 1810 which were inspected by Army inspector Jacob Shough. Has anyone ever seen a blade inspected by Jacob Shough?
    Last edited by Richard Schenk; 07-28-2016 at 05:00 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston area, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,875
    What is unique is how the guard fits into the pommel. From the above examples it appears to be Nippes.
    Last edited by Will Mathieson; 07-28-2016 at 08:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Mathieson View Post
    What is unique is how the guard fits into the pommel. From the above examples it appears to be Nippes.
    Will, I agree my sword is most likely a Nippes. It appears to have the “widening the knucklebow slightly which resulted in the familiar 'spooning' effect caused when the knucklebow is inserted into the pommel cap" noted by Ms Andrews in the ASOAC article cited above. However, the Henkels M1810 also has this feature. The Henkels example pictured in the ASOAC article appears to be the exact same sword as pictured in the Medicus collection as figure 107c. The Medicus example was marked “D.H.” on the underside of the knucklebow. I don’t know if all Henkel examples are so marked or not – this is the only picture of one I’ve found. I’ve never seen a picture of a Henry or Derringer example of this model, but I suspect they might also show the same feature because it appears they may have obtained the hilts, if not the whole swords, from the Nippes/Henkels firm. This is discussed in the ASOAC article as well as in an article on a Henry NCO sword of largely the same style which appeared in the March 2008 issue of “The Jacobsburg Record” (http://www.jacobsburghistory.com/wp-...arch-2008-.pdf).

    Eric, you mentioned possibly having other photos to post. I would really like to see additional shots of the 1810 contract pieces by Nippes and, even more so, the other contractors. There really don’t seem to be a whole lot of them out there.

    The more I research my new sword, the better I like it, even though it is not inspector-marked. It seems to be a rather rare bird. I have not found many examples, and those I have found seem to be in worse condition than mine, especially the grips. I would like to think this would make this a valuable sword in terms of money as well as historical interest, but unfortunately rarity does not always imply value. I doubt there is all that much interest in these “big black swords” as they’ve been called. I was one of only two bidders on this sword which went for a rather modest price. Oh well, I never expected to get rich from my investment in swords – quite the opposite…

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060

    Sorry for the delay Richard but you know that point in life when your wife figures out polearms make great curtain rods. I also apologize if I lead you to believe I have a Maryland or multiple m1810 sabers. I do have Winner, Nippes and a Henkels but they are mostly artillery and infantry. I will try to put the photos together for you tomorrow. For the time being my reason for saying I believe yours a Nippes are the flat look of the grip, the medium length quillion and medium size disk at end. Winner liked short quillions, or shorter, large disk or quillion finals and rounder grips. He also was not fond of spooned knuckle bow. Nippes, Rose and Henkels seem to like the spooned knuckle bow. Starr and Winner not so much. Henkels swords have rounder grips like John Joseph Henry, long quillions with small disk finials. Winner swords have a very distinct turn down at the pommel. I will reread the pdfs on your thread as it has been a while and post photos. I am somewhat confused on the Andrews article as the m1810 was horsemans saber contract july 1810 , the Virginia Artillery was, artillery and from 1806 to 1810, and the Maryland contract was in 1812 and 1814.
    Last edited by Eric Fairbanks; 07-30-2016 at 08:40 AM.
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston area, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,875
    Eric what a wonderful way to display polearms and lances. Hopefully I get my second lance soon. I assume you used curtain rod holders?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Cast iron hand rail brackets. I am just thrilled it was my wifes idea. Took me a while to win her over on arms collecting, mostly edge weapons of course. Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Gentlemen I will repeat I am not a scholar but rather a collector. It is quite possible I am wrong on much of my theory as most are on early federal swords, even more knowledgeable men than myself. This sword although attributed to Abraham Nippes is I believe a Daniel Henkel's product. http://historical.ha.com/itm/militar...a/6083-52362.s, This sword not unattributed but in Winner, Nippes or Henkels style is possibly Henkels, John Joseph Henry, Henry Derringer or William Allen.http://www.sailorinsaddle.com/product.aspx?id=1261, Derringer, Henry and Allen swords always look like Henkels. Derringer and Henry both were distributers as well as arms makers. Please review page 84 and 85 in Bezdek's Swords and sword makers of the War of 1812.This next sword is the m1810 started by Winner, fulfilled by Nippes and Henkels. This one being a Nippes, http://armscollectors.com/mgs/four_big_black_swords.htm. Please notice the style of the grip and the quillion.
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060

    possible Abraham Nippes, The brown leather sword is yellow mounted, unmarked and the blade is 29 3/8th inches with a clip point. Notice the guard does not fit in a slot as the Winner designed M1810. The distinct flat sided balled grips and spooned knuckle bows typical of Austrian swords and swords made by those from the area. The black leather grip sword is iron mounted, 27 3/4 inch clip pointed blade. Both swords have the same wide deep fuller that stops about 8 inches from tip. The iron mounted sword has a 1 on the bottom of the knuckle bow that is gold filled, it also is stamped AVA on front of the guard close to knuckle bow and is gold filled. Compare these two to the Nippes in the previous post., , ,
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060

    James Winner

    Some time back Glen convinced me that Rose and Goodman did not design the Virginia Manufactory Sabers but rather James Winner did. There is quite a bit of evidence to back this up including second model swords with J. Winner fecit. http://www.christopherhjones.com/sec...factory-sword/, also the very design of the sword. James Winner swords start the pommel drop about mid way of the grip and include the famous slotted pommel. although Nippes, Henkels, John Joseph Henry and Rose utilized the slotted pommel it is most often attributed to Winner. Their swords do not begin to drop to the pommel until close to the end of grip. The top sword in this next photo is my one anomaly as it has a spooned knuckle bow with a Winner dropped pommel. The bottom three are all brass mounted artillery types without spooned knuckle bows but show the characteristic dropped pommel that is slotted for the knuckle bow.

    The top saber has a 31 and 1/2 inch flat blade very similar to the M1812/13 Starr with a somewhat rounded spine. It appears to have been cut down from a clip point to a spear point so it is possible it was over 32. The scabbard is original but mounts are missing and replaced with modern leather. As I said before it does have a spooned knuckle bow and a small quillion disk final, neither being Winner traits in my mind.

    The bottom three are all brass mounted and have Winner drop in pommel. The top sword has a wide fuller and blade is 28 1/4 inches long. The second on has the double fuller, one wide and a narrow fuller at top like the Virginia swords and is 30 1/4 inch blade. The bottom sword has an unusual slotted hilt guard similar to Virginia swords and a wide fuller. It is 29 1/2 inch long blade. All three have a curve to point tip. The center one also has a scabbard with both rings and a frog stud.

    I attribute all 6 swords to Winner especially the two Virginia 2nd model swords.

    I welcome all opinions especially anyone that disagrees. Regards Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    The M1810 is a set pattern. the Nathan Starr m1810 would be the exact same model as the James Winner m1810 as it is the same time frame, maker marked and pattern style. The blade on the Starr m1810 with V "verified" mark is 33 1/2 inches. The m1810 Starr sabers with the US mark are 34 1/4 inches. American Swords and sword makers page 262 and 263 have photos of the Winner m1810 and also in Bezdeks Sword and Sword makers of the War of 1812 page 78. There is very little info or records on the Starr m1810. ,, ,
    Government contract federal period swords will be marked V "verified" or P "proved" or simply US and will I believe have Makers mark. Which brings me to the "this is one of the rejected swords". as far as I can tell the rejected swords were sold to the Spanish colonies as they were having some difficulty getting weapons from Spain at the time. I will go so far as to say some of the Inspectors rejected swords so they could be sold to Spain with out reprisal from US, and for a profit. Many of the inspectors were business men them selves not soldiers, Pettibone, Rose and Starr all inspected from time to time among others. Mr. Jacob Shough had little or no experience inspecting swords and had multiple business dealings and questionable character U.S. Ordnance volume 11 page 32-33 by Tench Cox and other documents. Swords that did not pass could be sold to Spain for a bigger profit. The rejection of Winners swords just does not fit with his ability as a sword maker and 4 or 5 others attested to his swords being of equal or greater than the pattern. He even went on to help Nippes with the contract. M.T. Wickham did side with Shough but even Cox worried it was handled correctly and honestly. ,

    I welcome any and all comments, Eric
    Last edited by Eric Fairbanks; 07-30-2016 at 06:07 PM.
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    420
    My only comment is that is an outstanding early Federal saber collection!
    Motivated buyer of US Cavalry sabers.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Fairbanks View Post

    Sorry for the delay Richard but you know that point in life when your wife figures out polearms make great curtain rods.... I am somewhat confused on the Andrews article as the m1810 was horsemans saber contract july 1810 , the Virginia Artillery was, artillery and from 1806 to 1810, and the Maryland contract was in 1812 and 1814.
    I do not really collect polearms, but when I was with the Embassy in Bangkok I picked up several Southeast Asia spears. Similar to your experience, my wife found they worked great to hang some Burmese tapestries we had also acquired. They really did make a nice display.

    As for the Andrews article, I agree the title would lead one to think it was primarily about the Maryland swords, but there are no photos and little discussion of them per se. I believe the point, however, was to show the development and prototypes for the Maryland sword design. The Virginia Manufactory Artillery shows the first use of the Winner hilt design with its distinctive anchoring of the knucklebow in a slot in the pommel. The various M1810 sabers show how the Winner hilt design was used for the horseman sabers produced by James Winner and the others after they moved to Philadelphia, and that the same M1810 design was then used for the Maryland contracts.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Eric,

    -I believe you are correct in stating the M1810 was a set design. Although they follow essentially the same pattern, there is no mistaking the Starr or Rose sabers with those of the Philadelphia gun makers we have been discussing. Not only are they all apparently maker-marked, but they also lack the balled grip and have other distinguishing features.

    - Unfortunately, distinguishing between the products of the various Philadelphia gunmakers is not so easy. It may be possible to distinguish a James Winner sword by its lack of widening/spooning of the upper knucklebow and the sharper drop to the pommel, however, unless they are maker-marked, there doesn’t seem to be a good way to attribute any other given sword to a particular maker. Bezdek does make attributions for a number of swords illustrated, but generally doesn’t give the basis for those attributions. (P78, two M1810 attributed to Winner, only one maker signed, neither apparently inspector marked: p80, one attributed to J.J. Henry; p84, a Maryland sword attributed to J.J. Henry; p85, three Maryland swords, one attributed to Daringer, one to Allen, one unattributed; p89, one attributed to Daniel Henkels. (This seems to be the same sword as illustrated in the Andrews article and in the Medicus collection.)

    - If we have to depend on makers’ marks to distinguish these swords, I think we are in trouble. From what I’ve read in researching my sword, it appears very few swords were so marked. John Gabel of the Jacobsburg Historical Society tells us only three John Henry-marked swords exist (http://www.jacobsburghistory.com/wp-...arch-2008-.pdf). Cliff Sophia, in researching a Winner-marked NCO sword, could find only five known swords marked with Winner’s name (http://csarms.com/scripts/csa_view2.asp?ID=5403). The inspected M1810 attributed to Nippes in the “Four Big Black Swords” article (http://armscollectors.com/mgs/four_big_black_swords.htm) is not maker marked. (Has anyone seen an inspected sword from any one of the Philadelphia gun makers which was maker marked? I could not find any.)

    - As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the difficulty in finding differences between the various makers is that there may not be any, primarily because most, if not all, the hilts if not the entire swords were made by the Winner/Nippes/Henkels firm. Nippes took over the Winner contract in October 1811 and retained the same design (albeit with the slight differences noted above). He had not completed the whole contracted number of swords when he died in Dec 1812. Although Nippes’ son apparently became President of the firm upon his father’s death, Daniel Henkels seems to have taken over the operations of the company (see the Jacobsburg HS article cited above), and completed the contract. Looking through the verbiage in Bezdek, it seems the other Philadelphia gun makers who received US or Maryland contracts for M1810-style horseman swords obtained most, if not all, their hilts and perhaps whole swords from the Nippes/Henkels company.

    - I like your theory that the reason so many Winner swords failed inspection was so they could be sold to other customers for higher prices. Spanish America was not the only potential customer – some of the States, e.g. Maryland, were also willing to outbid the Feds.

    - Finally, let me echo Sean’s comment, a very impressive collection of early Federal swords!

    Dick
    Last edited by Richard Schenk; 07-31-2016 at 11:22 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Richard I do not disagree with you on any point and especially your and Andrews theory of Winner, Nippes and Henkels making the majority of the Maryland swords also. It makes sense Derringer and Henry sub out the swords. Not to say they could not make them as one I will post tomorrow is I believe a true Henry sword. With out these discussions we will never figure it out, the more you look at the more subtle differences you see. If you read Tench Coxe letters there were not many men in the US at the time trusted to build a sword of quality. And most of them learned their trade at the Virgina Manufactory. Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Fairbanks View Post
    With out these discussions we will never figure it out, the more you look at the more subtle differences you see. If you read Tench Coxe letters there were not many men in the US at the time trusted to build a sword of quality. And most of them learned their trade at the Virgina Manufactory. Eric
    I agree discussions such as this are useful in figuring out these issues. I just wish we had wider participation. This has largely been an exchange between ourselves. Without more people joining in with their views I feel we are in danger of becoming the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    In that case Richard here is a different flavor. While it has a similar blade profile to the m1810 and to the Maryland sword it does have some distinct differences. I recently purchased this on the bay and although incomplete it is a beautiful piece. Small top fuller, brass mounted, decorative band verses the plain band on so many Federal swords, clipped point, 39 inch saber with a 34 inch blade and a noticeable enlargement at point similar to British 1796 pattern. The Maryland swords and the m1810 being 33 1/8 inches with a curve to tip point. I do not know who made but think it safe to say Starr, Rose, Winner, Nippes and Henkels did not. It is totally unmarked but does have some casting flaws in blade. Regards Eric

    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Possible N. Starr artillery sword 34 5/8 inches with 29 3/4 inch blade shallow wide fuller 26 inches and short ricasso. The sword is unmarked but hilt profile matches known Starr artillery models with the exception of the balled grip which could be a replacement. The first two photos are of the sword in question and the third a marked Starr., ,

    Starr begin using the N. Starr in a cartouche sometime after 1800 and stopped using it before or when he started m1812 sword. This marked Starr sword would have to fall in those dates. The photos of the marked
    Starr are marked Starr on photo. Notice the N. Starr cartouche on the obverse ricasso. , While my sword is unmarked the design of the hilt and profile of the blade match the Starr with the exception of a shorter ricasso and balled grip. Maybe? Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nipmuc USA
    Posts
    11,927
    Some of the Starr swords have been determined to be imported. A textile bumper/washer would tend to lend to that determination.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Fairbanks View Post
    In that case Richard here is a different flavor. While it has a similar blade profile to the m1810 and to the Maryland sword it does have some distinct differences. I recently purchased this on the bay and although incomplete it is a beautiful piece. Small top fuller, brass mounted, decorative band verses the plain band on so many Federal swords, clipped point, 39 inch saber with a 34 inch blade and a noticeable enlargement at point similar to British 1796 pattern. The Maryland swords and the m1810 being 33 1/8 inches with a curve to tip point. I do not know who made but think it safe to say Starr, Rose, Winner, Nippes and Henkels did not. It is totally unmarked but does have some casting flaws in blade. Regards Eric
    I have no idea who might have made this sword. As you say, the blade profile with the deep narrow fuller on the top is certainly similar to the M1810/Maryland blades, as is the 6-lobed balled grip. On the other hand, it lacks the Winner-style slotted pommel and has the unusual decorated furrule. I'm not sure, however, we can really rule out all the "usual suspects".

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Fairbanks View Post
    Possible N. Starr artillery sword 34 5/8 inches with 29 3/4 inch blade shallow wide fuller 26 inches and short ricasso. The sword is unmarked but hilt profile matches known Starr artillery models with the exception of the balled grip which could be a replacement. The first two photos are of the sword in question and the third a marked Starr.
    Starr begin using the N. Starr in a cartouche sometime after 1800 and stopped using it before or when he started m1812 sword. This marked Starr sword would have to fall in those dates. The photos of the marked Starr are marked Starr on photo. Notice the N. Starr cartouche on the obverse ricasso. While my sword is unmarked the design of the hilt and profile of the blade match the Starr with the exception of a shorter ricasso and balled grip. Maybe? Eric
    Eric,

    You have some very interesting Starrs. I have one Starr with a brass hilt and a quite different marking, i.e. "N.Starr" stamped in a semicircle under a spreadwing Federal eagle. It was sold to me as an officer's sword, but I suppose it could actually be an artillery saber. Aside from the fancier trademark and brass-mounted leather scabbard with cross-hatched design along the edges, there are no premium features such as engraving on the blade which would indicate officer use. I need to take some new photos - all I can find right now are the below pictures from my inventory.

    Name:  Starr Officer Sword 1.jpg
Views: 468
Size:  79.0 KBName:  Starr Officer Sword 2 comp.jpg
Views: 456
Size:  16.4 KB

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    704
    Just for comparison, here are a couple pictures of the Starr M1814 Officer sword - not a thing like my brass-hilted example above. The government ordered 31 of them at $20 each as opposed to the $8 for the enlisted version M1813. This sword was sold by James Julia for a small fortune - obviously it's not in my collection.

    Name:  Starr M1814 Officer Julia2 3.jpg
Views: 457
Size:  17.5 KBName:  Starr M1814 Officer Julia2 1.jpg
Views: 446
Size:  38.7 KBName:  Starr M1814 Officer Julia2 2.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  37.5 KB

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,060
    Richard, the m1814 has pretty much the standard Starr hilt furniture and design. Your saber however looks to have the same pommel as my artillery or infantry sword. What fuller does it have? The stamp is the same one he used for guns I think. Glenn I would love to see your information I am not aware of a Starr import sword or information he imported anything but iron. That is one fine lookingsaber Richard. Regards Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •