Need help IDing Sword found on battlefield.

[Gen. Breckinridge]

This sword was recently found on the Civil War battlefield at Marion VA. I don't think that a CW sword could have lasted this long in this good condition and think it is probably a WWI or later sword that was lost, maybe by some kid playing with it. My hunting buddy thinks it is a reproduction. It measures 38" overall and has a brass insert in the blade near the hilt that says PROOF on it. The scabbard is in fairly good condition with only one place rusted through. We soaked it in oil for several days before knocking the scabbard off and revealing the blade. Although rusted the blade is in pretty good condition. There are no other marks other than the PROOF on the brass insert that we can find. The brass insert is set into a hole in the blade but the hole does not go all the way through the blade. That's about all I can tell you about it. Any info will be apprecitated.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

I total agrre its a great find -- I was just ID ed it (which I did 100%) and was giving out my general thoughts about it when -- out of nowhere the "are you sure you are legally allowed to hunt there" police --SWR broke down the door -- so right off the bat -- he comes in with negative comments and accusing folks of wrong doing (basically hunting illegally) -- then once it stated the guy is allowed to hunt there by law --then he jumps onto a differant attack -- well you can "prove" this or that --a that it was used in the civil war --too old of a model --then you can not prove its confederate ---SWR lives to be a nay sayer -- he loves to pull down and discredit folks or at least he tries to. -- sad very very sad really -- I'd feel pity for him, if he was not such a pain. Ivan

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

ah SWR ---the what is it forum -- ok here goes --* the item is a british made sword model 1827 /1845 --infantry feild officers sword model 1827 "rifle regiment " gothic steel hilt / with a 1845 wilkerson fuller type blade with "proof" mark ( and since it has a 1845 model blade it must be made in or after 1845) --it was found at the very end of the confederate trenches on the battlefeild area of marion, va -- a battle occured there on Dec. 17 & 18th of 1864 --as union troops were going thru marion towards saltville (the second battle of saltville) the first battle of saltville was in oct of 1864 however no fighting occured in marion at that time.

most likely the trenchs in marion were set up after the first attack on saltville occured to help stop future attacks by blocking the road to saltville -- thus causing the battle of marion to occur .

during the battle of marion ---the trench line was in front of a bridge that had to be crossed to get at the confederate trenches or to go forward towards saltville (the union armys goal was to destroy the salt works at saltville * the same goal as the first attack which failed)--- however the confederates held the trench line in marion that "controlled" the bridge and the bridge could not be crossed because to do so exposed the union forces to the deadly fire from the trenches -- since the union troops could not cross the bridge or the river they were in effect "stopped in their tracks"--- however due to running low on ammo confederate forces were forced to leave the trenches during the night --- in the morning the union forces found out the trench line was abandoned and they rapidly crossed the bridge and went down the road towards saltsville and wrecked the salt works which was their goal. --- due to location found and other factors --I THINK (in my own personal veiw) that it is most likely a confederate officers sword left behind in the darkness as they left the trench line.-- however as I have said --this is just my personal thoughts on the matter --and I could be wrong on it being confederate--but the again SWR could just as easily be wrong .-- just on random chance theres at least a 50 /50 (union/ confederate) chance I'm right and taking in the other "factors" I think the odds favor me being right but who knows? ( however about the sword ID of what type it is I 'm 100% solid ithats correct - of that I have no doubt ,I also feel its a real civil war used sword at the very least) -- ok so be it.--- fine by me -- because you know what I don't always gotta be right. --I just gotta be me --- since that is it in a nut shell-- I'm done with it.--- Ivan

as my daddy said to me --son a wiseman will not debate with a fool since the fool learns nothing and it wastes the wisemans time and effort.

 

[Montana Jim]

Arrgghhh... will you guys get a room? LOL

 

[ivan salis]

swords is the topic --not spelling -- now back to subject -- your article states --direct quote-

"consequently, only swords with a confederate motif cast into the hilt ,stamped or engraved on the blade or of crude manufacture were classed as "rebel"

this indentification technique was inadequate and often inaccurate."

later on it said due to scarcity that foreign swords were imported --"england supplied the bulk"

 

[texan connection]

i used to participate in living history events for the fur trade period and quit because of guys like him wanting to count stitches in my clothes and made sure it was pure tin with lead sloder in my eating pans and cups and the stock of my rifle had to be a certain length and the color of my leather pants had to be off white or gold tan it is people like him that drive good people out of hobbies

Jeez they wanted you to eat off lead? thats just nuts!!

Folks if you want this on the Banner you have to click on "nominate for banner"

 

[Montana Jim]

I don't think this banter will make the banner... the find might - but the rest of it prolly will not.

 

[GL]

Last checked...this is the "What Is It?" forum.

It is not the "It doesn't matter what it is...it is really cool forum" or the "Stop talking about it because I don't care what it is forum".

Good grief.

Last I checked...the item was "identified" and marked "SOLVED". We know what it is.

Now we(you) are merely arguing semantics. It's a found sword in awesome condition. Therefore this thread went from "what is it?" to "who dropped it?" which can never be solved but the evidence points to a Confederate officer. Why harsh the guys mellow? I'm happy for him, why aren't you?

 

[ivan salis]

oh I perfectly happy for the finder (great find--wish I could find one) and I am very happy to have been able to ID it for him -- and like you, I too think its most likely a confederate officer's sword lost during the battle at marion ,va on Dec 17th & 18th of 1864 -- but SWR is just not happy about our thinking its "confederate" without more " hardcore proof" --like a name etched on it or it being a CS marked type of sword so he is disagreeing -- with it being thought of as "most likely confederate"-- we agree to disagree on this matter each to their own veiw.

swr --why did you not address the 1st qoute that basically says your method of IDing is wrong*?
by your past statements --you said to be concidered "confederate swords" they need to be cs "marked"-- the very article YOU provied which was proof read (and approved by) by a expert on swords (read the bottom statement in the article) says otherwize .

as far as the "england supplied the bulk" quote --it was used by me to prove england was indeed where the south's "major" supply of edged "foreign" weapons came from.

 

[Yarrum]

Got to agree with Ivan that the sword is MOST LIKELY confederate.
Awesome find by the way, whether authentic or reproduction.

 

[NGE]

To Be Continued..........

 

[wildrider]

I like it.
Ok, it's probably period. I have no problem with the ID.

But like SWR said, there is no providence, just speculation.

That's one of my pet peeves about this whole site. Just because someone says its so, doesn't mean it's so.

For all we know it also could have been a pickup and brought home by a nobody. (A young lad walking back to the farm near Marion may have found it alongside the road in the Shennandoah Valley). <<<<This idea is just as credible as anyone elses.

w

 

[Square Nail]

Up toward the middle of the above arguments someone stated that the sword would have been outdated and therefore not used by the confederates. Well, I don't know who used the sword, but I do know that WWI bayonets and WWI rifles were used by United States troops in the beginning of WWII, which was a 20 plus year gap. The NRA collected sporting rifles to send to Great Britain so they could defend themselves if the Germans crossed the channel. I can just see that future argument -- some guy will be saying "The Brits were never armed with Savage model 99's." But you know what, they were, along with other off the wall firearms American sportsmen were willing to part with. The U.S. Marines were using WWI model 03 Springfield rifles on Guadalcanal. WWI bayonets were cut off and reworked for issue with the M1 Garand. To think that any military in need of weapons wouldn't use what ever they could get seems to me to be a bit simple minded. I don't think it makes a difference who owned the sword, but I certainly like to speculate on who might be that person. In collecting Kentucky Long Rifles, many aren't signed by the maker, so that type of speculation goes on and is totally accepted. Wolfgang Haga didn't sign his rifles, but he was from a certain school of gun makers, so if a rifle has a certain style of stock along with other identifying characteristics, then collectors will say that this rifle was probably built by Haga, or someone closely associated with him, and that's totally accepted by those collectors. It can't be proved that Haga built the rifle anymore than it can be proved that a CSA officer or anyone else as far as that goes, ever owned the sword, but to say the sword was probably carried by a Secesh infantry officer is just as proper as saying that an unsigned rifle was probably built by a certain person. Sure it's speculation, so what, put a dollar with that speculation and you might get a cup of coffee, but hey, loosen up, that's part of the fun of this hobby.

 

[Smithbrown]

I don't think it was an obsolete pattern. According to Brian Robson's Swords of the British Army, it was not replaced until 1866. I would suggest you contact the National Army Museum in London to get more accurate information than any of us can offer: http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/oldResearch/wev.shtml . But send a good in-focus picture of the proof mark, which might give an identification.

I doubt if it is a Wilkinson sword- to be honest, the quality of the work is not very good- look at the poor detailing and engraving on the hilt. May and Annis, in their Swords for Sea Service, state that Wilkinson used their initials for the proof, rather than the word itself.

I think we can only go forward with a bit more solid information about the sword itself.

Smithbrown

 

[eathan]

Great find! Silly debate...

Pretty decent odds it was carried by a Confederate, but nothing that says it was with any real certainty. Everybody seems to agree on that, so why keep going back and forth?

 

[Montana Jim]

As long as it's not like the "dem boards" discussion we'll all be okay.

Excellent sword and great possibilities about it's history!

I wonder why the leather is gone... The leather up here in Montana lasts forever on top of the ground... I find shoe leather well over 130 years old.

 

[ivan salis]

maybe rats ate the leather grip if it was above ground (surface find) or the leather might have just rotted away if below ground find *differing soil conditionscan make a major differance on how well various types of metal and other things (like leather) hold up.--- in some places bullets are often coated with a thick cover of oxidation -- while in other spots their not. even thought the bullets might have been lost about the same time peroid.

I think we have properly discussed * the issue --- no one seems to doubt my ID of the sword as a 1827 / 1845 model british-- infantry field officers sword --- made with the 1827 gothic steel hilt of the "rifle regiments" design cartouche---and a 1845 wilkinson type fuller blade with "proof" mark --so the "what is it" is solved * --- folks feel its of that time frame and is not a "copy" or "repo" sword -- I think theres no disagreement on those issues or the fact that its a "great find"

now as to the who it most likely belonged to or carried it issue --- honestly folks that has been throughly debated I feel -- I gave my opinions on the subject and why I lean towards it being confederate -- swr says -- without "csa" marking on it you can not tell which side it is 100 % for sure (which is true with no name etched on it and it not clearly being marked as "csa" --its impossible to "prove it" that way )--my counter to that is which is more likely --- taking in account factors invovled in where it was found and who the vast majority of troops there where tends to lead me to think "confederate". -- these veiws have been clearly stated by both swr and myself and simply put we "agree to disagree" on the matter -- case closed in my veiw . Ivan

 

[Gen. Breckinridge]

I'll try to get a better picture. I took the originals with a Nikon L12 but have a Sony here that does a lot better job in the macro mode. Sorry I got such an argument started but at least one poster seems to enjoy taking the opposite side of everything and that is not unusual this day and time. The old saying "For the sake of argument" has been run in the ground.

 

[pookie-princess of rust]

cool sword

 

[Chico Rico]

Nice find! The guy with the sweet potato obviously has nothing better to do than be a nay sayer and argue with all. I think he has at least one page of the two pages of posts! Is their such thing as post padding?

Must have been a debate junkie?

Sweet find man, I found a sword once...Thank god I didn't get 50 posts from one person debiting every aspect.


Congratulations!!

 

[BuckleBoy]

I'll try to get a better picture. I took the originals with a Nikon L12 but have a Sony here that does a lot better job in the macro mode. Sorry I got such an argument started but at least one poster seems to enjoy taking the opposite side of everything and that is not unusual this day and time. The old saying "For the sake of argument" has been run in the ground.

And I'd rather see finds posted than finds Un-posted!  Shame on those that would rather argue than help the original poster of the thread. ESPECIALLY one who Never helps with identification of items except to pick a fight!

This is Uncalled for--Especially in the "What is it?" threads!



This item is a Fantastic find!  And as this thread gets Longer and LONGER--it is becoming an Unpleasant experience for Gen. Breckinridge as well as myself.  I think it's high time to let this one go.  It is possible to have a discussion without having an argument.  I would URGE those involved to try this out next time around. 


-Buckles