Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
RGJDEE

P1908 Cavalry troopers Sword

Recommended Posts

RGJDEE

Help required identifying this unit stamp to guard.

thanks in advance for your help.

regards Richard

268868AB-C08A-4A30-B393-2D6BC8E68232.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunner Hall

2.L.G  "2nd Life Guards ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
Posted (edited)

'Tis indeed as per the 1912/1916 Intructions for Armourers, p. 184. And of course sword no. 428.

Edited by trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
1 minute ago, trajan said:

'Tis indeed as per the 1912/1916 Intructions for Armourers, p. 184. And of course sword no. 428.

 

Thanks guys,

just aquired from auction, need to do some research now !

DCE8BB23-07F2-40BD-A0C3-3F58CD8668AB.jpeg

3978F21D-15D3-4092-BD0F-C2A6C5643203.jpeg

D1AAF8F0-3395-4326-B7A2-B1EEC85CD4DB.jpeg

01B749A7-B76D-4CB3-A1E6-649EB24FD161.jpeg

842F0BDD-E994-4256-B517-85C21B8CB59C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunner Hall

"WSC"  - Wilkinson Sword Company.  stamp on the bowl,  if Wilkinson on the blade wasn't enough.  Lovely.  Did it come with the scabbard? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE

Gunner sadly not, a job lot of Three.(P1796 Cavalry Sabre and un identified piece)

Very pleasantly surprised 😀 

Regards Richard

16 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Very nice Richard,

Some info here to start the research...https://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/british_household_cavalry/2nd_life_guards.htm

 

Dave.

Thanks Dave, what a nice surprise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunner Hall

 In a job lot with a p1796 sabre. Incredible.  You just needed a 1796 Heavy cavalry sword to have a collection of the best kit ever issued to donkey wallopers.    I'm going slowly green here.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
13 minutes ago, Gunner Hall said:

 In a job lot with a p1796 sabre. Incredible.  You just needed a 1796 Heavy cavalry sword to have a collection of the best kit ever issued to donkey wallopers.    I'm going slowly green here.   

Here’s the other two 

not sure about the one with the Scabbard ( might be Indian made)

seems quite old and the P 1796 has certainly seen better days 😀

As for the heavy Cavalry one, very deep pockets req’d !!

0563E3CA-C943-4652-B0D3-B79E6273C093.jpeg

22C4A3F8-C9C6-4E07-B6E8-D5CFE23E2394.jpeg

764AF4FF-FBF5-48D7-A015-27C8C3966C86.jpeg

150C62A9-330A-4588-A187-EE36A93BB702.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunner Hall

The 1796, looks to be in nice original condition.  I like to see a bit of age remaining! People some times take restoration way too far. Haven't the foggiest about the other one,  though.   Good luck with the hunt for the search for the heavy cav.  Sharpe has a lot to answer for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lugerfan

Here are some pictures of my P1908, similar vintage and marked to RHG (Royal Horse Guards - The Blues ??)

The scabbard is also marked RHG and although the number look to be over stamped, seem to match.

 

 

SAM_3609.thumb.JPG.8af4b23efbeb954fb9123b65786b94a3.JPGSAM_3603.JPG.8ca353049acd215482222452e67767c5.JPGSAM_3600.JPG.9d19e79227d4c60e933081e26f7c1b69.JPGSAM_3599.thumb.JPG.7c9edf8b1698502cdcdbc2d3404acad0.JPGSAM_3598.JPG.2a2485d252b35041673b98649f7537f9.JPG

SAM_3588.JPG

SAM_3616.JPG

SAM_3595.JPG

SAM_3596.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lugerfan

Like most of this vintage its missing its leather washer (the later variant has a peg though the blade to keep it in place..

 

and reference the 1796's - good to know others feel the same way, I dug deep and I completed the set a while back :)

 

 

SAM_4404.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE

Lugerfan,

Superb !!

heres my otherP1796 alongside the M1813 ‘Blucher’.

1AAB5380-FCE9-4947-AA07-C68E1E724CDC.jpeg

B79E3DC0-C863-474A-8AD6-F9FF84D4D095.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lugerfan
Posted (edited)

Nice swords sir, are the markings legible at all ? My LC is unmarked apart from the ordnance acceptance  mark, My HCS is marked to the 2nd Dragoon Guards (Queen's Bays) on both the sword and scabbard so may have seen action in The Walcheren Campaign of 1809. - not the British army’s finest hour and worth a read up if you don't know the story.

 

Back to ww1 and the original post, cracking p1908 -  it’s worth trying to get a copy of the war diaries and read up on the potential cavalry actions during the war, I was lucky that the royal horse guards are well documented (and I think from memory they did draw swords and charge briefly) and it brought the item’s history to life. The life guards should be equally well document I think.

 

The WSC mark on mine, in certain light, still seems to have very small traces of paint in there, that coupled to the disturbed pommel nut makes me think it may have been painted up for service use, then polished again post war, but I guess that’s lost to time now.

 

 

 

 

Edited by lugerfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE

Lugerfan, The ‘other 1796 ‘ is completely un marked, ( though the faceted ferrule and ‘ears’ point to possibly Samuel Brunn) I suspect it s an Officers ‘fighting/undress’Sabre, silver wire etc. 

Todays arrival has ‘8’ on the spine

and ? See photo on the blade ??

The Blucher is marked to 5th Artillery Regiment (Howitzer Battery) and probably saw service in WW1.

Have had a brief look for 2 LG and will certainly search out the War diary.

Were nt the 2 DG at Waterloo ??

if so “well done “!!

They certainlymake a very handsome pair.

regards Richard.

A26E7F34-FDCB-4572-BA25-D7CD89C51289.jpeg

D3540973-8FD0-49CE-86DA-06C4D25D30B5.jpeg

B2E60A61-4D52-47E1-B8F5-90741BF8B49A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lugerfan

Thanks Richard. I like the patina on your swords, nice to see them with a bit of age rather than over polished.

 

sadly the queens bays were not at Waterloo, but on home Defense duties. 

That said if it was a Waterloo sword it would have been way out of my price range.

 

its a big old lump of a weapon and make an interesting comparison to the balance of the 1908.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
5 hours ago, Gunner Hall said:

The 1796, looks to be in nice original condition.  I like to see a bit of age remaining! People some times take restoration way too far. Haven't the foggiest about the other one,  though.   Good luck with the hunt for the search for the heavy cav.  Sharpe has a lot to answer for. 

 

35 minutes ago, lugerfan said:

Thanks Richard. I like the patina on your swords, nice to see them with a bit of age rather than over polished.

 

sadly the queens bays were not at Waterloo, but on home Defense duties. 

That said if it was a Waterloo sword it would have been way out of my price range.

 

its a big old lump of a weapon and make an interesting comparison to the balance of the 1908.

Yes I have to agree with you, I am happy to clean the crud, rust etc off but don’t hold with grinding . Buffing etc.I was fortunate to aquire my ‘other’ 1796 indirectly from a private museum and it is in excellent condition. The rest are very much ‘as found’ usually from auctions ( although one or two are from dealers)

The P1908 is a nice Sword. But the P1796 is my favourite.with the ‘Blucher’ not far behind.

Just heard from another source that the mark to the blade is faint crown over 1. Acceptance stamp. And the 8 on the spine is the same as another Sabre which has the maker ‘Hadley’ prefixing the 8.

Regards Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
12 hours ago, RGJDEE said:

Lugerfan,

Superb !!

heres my otherP1796 alongside the M1813 ‘Blucher’.

1AAB5380-FCE9-4947-AA07-C68E1E724CDC.jpeg

 

 

9 hours ago, RGJDEE said:

... The Blucher is marked to 5th Artillery Regiment (Howitzer Battery) and probably saw service in WW1. ... 

 

That has been around! But why the identification as "5th Artillery Regiment (Howitzer Battery)" ?

 

Might I suggest instead "2.A.5" for the sword, which would, on the basis of the 1877 official markings, along with the lack of a batterie number after the '5', indicate Waffe Nr 5 for the staff of the 1. Pommersches Feld-Artillerie-Regiment Nr. 2? There is a history at: http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/FAR_2

 

The first marking for the scabbard is "?.T.L.5.8.", and so for the "? Train-Batallion Feld-Lazarett Nr.5, Waffe 8". The marking style is post 1887.

 

The second marking needs some thinking on after some more tea and some time (if a weekend wih two kids allows the second!)... There is certainly a "5.A.F." and an 'M' there, and so certainly a Munitionskolonne of some kind for the Niederschlesisches Fußartillerie-Regiment Nr. 5.The marking style - from what I can read - fits best with the 1909 regulations. 

 

Trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE

Apparently the mark after F and before M indicates ‘Howitzer’ Battery. Then again the Gentleman in America who told me so may be mistaken.??

I am as always most grateful for your insight and knowledge.

very kind regards Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
Posted (edited)

I was referring to your previous post ( on the original thread re the unit markings.)

Artillery Regiment Von Podbielski ?

Thanks R.

Edited by RGJDEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RGJDEE said:

Apparently the mark after F and before M indicates ‘Howitzer’ Battery. Then again the Gentleman in America who told me so may be mistaken.??

I am as always most grateful for your insight and knowledge.

very kind regards Richard.

 

4 hours ago, RGJDEE said:

I was referring to your previous post ( on the original thread re the unit markings.)

Artillery Regiment Von Podbielski ?

Thanks R.

Hi Richard,

Yes, there are various markings before the 'M' which would indicate what the 'M' is for! I just need to sort out the variations and see what might fit... I'll try and get back on this tomorrow (wife away and I am on family duties today/tonight!)

Edited by trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
1 hour ago, trajan said:

 

Hi Richard,

Yes, there are various markings before the 'M' which would indicate what the 'M' is for! I just need to sort out the variations and see what might fit... I'll try and get back on this tomorrow (wife away and I am on family duties today/tonight!)

Thanks Trajan

will look forward to finding out.

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
On 10/05/2019 at 19:22, RGJDEE said:

... the M1813 ‘Blucher’.

1AAB5380-FCE9-4947-AA07-C68E1E724CDC.jpeg

 

 

Ok, are you sitting comfortably?:)

 

I read this as "5.A.F.H.M.6.14", in which the "H" is a "script" (italic) "H".

 

I have gone through the 1877, 1897, and 1909 regulations. I don't have the 1900 version but the big change was, as I understand it, between the 1897 and 1909 versions, the 1900 being to explain where to stamp the newly introduced Gew.98 (the title says - "Hierzu ein Nachtrag betreffend Gewehr und Seitengewehr 98"). 

 

The 1887 and 1897 both give "H" as "Handwerker Abteilung". They do not have any form of "H" - regular or script - for "Haubitzer", i.e., the term is not found in these,

 

The 1909 has "H" (regular) for "Haubitzer", but does not have "H" for a "Handwerker Abbteilung" or anything else for that matter.

 

So, I would suggest this unit mark dates to after 1877 but before 1909, and is for "5.Fußartillerie-Regiment Handwerkerabteilung Munitionskolonne 6 Kompagnie Waffe 14", for the Niederschlesisches Fußartillerie-Regiment Nr. 5.". BUT, I cannot find an exact parallel for this mark in the 1877 or 1897 regulations, and so let's say "probable" rather than "certainly" on this reading - except certainly no reference to a "Haubizer" there! 

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RGJDEE
2 hours ago, trajan said:

 

Ok, are you sitting comfortably?:)

 

I read this as "5.A.F.H.M.6.14", in which the "H" is a "script" (italic) "H".

 

I have gone through the 1877, 1897, and 1909 regulations. I don't have the 1900 version but the big change was, as I understand it, between the 1897 and 1909 versions, the 1900 being to explain where to stamp the newly introduced Gew.98 (the title says - "Hierzu ein Nachtrag betreffend Gewehr und Seitengewehr 98"). 

 

The 1887 and 1897 both give "H" as "Handwerker Abteilung". They do not have any form of "H" - regular or script - for "Haubitzer", i.e., the term is not found in these,

 

The 1909 has "H" (regular) for "Haubitzer", but does not have "H" for a "Handwerker Abbteilung" or anything else for that matter.

 

So, I would suggest this unit mark dates to after 1877 but before 1909, and is for "5.Fußartillerie-Regiment Handwerkerabteilung Munitionskolonne 6 Kompagnie Waffe 14", for the Niederschlesisches Fußartillerie-Regiment Nr. 5.". BUT, I cannot find an exact parallel for this mark in the 1877 or 1897 regulations, and so let's say "probable" rather than "certainly" on this reading - except certainly no reference to a "Haubizer" there! 

 

Julian

Julian thankyou very much,

Kindest Regards 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...