Thanks for the info, the picture isn't the best for the writing. Looking at it by eye, it's 100% CSA.
Thanks.
Can anybody help me identify this sword please?
- Thread starter ibeef
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Thanks.
I have a royal navy cutless bayonet from the same period and it's in the same condition. I'd go with santamans initial thoughts. Its either an artillery or navel sword.
Apart from the fact that a quick google will show you no Confederate or US swords of that pattern at all, the only potential US/CSA link is the lettering CSA, which could mean anything, from the name of the company making it onwards. The sword design is almost wholly Chinese with a couple of western influences ( including the lettering and numbers. Have a look at page 2 here
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=9409&page=2
Do you have a photo of the sword you own? It would be interesting for comparison.
The photo on page 2 is very good! It does look almost identical. Thanks for sharing
.
Having looked at the images, its hard not to say Chinese. The thing that bothers me though, is how the guard/quillion? flares out near blade and handle, to cover the top of the grip. None of the images shows that on a Chinese sword as they are flat, so the pair can be placed together.
As I've already said - western produced copy of Chinese design for export to China, they appear to have improvised on the handguard and added fullers, both of which are more in keeping with the western sword designs they would be familiar with.
Truly ? I admit I'm surprised, but then I grew up in the UK where every sword of the Empire ended up at one time or another. There was an 'army suplus' shop in Glasgow that I swear had a boar spear for sale
M
Yes indeed. Confederate artifacts (genuine ones) are probably the rarest of all miltaria in the US. Much older colonial era stuff is more prevalent. Part of the problem is, as I stated, the Confederacy was so short lived and it lost the war.
Agreed. it would take an expert to authenticate or refute it. It certainly doesn't match any sword pattern I've seen anywhere but it's more similar to the Chinese butterfly swords than anything else. My first thoughts about naval or artillery was due to the short heavy nature of it (and as Toddy said, the "cutlassy" look)
I only see one on that list which claims to be a Confederate sword and the opinion is contradictory:
Quote ".....The only 98th regiment we could find pertaining to the Confederate states was the 98th Regiment Militia (Mecklenburg Co) of Virginia. We believe the 1897 marking is the date, not a rack number, as it seems unlikely the 98th Regiment would have a need for so many weapons at that time. Therefore, given the dated regimental markings are "98 REG N3 1857", pre-civil war, they make sense. Being fair and accurate, the sword is therefore a pre-civil war sword that we believe would have been part of the Confederate states armory during the civil war itself......" Quote
They believe the 1897 is a date? The Confederacy ceased to exist 32 years prior to that. While the sword itself may well be authentic, I doubt it's connection with the Confederacy. In fact the photos show no markings that connect it with the CSA or the USA. They state that they believe it to be Confederate because the only 98th regiment they could find with a connection to the Civil War was a Confederate regiment. Fair enough except; it doesn't explain where they deduced a connection to the Civil War at all?
Of course if they'd like to send it over for authentication it would fetch far more than 1500 pounds (although likely not as much as a cavalry saber would fetch)
Here's a link to a similar auction site with much higher selection (at least a higher selection of the Civil War swords) and prices. www.historicalarms.com/civil-war-swords.html
Among the Civil War (Confederate ones) selection the cheapest one I saw on the first page was $2395 (only slightly more than the 1500 pounds on the link you gave) while most were over $5000 and a Confederate Bowie knife was listed for $7500 (4865 pounds)
Among the Civil War (Confederate ones) selection the cheapest one I saw on the first page was $2395 (only slightly more than the 1500 pounds on the link you gave) while most were over $5000 and a Confederate Bowie knife was listed for $7500 (4865 pounds)
Last edited:
Here's an example of the D handled Bowie at the site I linked above:
[h=2]CONFEDERATE D-GUARD BOWIE KNIFE FOR SALE [/h]This is a wonderful Confederate Knife and probably arsenal made. In classic D-guard construction with one huge exception. The hilt is entirely cast in brass. It has a hefty blade that's a foot long and its 14 & 1/2" over-all. The scabbard is original to the knife. Formerly in the well-known Union Drummer Boy Collection at Gettysburg.
PRICE - $7,500.00
4617 - CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND ORDERING INFORMATION ON CONFEDERATE D-GUARD BOWIE KNIFE FOR SALE
[h=2]CONFEDERATE D-GUARD BOWIE KNIFE FOR SALE [/h]This is a wonderful Confederate Knife and probably arsenal made. In classic D-guard construction with one huge exception. The hilt is entirely cast in brass. It has a hefty blade that's a foot long and its 14 & 1/2" over-all. The scabbard is original to the knife. Formerly in the well-known Union Drummer Boy Collection at Gettysburg.
PRICE - $7,500.00
4617 - CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND ORDERING INFORMATION ON CONFEDERATE D-GUARD BOWIE KNIFE FOR SALE
They mentioned both dates in the article. Their consensus was that 1857 was the model type (4 years prior to the war and the existence of the Confederacy) which is very plausible. The 1897 date was another one supposedly elsewhere.
The pix also don't show any connection to the Civil War at all. Hence my questioning how they draw the conclusion that the regiment must be a Confederate one as it's the only one they found with a connection to the war?
Not saying that the sword isn't a Confederate one; just saying I can't see their provenance (or even a statement where the previous owners had made such a claim)
first reply on the other forum says "Chinese Wing Chun butterfly sword"
http://chinesemartialstudies.com/20...y-sword-in-the-southern-chinese-martial-arts/
http://chinesemartialstudies.com/20...y-sword-in-the-southern-chinese-martial-arts/
Three dates are mentioned in the article. The model date is 1855 not 1857 and 1897 is mentioned only once and completely out of context. There is no mention in the article as to it being another marking elsewhere.
I've emailed them asking them to clarify the possibility of another marking or a typo. I'll let you know if they reply.
Thanks. If you will, also ask them just what caused them to identify it as a Civil War sword. I'm not seeing any reason on either the photos are the text. Is there something I'm not seeing?
Just had a reply - as suspected it was a typo which they've now amended.
If you have a look here: http://www.antique-swords.eu/H93-US-Confederate-Virginia-Regiment-Civil-War.html
...and refresh the page by pressing the F5 key (top row keyboard) you'll see the 1897 date is now 1857. I didn't ask them about their reason for the identification as the email had already been sent before I posted here. The address I used is at the top, right hand side of the page linked above.
Cheers!
If you have a look here: http://www.antique-swords.eu/H93-US-Confederate-Virginia-Regiment-Civil-War.html
...and refresh the page by pressing the F5 key (top row keyboard) you'll see the 1897 date is now 1857. I didn't ask them about their reason for the identification as the email had already been sent before I posted here. The address I used is at the top, right hand side of the page linked above.
Cheers!
Similar threads
