British Naval Swords
Sven Olafsson
frock coat and carry their sword? As far as I understand it's because
they are not allowed to bring women to events or something and the
carrying of the sword prevents them from having a girl on their arm.
I just wondered where the tradition came from.
Sven.
gino
news:b60f7059.02090...@posting.google.com...
The frock coat is not normal issue for the RN, but now appears only to be
worn by Flag Officers and certain members of the Royal Family on the most
ceremonial of occasions.
WRT the carrying of the sword, it is a commonly believed myth that this was
due to some dishonour in the past. The August 2001 issue of RAN Navy News
has an article about this custom which I have pasted below.
There seems to be an oft-repeated story about our Navy and perhaps the Royal
Navy too that following some disgrace within the RN - perhaps mutinies - an
order was once given that naval officers could not wear their swords, as
they were not gentlemen. Instead, they would have to carry them.
This at first seems a little strange, as there don't seem to be too many
mutinies within the RN where officers disgraced themselves. The Spithead
mutiny on 1797 was confined to sailors, not officers, although it might be
said that officers' mismanagement led to that situation. The rumour also
suggests that this was a Victorian decision - perhaps made by Queen Victoria
herself - which sounds strange coming so long after the famous RN mutiny.
Officers' swords within the RAN are "carried" to an extent in that they hang
from two material supports or slings. They can be hooked up to a small
eyelet on the sword belt, but on parade they are carried. Sailors'
cutlasses, when carried on parade, always are hooked up to a belt.
I also thought there were plenty of regiments within the British Army where
officers "carried" swords rather than "wore" them on a belt attachment.
Nevertheless a few sailors have told me that they were told in their
training that it is especially Navy officers who carry their swords - and
for that ancient reason.
Swords seemed to have begun their time on board ships from since the
invention of the weapon. Naturally, the higher in status a mariner was, the
better weapon he would be expected to possess. In particular, the "mark of a
gentleman" for many hundreds of years in British society was sword, probably
dating from the days of knightley vows where the knight's sword was his most
prized and revered weapon. It was the sword that made him knight, after all,
in the ceremony in which he was "dubbed" by tapping him on both shoulders
with the naked blade.
To it therefore was attached his honour. Even today at the commencement of a
court-martial an officer's sword is taken from them, and signifies at the
end of the trial whether the office is guilty or not - by being presented on
a table when the accused is brought back into court after the presiding
board's deliberations. If found not guilty, the sword hilt is towards the
officer, signifying that one's honour and duty can be taken up again. If
guilty, the point is presented.
The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England gives some background to how one carried
the weapon; with interesting comments about wearing swords on the back and
shoulder and several references to wearing them on the belt, but not to
hangings.
The wearing of a sword back in days when it was more than a badge, but also
a weapon, is fairly well documented. Scabbards can be seen from the days of
the Greek hoplite, worn suspended at the waist. Sometimes the weight of a
heavy sword was helped by a frog, a leather belt worn over the opposing
shoulder from which the belt was supported.
Figures in the Bayeux tapestry dating from the 11th century show swords
being worn in scabbards on belts around the waist, with a hanging strap
preventing the chape - the metal cap at the bottom of the scabbard - from
dragging on the ground. Swords, or even a second sword, were sometimes worn
over the shoulder down the back, ready for a high-handed draw . This is
after the fashion of the Roman cavalryman's weapon, the spatha.
For many hundreds of years then, swords were used for defence, and anyone
who could own one would carry it, especially on the road, as a measure to be
used against highwaymen and the like. However, a sword needed some training
to use, and it was expensive, and so it was the mark of someone better-off
than the norm - a "gentleman" by this measure.
Incidentally, we may note that a sword was indeed the preferred method of
close-quarter defence, as it is most versatile in the way it can be used for
both defence and attack, and is extremely maneuverable as well, in the way
an axe or spear is not. The early versions of firearms were both expensive
and unreliable, and so right up until the days of mass-production of guns,
the sword was preferred. By the 19th century it had evolved into the
smallsword, a smaller version of the long pointed blade of the rapier.
For those who were lesser fencers, an edged weapon was preferred, and indeed
in close quarter fighting the cut-and-slash was the norm. So the sabre was
therefore the weapon of choice for naval officers, with the less decorated
and less well made cutlass the sailors' weapon.
It may be noted in several illustrations of the time in David Howarth's The
Nelson Touch, that officers are wearing their swords in a hanging fashion
from slings, but also - significantly - officers are wearing swords
suspended from belts. There are further such examples in Dudley Jarrett's
British Naval Dress.
This perhaps puts paid to suggestions that Victoria ordered it via a casual
remark, as one of my oral sources suggests: "they are not gentlemen", simply
because Victoria came to the throne well after Nelson's day. In particular
these officers are carrying their swords, or are seated with the sword
obviously detached from slings or belt, perhaps so they can be shown with
their hand on the sword-hilt - a particularly martial posture.
In 'The Wearing of Swords' the authoritative PGW Annis makes no reference to
officers being made to 'carry' swords. He does make some detailed references
to sword belt slings, and notes that after 1780 "unequal slings became the
rule . the rear sling being longer (often much longer) than the other."
Graeme Arbuckle, in Customs and Traditions of the Canadian Navy, refers to
the rumour, giving some idea that it is widespread. He thinks:
. it is doubtful that the Admiralty would recommend any change in uniform
that would bring ridicule on the Royal Navy. It is most improbable that
trailing one's sword was a mark of disgrace. It was the great discovery of
the seventeenth century that the 'esprit de corps' and fighting spirit of a
body of troops could be greatly increased by drilling them together and
clothing them alike. Any mark of disgrace worn under order would contravene
this principle. Moreover, the history of uniform shows that any item of
clothing not approved of by those who wear it doesn't survive.
In discussions on the Maritime Historians' Internet Mailing List, Bill
Schleihauf makes what I think is the right judgement in the question:
The trailing sword was, unquestionably, a sign of pride. In fact, the sword
would have been no mark of distinction at all unless it was trailed, for all
arms wore the same pattern belt. The cavalry regiments have always been
splendidly dressed, with the light horse being the most dashing. To draw
attention to themselves while on foot, troopers and officers alike let their
spurs jangle and their steel-shod scabbards rattle over the cobblestones.
This is the origin of the phrase 'sabre rattling', which denotes a
swaggering, bullying attitude.
So the argument goes that everyone wore trailing swords, which had to be
carried. So it is the case, perhaps, that all military personnel once wore
their swords in a hanging fashion, with the slings as long as possible, so
as to draw attention to the wearer. While the army personnel of the world
have lifted theirs - as no doubt soldiers often had to do for practicality's
sake, with their practice of drill - the navy still lifts theirs, perhaps
because they rarely wore swords, and therefore never saw a need to change.
The air forces, I suppose, originally mostly springing off from the armies,
would no doubt copy that model. Captain James Goldrick, RAN, has also
pointed out to me that having a "detached" sword makes it a lot easier to
carry whilst being transported in a small boat.
Indeed, according to Boasanquet's The Naval Officer's Sword, there seems to
have been a little effort to regulate the trailing of the weapons:
. in 1856 the blade returned to its former width of 1 3/8 inches and the
scabbard to two lockets, each with a ring. This made necessary a return to
the two long belt-slings of different lengths, so that the sword would hang
at a slight forward angle. This has continued ever since.
Certainly there were variations made in sword-belts throughout the time the
Royal Navy have regulated naval uniforms - as they did reasonably firmly
from 1748 onwards. After 1856 it seems that officers wore two different
types, which evolved to become a full-dress and an "plain" pair . The
former - now confined to Admirals - has gold embroidered acorns and oak
leaves, with the usual sword belt for an officer having three gold
embroidered stripes. Incidentally, this pattern was that worn by captains
and commanders from 1832-1939.
If anyone can throw some doubt on the reasoning given above, I would be most
interested to hear from them.
Vince Brannigan
gino wrote:
>
>
> For those who were lesser fencers, an edged weapon was preferred, and indeed
> in close quarter fighting the cut-and-slash was the norm. So the sabre was
> therefore the weapon of choice for naval officers, with the less decorated
> and less well made cutlass the sailors' weapon.
I wonder about this comment. first of all in naval use thrusting weapons such
as boarding pikes complemented slashing weapons such as tomahawks. As the romans
knews, the clsoeer the quarters the more ned for thrusting. Slasing wepons
require room. More importantly a sabre is a light cavalry weapon, imported to
Europe by hungarian contact with arab armies. Ive never heard of it described as
an officers weapon. The arab tulwar or scimitar was a curved blade, used for
slashing by unarmored light cavalry. The sabre, first used by hussars was
curved and false ground to give a slash and slice choice. sabres were long and
light Gentlemen normally carried the small sword, which was a lightweight
thrusting weapon. the naval cutlass was a slashing weapon, although the thick
version depicted in many movies is probably nonsense.
has anyone else heard of sabres as naval oficer's weapons?
Vince
Andrew Chaplin
news:LCpf9.298782$Ag2.14...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> I also thought there were plenty of regiments within the British Army
where
> officers "carried" swords rather than "wore" them on a belt attachment.
> Nevertheless a few sailors have told me that they were told in their
> training that it is especially Navy officers who carry their swords - and
> for that ancient reason.
In the Commonwealth, mounted regiments (the cavalry and the artillery) wear
their swords "slung" rather than hooked up when parading on foot in full or
patrol dress. On stepping off, the grip on the scabbard shifts from a
three-finger grip with the index extended down the scabbard to an all-round
grip, and this keeps the scabbard's shoe from dragging when marching. When
the officer is on horseback, the scabbard hangs at the full extent of the
slings from the belt.
Your reasoning in the rest of your post strikes me as pretty sound.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
gino
news:3D7E3101...@verizon.net...
>
> gino wrote:
Well, I didn't write the article, but I believe that by "sabre" he was
really referring to the sword more commonly known as a hanger. The small
sword was carried for formal occasions, but if I'm not mistaken, naval
officers generally used an edged, curved, broad bladed hanger for actual
fighting. The current half basket hilt RN pattern was not introduced until
1827, and they became straighter as the century progressed.
BF Lake
news:LCpf9.298782$Ag2.14...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> To it therefore was attached his honour. Even today at the commencement of
a
> court-martial an officer's sword is taken from them, and signifies at the
> end of the trial whether the office is guilty or not - by being presented
on
> a table when the accused is brought back into court after the presiding
> board's deliberations. If found not guilty, the sword hilt is towards the
> officer, signifying that one's honour and duty can be taken up again. If
> guilty, the point is presented.
Captain WNT Beckett, in his 1934 booklet on RN customs, says this was the
equivalent of the old practice on shore where the executioner, carrying his
headman's axe, immediately preceded the accused on his return from the Court
to the prison and in order to demonstrate the judgement of the Court turned
the edge of his axe towards or away from the prisoner, depending on whether
sentence of death had been passed or not.
Regards,
Barry
Vince Brannigan
gino wrote:
my apologies if in snipping I left out the relevant attribution
I normally write that
Gino "posted the following article by X
> , but I believe that by "sabre" he was
> really referring to the sword more commonly known as a hanger. The small
> sword was carried for formal occasions, but if I'm not mistaken, naval
> officers generally used an edged, curved, broad bladed hanger for actual
> fighting. The current half basket hilt RN pattern was not introduced until
> 1827, and they became straighter as the century progressed.
hangers were known as "side arms" i.e. secondary weapons for soldiers who were
primarily infantry , although more commonly artillery. unlike a cutlass, they
normally were false ground like a sabre, but more straight. The Cutlass was
straight and IIRC heavier and made out of flat, not fluted steel.
Vince
J.T. McDaniel
I wonder if the "carrying" may come from the
practice of drawing the sword and tossing the
scabbard into an out of the way corner before
boarding or repelling boarders. Otherwise, the
scabbard is just one more thing to get tangled
up in your legs.
--
Jack
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com
http://riverdaleebooks.com
Peter McLelland
vary in shape from ones similar to the current RN officers sword, straight
with a blade a little over 1 inch wide, to some quite curved sabres. It
would appear then that the choice was personal. The current blade of the
ceremonial cutlasses used in the RN in my time were quite wide, so I would
suggest that the actual cutlasses of the Napoleonic period did have quite
wide blades.
The RN officers sword was normally blunt, i.e. unsharpened, and the first
article in 'The Articles of War' the RN legal instructions for war, not to
be confused with the 'Fighting Instructions' which covered the tactics and
strategy, stated that on declaration of war officers will sharpen swords.
Peter
vincent Brannigan
Peter McLelland wrote:
>
>
> The RN officers sword was normally blunt, i.e. unsharpened, and the first
> article in 'The Articles of War' the RN legal instructions for war, not to
> be confused with the 'Fighting Instructions' which covered the tactics and
> strategy, stated that on declaration of war officers will sharpen swords.
I'm not sure if this applies to officer's personal weapons or to the contents of
the "arms chest"
I do recall that to avoid training injuries mutinies etc. that boarding weapons
were kept unsharpened. officers kept sidearm and marines had sharp bayonets
Vince
Clive Sparkes
Don't know, but I wonder if it comes from the Lloyds swords awarded
for acts of gallantry etc.
Maybe carrying the sword was just a way for those who had a "sword of
[50|100] guineas" to show it off a bit.
--
Regards,
Clive
TMOliver
iterated.....
> "gino" <gi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:LCpf9.298782$Ag2.14...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>> I also thought there were plenty of regiments within the
>> British Army where officers "carried" swords rather than
>> "wore" them on a belt attachment. Nevertheless a few
>> sailors have told me that they were told in their training
>> that it is especially Navy officers who carry their swords
>> - and for that ancient reason.
>
> In the Commonwealth, mounted regiments (the cavalry and the
> artillery) wear their swords "slung" rather than hooked up
> when parading on foot in full or patrol dress. On stepping
> off, the grip on the scabbard shifts from a three-finger
> grip with the index extended down the scabbard to an
> all-round grip, and this keeps the scabbard's shoe from
> dragging when marching. When the officer is on horseback,
> the scabbard hangs at the full extent of the slings from the
> belt.
>
....My sword, rarely worn and then only with "full dress" blue
or white, required purchase for even officers of the reserve,
certainly fits the smallsword/hanger category, straight bladed
and not designed to be sharpened.
My sword belt (and the sword sheath) are equipped with a hook
and ring for hanging (and blues, whites and bridge coats all
comne with a "slot", left waist) and two straps and rings for
carrying. The sword is normall worn with its sheath attached to
the straps and the sheaths upper ring hung on the belt hook,
however, the sword is "unhooked" when seated ('cuz you can't sit
comfortably otherwise) and on most occasions when in movement,
especially marching, with the left hand, gloved,
steadying/supporting the sheath, "carried".
It's simply tough to walk with a sword hooked to the belt (and I
doubt there's much mystical about "carrying", since you can't
simply let the damn thing dangle and walking with it "on the
hook" is awkward).
Then there's the whole quaint drill for making the sword knot
come out even.
TMO (Maybe it will look good atop my beflagged casket, with hat
and gloves, although the domed lids of US coffins are not well
suited to swords.)
Bob McKellar
TMOliver wrote:
> <snip>
>
> It's simply tough to walk with a sword hooked to the belt (and I
> doubt there's much mystical about "carrying", since you can't
> simply let the damn thing dangle and walking with it "on the
> hook" is awkward).
>
It's particularly tough walking around a ship and climbing ladders
for a full dress occasion, not least because you have to listen to
the snickering of all the white hats.
But we all know they're just jealous.
<snip>
Bob McKellar
( Whose sword is hanging on the wall at a local museum, posing as
Confederate Navy equipment)
Ogden Johnson III
>TMO (Maybe it will look good atop my beflagged casket, with hat
>and gloves, although the domed lids of US coffins are not well
>suited to swords.)
Simple. Have the funeral home nail a fitting length of 1x3 of a
matching/contrasting wood, appropriately finished, on top of the
coffin. Your sword, cover, and gloves will rest in style.
On the other hand, an urn presents a *real* problem.
OJ III
Stewart McI
> Royal Navy have regulated naval uniforms - as they did reasonably firmly
> from 1748 onwards. After 1856 it seems that officers wore two different
> types, which evolved to become a full-dress and an "plain" pair . The
> former - now confined to Admirals - has gold embroidered acorns and oak
> leaves, with the usual sword belt for an officer having three gold
> embroidered stripes. Incidentally, this pattern was that worn by captains
> and commanders from 1832-1939.
Not only is the sword-BELT for Admirals distinctive with the oak
leaves, etc., but the actual SWORD, or at least the SCABBARD, is
different with the same decoration. I believe this was confined to
Admirals, and also Royal ADCs.
Stewart
gino
news:2g1vnuokt9gn69lri...@4ax.com...
The RCN Manual of Drill and Ceremonial (1964) actually has a schematic on
how to build a device for securing regalia (ie cap and sword) to a funeral
casket.
gino
news:Xns92866C8F67BF...@216.166.71.233...
> ....My sword, rarely worn and then only with "full dress" blue
> or white, required purchase for even officers of the reserve,
> certainly fits the smallsword/hanger category, straight bladed
> and not designed to be sharpened.
>
> My sword belt (and the sword sheath) are equipped with a hook
> and ring for hanging (and blues, whites and bridge coats all
> comne with a "slot", left waist) and two straps and rings for
> carrying. The sword is normall worn with its sheath attached to
> the straps and the sheaths upper ring hung on the belt hook,
> however, the sword is "unhooked" when seated ('cuz you can't sit
> comfortably otherwise) and on most occasions when in movement,
> especially marching, with the left hand, gloved,
> steadying/supporting the sheath, "carried".
>
> It's simply tough to walk with a sword hooked to the belt (and I
> doubt there's much mystical about "carrying", since you can't
> simply let the damn thing dangle and walking with it "on the
> hook" is awkward).
>
> Then there's the whole quaint drill for making the sword knot
> come out even.
>
> TMO (Maybe it will look good atop my beflagged casket, with hat
> and gloves, although the domed lids of US coffins are not well
> suited to swords.)
In the British/Commonwealth tradition, scabbards are only hooked up when the
sword is drawn and then the scabbard is hooked up under the tunic. The
exception to this is for officers carrying a consecrated colour, in which
case there is a slit made in the tunic lining so that the scabbard passes
through this slit and the hilt of the sheathed sword emerges from the left
side pocket (guard forward). A similar thing is also done when wearing a
sword with greatcoat.
As an aside, I recently saw a picture of a group of Canadian sub-lieutenants
forming a wedding arch in high collar whites and they were wearing their
sword belts "over their tunics"! Ye gods, what are they teaching subs these
days?
Peter Skelton
Two choices:
a) fit a hollow hilt to the sword. This will be a little bulky,
but not very. If your clan tends toward large hands, your progeny
can carry you into battle.
b) Grind the sword to proper cutting shape, then hone it to a
mirror edge. This may make it a little loose in the scabbard, but
a little ash will pad it nicely. Your progeny can draw you in
battle.
____
Peter Skelton
BF Lake
> The RCN Manual of Drill and Ceremonial (1964) actually has a schematic on
> how to build a device for securing regalia (ie cap and sword) to a funeral
> casket.
Only time I was involved with a "military funeral" was a WO who died in
Cyprus was buried in his home town near our base in Nova Scotia, so our
party set off in the bus to do this. The casket had the flag on it and on
that was this horrible green uniform style cap that in the Navy would be
called his "old steamer". No idea why that cap was on there. So we did
our stuff and on the way back in the bus, the chief and I were commenting on
this horrible looking cap.
One of the sailors in the back of the bus was listening, and said, "Jeeze!
Even when you're dead you STILL get picked up for your cap!" <G>
Regards,
Barry
Andrew Chaplin
Simple: right way, wrong way, Army way. :^) The ice cream vendor uniform has
slits in the side seams for gilt belt hooks, and the only pattern of sword
belt available through the supply system is black morocco leather.
gino
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:9b7d2$1038...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...
> sub-lieutenants
> > forming a wedding arch in high collar whites and they were wearing their
> > sword belts "over their tunics"! Ye gods, what are they teaching subs
> these
> > days?
>
> Simple: right way, wrong way, Army way. :^) The ice cream vendor uniform
has
> slits in the side seams for gilt belt hooks, and the only pattern of sword
> belt available through the supply system is black morocco leather.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
and made it up on their own based on what they did at RMC (ie the army way).
I don't recall ever seeing slits in my white tunic, but I'll check. I'm not
sure for what possible reason they would be required. That's OK though, in
the new egalitarian Canadian Navy, high collar whites are never a required
order of dress anymore. We can't have officers being dressed differently
from the ratings, now can we?
Tom Schoene
>
> That's OK though, in
> the new egalitarian Canadian Navy, high collar whites are never a required
> order of dress anymore. We can't have officers being dressed differently
> from the ratings, now can we?
Not having to wear choker whites would probably be regarded as a net benefit
for the ratings. Sure they look good, but oy, that collar! I never heard
anyone say they felt comfortable in the US dress whites. (I'm sure I'll
hear from dozens of people now.)
I say, bring back service dress Khaki.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but
the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment."
Karl Friedrich Gauss
Tom Schoene
> and gloves, although the domed lids of US coffins are not well
> suited to swords.)
That may explain why US military funerals no longer place an officer's sword
and cocked hat on the coffin as they once did.
(Also, I don't think cocked hats are even authorized anymore, except for the
officers of USS Constitution.)
TMOliver
>
> "gino" <gi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:duPf9.294438$v53.15...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>
>> That's OK though, in
>> the new egalitarian Canadian Navy, high collar whites are
>> never a required order of dress anymore. We can't have
>> officers being dressed differently from the ratings, now
>> can we?
>
> Not having to wear choker whites would probably be regarded
> as a net benefit for the ratings. Sure they look good, but
> oy, that collar! I never heard anyone say they felt
> comfortable in the US dress whites. (I'm sure I'll hear
> from dozens of people now.)
>
> I say, bring back service dress Khaki.
My first set, back in the days when "synthetics' were pretty new
to the uniform trade, came from Harry Sadow in NYC, and met a
high standard, appeal to those of the oppositie sex, a major
criteria for uniform wear ashore back in those preVietnam days
when WWII and Korea were still recent memory. In those
"decorationless" days, when most only had the scarlet and gold
ribbon, my "Armed Forces Expeditionary" with a little star in
lieu of seconds helped. By 1962, the only "sea going" folks
left with WWII decorations were a handful of chiefs and warrants
and the captains of "deep drafts" and CVs, and there were plenty
of CDRs with only a single row.
Of course, khakis had no side slits for sword wearing, since
they were never "full dress", but all three sets of blues i've
owned and every white blouse came so equipped, although in some
of the whites the slit had been tacked shut by the mfg.
TMO
Jeff Crowell
> I say, bring back service dress Khaki.
Dress (Aviation?) Greens! Rugged, good looking, wear like iron.
Jeff
Bob McKellar
TMOliver wrote:
My only objection to the uniforms was how they seemed to steadily
shrink around the waist, even when left in the closet for years on
end.
I would have expected better material.
Bob McKellar
( Whose choker whites were long ago appropriated by daughter #1 )
(( Daughter #2, a different sort of person, wears my utility greens
and boots! ))
Alan Minyard
<tasc...@starpower.invalid> wrote:
>
>"gino" <gi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:duPf9.294438$v53.15...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>
>> That's OK though, in
>> the new egalitarian Canadian Navy, high collar whites are never a required
>> order of dress anymore. We can't have officers being dressed differently
>> from the ratings, now can we?
>
>Not having to wear choker whites would probably be regarded as a net benefit
>for the ratings. Sure they look good, but oy, that collar! I never heard
>anyone say they felt comfortable in the US dress whites. (I'm sure I'll
>hear from dozens of people now.)
>
Nope, I agree completely. The most uncomfortable rig I ever wore.
>I say, bring back service dress Khaki.
Buy that man a drink, a large drink!!!
Al Minyard
gino
news:aei1ou4valudrducl...@4ax.com...
No way, piece of cake after having worn quilted scarlet doeskin (with high
collar) on parade at 25 C.
Andrew Chaplin
> No way, piece of cake after having worn quilted scarlet doeskin (with high
> collar) on parade at 25 C.
Are you a Kingston Charm School grad, gino?
gino
Nope, the real milcol which is, alas, no more.
Andrew Chaplin
> Nope, the real milcol which is, alas, no more.
>
A Rhodent? When did it ever get over 24 C in Victoria? ;^)
Peter H. Granzeau
<aminya...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>>Not having to wear choker whites would probably be regarded as a net benefit
>>for the ratings. Sure they look good, but oy, that collar! I never heard
>>anyone say they felt comfortable in the US dress whites. (I'm sure I'll
>>hear from dozens of people now.)
>>
>Nope, I agree completely. The most uncomfortable rig I ever wore.
>
>>I say, bring back service dress Khaki.
>
>Buy that man a drink, a large drink!!!
I don't know how whites are handled now (or what they are made from),
but 43 years ago, they were still made of cotton and heavily starched.
It was a real problem getting the buttons back on the pockets after
they were laundered without wrinkling the uniform. I can still
remember standing on a chair to get into the trousers, having for
force my feet into each leg (which had been effectively cemented
closed by the heavy starch).
Joe Osman
I work for the US Air Force as a civilian and several Air
Force officers have told me that the thought of having to
buy so many uniforms entered into their decision as to which
service to join.
Joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
gino
Those were the heady days of the early 80s when we used to have nice
springs.
James Hunter
"Joe Osman" <Joseph...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D82177E...@verizon.net...
> "Peter H. Granzeau" wrote:
> >
> >
> I work for the US Air Force as a civilian and several Air
> Force officers have told me that the thought of having to
> buy so many uniforms entered into their decision as to which
> service to join.
That's a good reason, since Navy "blue" is actually black
and it's a pretty ugly uniform.
Which is also why the people who actually know
what they're doing reserve the colors:
Ocean Blue,
Metallic Blue, and
Deep Blue.
taltos
Officer. Agree about the dress whites-uncomfortable and made me look like a
good humor man with ribbons and medals. Still want to keep the dress blues
from hell. Give me utilities or a flight suit any day. Paul ps new to this
group and I love it.
"Bob McKellar" <b...@coastcomp.com> wrote in message
news:3D809D6E...@coastcomp.com...
Sven Olafsson
Cheers,
Sven.
Peter H. Granzeau
<jim.h...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>"Joe Osman" <Joseph...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:3D82177E...@verizon.net...
>> I work for the US Air Force as a civilian and several Air
>> Force officers have told me that the thought of having to
>> buy so many uniforms entered into their decision as to which
>> service to join.
>
> That's a good reason, since Navy "blue" is actually black
> and it's a pretty ugly uniform.
>
> Which is also why the people who actually know
> what they're doing reserve the colors:
>
> Ocean Blue,
> Metallic Blue, and
> Deep Blue.
He's right about uniform count. In 1957, I was required to have
something like 8 complete dress uniforms, plus dozens of shirts,
working khaki trousers, tropical white and khaki shirts, socks in all
colors, belts ditto, shoes also ditto (black/brown/white), cap covers,
and on and on.
At that time, Navy blue was in fact not black, which could be checked
by comparing the color of a blue uniform with the black tie in bright
sun. They were different at that time.
Blues tend to get darker with time. Air force uniforms are many
shades darker now than they were in 1953, when I took Air Force ROTC
for a couple of years while in college (hey, it was two years of draft
deferments).
Neill McKay
> We can't have
> officers being dressed differently from the ratings, now can we?
I've seen the Stadacona Band (pretty much all petty officers) in whites.
Neill McKay
Neill McKay
> Nope, I agree completely. The most uncomfortable rig I ever wore.
(Before I go and buy one) More unformfortable than standing on a parade
square in july dressed from the neck down in black wool and polyester?
Neill McKay
James Hunter
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NfLg9.24645$8F4.9...@news2.east.cox.net...
I know, but I guess the only people who actually know *why* they do that
is
the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines, which is the obvious reason
the rest of keep Army fatigues and rocket launchers always handy, to
teach assholes in costume jewelry *engineering* leasons.
Ian MacLure
news:n6arnugs9loudpd54...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> It was on the BBC telly (funeral) that it was because of some mutiny
> ages ago. A kind of collective punishment ;)
From a purely practical perspective, I would have though that
carrying it ensured it didn't get in the way as one navigated
the ladders and passages onboard ship....
But then again I'm a 19D approximation so what do I know :)
IBM
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
TMOliver
> James van Rode <jamesv...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:n6arnugs9loudpd54...@4ax.com:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It was on the BBC telly (funeral) that it was because of
>> some mutiny ages ago. A kind of collective punishment ;)
>
> From a purely practical perspective, I would have
> though that carrying it ensured it didn't get in
> the way as one navigated the ladders and passages
> onboard ship.... But then again I'm a 19D
> approximation so what do I know :)
>
Owning one and having worn/carried it, USN(R) rather that RN,
I'll claim that the BBC had never been required to maneuver
afoot avec sword. Mutiny? Fook! Convenience? Aye! Avoidance
of falling ass over teakettle? Certainly!
TMO
gino
Special case. When was the last time you saw the rig as an ordered
dress for officers?
Andrew Chaplin
> Owning one and having worn/carried it, USN(R) rather that RN,
> I'll claim that the BBC had never been required to maneuver
> afoot avec sword. Mutiny? Fook! Convenience? Aye! Avoidance
> of falling ass over teakettle? Certainly!
It's not that difficult on the march hooked up; the scabbard will beat
upon your patella on occasion, but not so severely you'll injure
yourself. Of course, when you have to sit down, it comes off the hook.
Andrew Chaplin
> Special case. When was the last time you saw the rig as an ordered
> dress for officers?
Since rig is properly ordered by number (at least at NDHQ) I get the
impression it doesn't happen. I suppose officers are "encouraged" to
buy the ICVR, but if a commander wants a body of his officers to look
uniform, he has to order a rig for which HM has paid.
gino
> gino wrote:
>
>> Special case. When was the last time you saw the rig as an ordered
dress for officers?
>>
>
> Since rig is properly ordered by number (at least at NDHQ) I get the
> impression it doesn't happen. I suppose officers are "encouraged" to
> buy the ICVR, but if a commander wants a body of his officers to look
> uniform, he has to order a rig for which HM has paid.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
>
When we went back to distinctive uniforms in 86-87, all naval officers
were told that they were expected to acquire high collar whites at their
own expense, and certainly everyone that I knew did so. Since that time
though, the number of occasions where they have been designated as the
preferred rig have diminished to nil. The normally stated reason is
that since other ranks in almost all cases don't have them, officers
shouldn't wear them either. It seems to have become a generally
accepted belief that officers can't be dressed differently from ratings.
The rest of the world's navies don't seem to have a problem with
it, but I guess Canada likes to be different.
Andrew Chaplin
> When we went back to distinctive uniforms in 86-87, all naval officers
> were told that they were expected to acquire high collar whites at their
> own expense, and certainly everyone that I knew did so. Since that time
> though, the number of occasions where they have been designated as the
> preferred rig have diminished to nil. The normally stated reason is
> that since other ranks in almost all cases don't have them, officers
> shouldn't wear them either. It seems to have become a generally
> accepted belief that officers can't be dressed differently from ratings.
> The rest of the world's navies don't seem to have a problem with
> it, but I guess Canada likes to be different.
Creeping army-ism. It is not done to appear on parade in most
regiments decked out differently from the ranks (and it's certainly a
dumb thing on ops). Even reviewing officers seem to be sticklers about
it. The only variance seems to be in footwear, where officers will
wear Blucher Oxfords and the ranks will wear Shoes, Ankle, Type IV
(them cheap, nasty, butt-ugly boots).
Ogden Johnson III
>gino wrote:
>> Special case. When was the last time you saw the rig as an ordered
>> dress for officers?
>Since rig is properly ordered by number (at least at NDHQ) I get the
>impression it doesn't happen. I suppose officers are "encouraged" to
>buy the ICVR, but if a commander wants a body of his officers to look
>uniform, he has to order a rig for which HM has paid.
WHAT!!! Are you telling me that Regimental Colonels and ship's
Captains can no longer specify and buy the uniforms they want their
regiments and ships company to wear. That everyone in the RN and BA
has to wear whatever HM decided they should wear? [I'm *not* one that
thinks she looks "dowdy", far from it; but her style sense *is*
somewhat "older" than the age range of your typical RN officer or BA
other rank.] Has the Empire sunk *this* low?
OJ III
Andrew Chaplin
> WHAT!!! Are you telling me that Regimental Colonels and ship's
> Captains can no longer specify and buy the uniforms they want their
> regiments and ships company to wear. That everyone in the RN and BA
> has to wear whatever HM decided they should wear? [I'm *not* one that
> thinks she looks "dowdy", far from it; but her style sense *is*
> somewhat "older" than the age range of your typical RN officer or BA
> other rank.] Has the Empire sunk *this* low?
I think I can hear a tongue in a cheek here, but here goes. Can't
speak for the rest of the "Empire", but in Canada's unified forces,
no, he may not since only "orders" of dress may be ordered, and these
are laid down in the CF Dress Manual, with permissible variations for
element (land, navy, air) and regiment. If it ain't in the Manual, it
ain't authorized for wear. (This is fudged in the field, since air and
navy uniform wearers posted to Land Force units (e.g. radar techs with
artillery units or medical branch personnel assigned to a battalion's
Unit Medical Section) often wear the beret with Service and Ceremonial
orders of dress; they're only to wear it with Base, Operational and
Occupational orders.)
gino
"Neill McKay" <neill...@not.my.address> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.09.14.20...@not.my.address...
A fine looking uniform and people exaggerate about the collar being
uncomfortable. That being said, some people's tunics "shrink" over the
years and the collar then looks like it's trying to garrote them. Your main
problem will be finding an occasion to wear it where you won't look too out
of place by being the only one in it. Make sure you get a cotton/poly blend
rather than 100% polyester and you'll be cool as the proverbial cucumber.
Ogden Johnson III
>Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
>> WHAT!!! Are you telling me that Regimental Colonels and ship's
>> Captains can no longer specify and buy the uniforms they want their
>> regiments and ships company to wear. That everyone in the RN and BA
>> has to wear whatever HM decided they should wear? [I'm *not* one that
>> thinks she looks "dowdy", far from it; but her style sense *is*
>> somewhat "older" than the age range of your typical RN officer or BA
>> other rank.] Has the Empire sunk *this* low?
>I think I can hear a tongue in a cheek here, but here goes. Can't
You did. ;->
OJ III
Neill McKay
> Since rig is properly ordered by number (at least at NDHQ) I get the
> impression it doesn't happen.
The whites do have their own numbers (1C and 1D).
> I suppose officers are "encouraged" to buy
> the ICVR, but if a commander wants a body of his officers to look
> uniform, he has to order a rig for which HM has paid.
Standfast mess kit.
Neill McKay
gino
"Neill McKay" <neill...@not.my.address> wrote in message
Good point.
Andrew Chaplin
Officers are under no obligation to buy mess dress. Few want not to;
of those, few can withstand the pressure to. I know of several retread
officers serving in naval and air classifications who still wear their
artillery mess dress, and will as long as it fits. That red doeskin
does not wear out in a hurry.
gino
> Officers are under no obligation to buy mess dress. Few want not to;
> of those, few can withstand the pressure to. I know of several retread
> officers serving in naval and air classifications who still wear their
> artillery mess dress, and will as long as it fits. That red doeskin
> does not wear out in a hurry.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
That would be incorrect. CFP 265 (CF Dress Instructions) states as follows:
WEAR OF MESS DRESS
57. Acquisition
a. All Regular Force officers are required to be in possession of mess dress
No. 2, which shall be procured at individual expense. Newly-commissioned
officers are required to obtain this order of dress not later than six
months after commissioning.
58. CF personnel who purchased an obsolete dress pattern while it was still
authorized, may continue to wear that uniform until it is worn out. New
purchases shall conform to current regulations.
Sounds like an order to me.
David E. Powell
Yeah, but you've got to tell a bunch of guys wearing swords! ;+)
Andrew Chaplin
news:DkSh9.357001$f05.17...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> That would be incorrect. CFP 265 (CF Dress Instructions) states as
follows:
> WEAR OF MESS DRESS
>
> 57. Acquisition
>
> a. All Regular Force officers are required to be in possession of mess
dress
> No. 2, which shall be procured at individual expense. Newly-commissioned
> officers are required to obtain this order of dress not later than six
> months after commissioning.
>
> 58. CF personnel who purchased an obsolete dress pattern while it was
still
> authorized, may continue to wear that uniform until it is worn out. New
> purchases shall conform to current regulations.
>
> Sounds like an order to me.
It might, but it's legality is dubious. The CF have not pressed the point. I
know of two MOs who flatly refused in the 1980s. AFAIK, the cases were not
pressed because of the probability the CF would lose. It is even more likely
they would lose now.
JaineDallas
>>
>> 57. Acquisition
>>
>> a. All Regular Force officers are required to be in possession of mess
>dress
>> No. 2, which shall be procured at individual expense. Newly-commissioned
>> officers are required to obtain this order of dress not later than six
>> months after commissioning.
>>
>> 58. CF personnel who purchased an obsolete dress pattern while it was
>still
>> authorized, may continue to wear that uniform until it is worn out. New
>> purchases shall conform to current regulations.
>>
Utter tosh. All RN officers are issued with a full set of No2s (Mess dress),
made to measure, whilst undergoing initial training at BRNC. As with most
articles of an officer's uniform, any replacements have to be procured at their
own expense and must conform to current regulations
Trev
Ogden Johnson III
Had you kept track of the thread, Trev, JaineDallas, or whoever you
are, you would have known that the poster you quoted was quoting the
Canadian Forces Regulation involving Mess Dress, not the RN
Regulation. Had you read a little further in the material you quoted,
you would have found a sledgehammer hint in the "58. CF personnel
..." portion as to whom the Regulation might apply.
OJ III
Neill McKay
> Yeah, but you've got to tell a bunch of guys wearing swords! ;+)
Not too likely... anyone who can afford a sword won't be very worried about
the cost of a mess kit.
Neill McKay
gino
news:20020918153739...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> Utter tosh. All RN officers are issued with a full set of No2s (Mess
dress),
> made to measure, whilst undergoing initial training at BRNC. As with most
> articles of an officer's uniform, any replacements have to be procured at
their
> own expense and must conform to current regulations
>
>
> Trev
Well it must be nice to be in the RN, but over here in the K-Mart of
nations, things are done differently.
gino
Well it sort of falls into the same area as mess dues, doesn't it? It
doesn't surprise me, though, that MOs who would whine about it, owing to
their measley salaries. I think that they should've been called on it and we
could've seen if they were willing to go to court over the matter. If the
order is illegal, it should be eliminated. If not, it should be enforced.
Also, if we go back to the subject of the thread, I believe it was post-WW
II that officers in the RN/RCN were no longer required to purchase their own
sword. Does anyone know when that happened exactly? I imagine it put quite a
few cutlers out of business.
Neill McKay
> Also, if we go back to the subject of the thread, I believe it was
> post-WW II that officers in the RN/RCN were no longer required to
> purchase their own sword. Does anyone know when that happened exactly? I
> imagine it put quite a few cutlers out of business.
Wilkinson are still in business, but I suppose the price of a sword from
them (over $3000 CDN) might be a bit lower if they were selling hundreds
of them each year in several countries.
Neill McKay
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
gi...@shaw.ca (gino) wrote:
> Well it sort of falls into the same area as mess dues, doesn't it?
Actually that order probably only applies to the army. After the
abolishment of purchase, regiments like the Guards had to find another
way of keeping social undesirables out or their officers. High status
regiments had mess prices and uniform requirements that could not be
met by the pay of a junior officer.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
gino
news:amcf17$rij$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Not really what I was talking about at all. In the Canadian Forces, all
members of the Regular Force are required to be members of the unit mess for
their particular rank level and pay corresponding monthly dues. There have
been some who have attempted to challenge this regulation, but as far as I
know, without success to date.
gino
I had a look at the list of British cutlers at www.oldswords.com and it
looks like it was really around the turn of the last century that the
numbers started dwindling. It was probably around the time that swords
stopped being purchased in numbers as an actual armament by the government.
I know that Wilkinson ended up swallowing several over the years also. As
for others, I believe Firmin and Sons still make swords and I know that you
can order them at great expense from Gieves and Hawkes, although I imagine
they contract out the actual manufacture. And there are also the Germans
firms such as WKC Solingen that make Commonwealth pattern swords.
Peter H. Granzeau
<neill...@not.my.address> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but you've got to tell a bunch of guys wearing swords! ;+)
>
>Not too likely... anyone who can afford a sword won't be very worried about
>the cost of a mess kit.
I have no idea of the cost currently of either uniforms or a USN
sword, but in 1958, the sword would have run a bit less than a hundred
bucks, and usually, uniforms (trousers, jacket) ran about the same,
plus cost of stripes. I don't know what the full cost would have been
(you needed belt and sword knot to complete the sword, and you needed
boiled shirts, collars, bow tie, studs and cuff links, cummerbund, and
the like, to complete the mess dress).
William Black
"Neill McKay" <neill...@not.my.address> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.09.18.22...@not.my.address...
Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems to be
part of their publicity department.
I am led to believe that in regiments where swords are required (guards,
household cavalry, various odd bits of the army with ceremonial duties and
old traditions) have some swords available for issue on an occasional basis.
Current price for a British military sword of any pattern (there are only
five or six, including the Scottish pattern thingie) but less than 100
years old is usually less than £200 ($320).
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
gino
news:amfe5n$g73$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> > Wilkinson are still in business, but I suppose the price of a sword from
> > them (over $3000 CDN) might be a bit lower if they were selling hundreds
> > of them each year in several countries.
>
> Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems to be
> part of their publicity department.
>
> I am led to believe that in regiments where swords are required (guards,
> household cavalry, various odd bits of the army with ceremonial duties
and
> old traditions) have some swords available for issue on an occasional
basis.
>
> Current price for a British military sword of any pattern (there are only
> five or six, including the Scottish pattern thingie) but less than 100
> years old is usually less than £200 ($320).
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
>
Yes, it's true that Wilkinson's primary business is razor blades, but their
sword business is also still fairly active. They still hold Royal Warrants
as Sword Cutlers to HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. I'm not
sure of the current price for a naval sword, scabbard, knot and belt since
their web site has been under reconstruction for some time, but I believe
they ask about £1500 for the lot. Gieves and Thieves, on the other hand, is
asking £1840 for the same outfit. If you can find a used sword going on
Ebay, you can expect to pay anywhere from £250-400, depending on age and
condition.
If you're interested, Wilkinson's site http://www.wilkinson-swords.co.uk
does have a good bit on the Golden Jubilee Sword which will be presented to
the Queen this coming December.
William Black
>. If you can find a used sword going on
> Ebay, you can expect to pay anywhere from Ł250-400, depending on age and
> condition.
A British provincial auction house is the place to go to guy one.
I've never seen one go for more than Ł200, and there are plenty still
about.
For edged weapons E-bay is retail, auction houses are wholesale.
Paul J. Adam
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems to be
>part of their publicity department.
They still exhibit at defence shows, and maintain an active catalogue of
assorted blades.
--
Paul J. Adam
Ogden Johnson III
>William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems to be
>>part of their publicity department.
>
>They still exhibit at defence shows, and maintain an active catalogue of
>assorted blades.
Indeed. I have known many USMC officers over the years who have been
perfectly satisfied with their purchase of their USMC Officer's Sword
from the Wilkinson Publicity Department Sword Workshop.
My brother, the NROTC Ensign, on the other hand, was awarded his Navy
Officer's Sword on completion of NROTC [damfirememberwhatfor]. It,
too, was a Wilkinson.
They do a lot of business for a PR department hobby shop.
OJ III
[Who wonders how well that "Golden Jubilee Commemorative Sword" is
selling at £1645 including VAT (US$ 2000).
http://www.jubileesword.com/commemorative/index.html, obtained off
their main page at http://www.wilkinsonsword.com]
William Black
"Ogden Johnson III" <o...@cpcug.org> wrote in message
news:l70sou0c1oqdrjn1a...@4ax.com...
> "Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >>Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems to
be
> >>part of their publicity department.
> >
> >They still exhibit at defence shows, and maintain an active catalogue of
> >assorted blades.
>
> Indeed. I have known many USMC officers over the years who have been
> perfectly satisfied with their purchase of their USMC Officer's Sword
> from the Wilkinson Publicity Department Sword Workshop.
>
> My brother, the NROTC Ensign, on the other hand, was awarded his Navy
> Officer's Sword on completion of NROTC [damfirememberwhatfor]. It,
> too, was a Wilkinson.
>
> They do a lot of business for a PR department hobby shop.
Colt's still make an engraved pistol for general officers, nobody suggests
that without them they'd go bust.
Ferrari make two or three Formula 1 cars a year. so do Jaguar. They spend
a great deal of money, and even claim they do some research work on them as
well, but somehow I don't think that's the real reason.
Wilkinson make money by selling razor blades.
gino
That's useful information. Many thanks. Unfortunately, it still
presents problems for those who don't happen to live in the UK.
Iain Rae
Presumably with "Combat proven: Crimea '56" plastered over their stall
if they're anything like other arms companies :)
Brian Sharrock
>
> "Ogden Johnson III" <o...@cpcug.org> wrote in message
> news:l70sou0c1oqdrjn1a...@4ax.com...
> > "Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> > >> Wilkinson are in the razor blade business, the sword workshop seems
to
> > > >>be part of their publicity department.
> > >
> > >They still exhibit at defence shows, and maintain an active catalogue
of
> > >assorted blades.
snip
> > They do a lot of business for a PR department hobby shop.
>
snip
>
> Wilkinson make money by selling razor blades.
>
... and, garden spades, lawn edgers, secateurs ...
scissors, seems anything with a cutting edge ...
--
Brian
gino
news:3d8f04dc$0$21854$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
> >
>
> ... and, garden spades, lawn edgers, secateurs ...
> scissors, seems anything with a cutting edge ...
>
Apparently, their garden tools, kitchen knives and scissors division was
sold to Fiskars several years ago.
gino
news:3D8EB624...@dcs.ed.ac.uk...
Bernhard Rohrer
> Current price for a British military sword of any pattern (there are only
> five or six, including the Scottish pattern thingie) but less than 100
> years old is usually less than £200 ($320).
My god, that's expensive. A good friend of mime has to household guards
swords. They are the worst pieces of cr*p that I ever had the misfortune to
handle. They are pieces of steel that actuall have a weld somewhere down the
length to get the length of blade and the shinyness is not polish but
chromium that is slowly flaking off. On any kind of usage the would break
immediately. *shudder*. I'd not pay more than 50 EUR for something like
that, if wanted a collector's piece. I can get a good Del Tin practice
rapier or bated rapier for about 250 USD from Darkwood
(www.darkoodarmory.com)
Bernhard
Peter H. Granzeau
wrote:
>My god, that's expensive. A good friend of mime has to household guards
>swords. They are the worst pieces of cr*p that I ever had the misfortune to
>handle. They are pieces of steel that actuall have a weld somewhere down the
>length to get the length of blade and the shinyness is not polish but
>chromium that is slowly flaking off. On any kind of usage the would break
>immediately. *shudder*. I'd not pay more than 50 EUR for something like
>that, if wanted a collector's piece. I can get a good Del Tin practice
>rapier or bated rapier for about 250 USD from Darkwood
>(www.darkoodarmory.com)
You misspelled that site. www.darkwoodarmory.com seems to do it.
I found a couple of sources of USN Officer's Sabers. One had Saber
around $389 (I didn't write it down), belt $65, and sword knot $29.95.
It stated the sabre was stainless steel, so that business of a piece
of chrome plated welded crap wouldn't apply. However, I never saw a
ceremonial sword drawn during my time on active duty, it was worn,
hooked up to the belt. Period. I had to wear one (borrowed) once,
when acting as OOD during a Change of Command ceremony; as a Reserve
LTJG, I wasn't required to have my own.
William Black
> "Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Presumably with "Combat proven: Crimea '56" plastered over their stall
> > if they're anything like other arms companies :)
> >
> I should think that "Omdurman '98" would be even better for an ad.
I think Mauser already use that one :-)
Ogden Johnson III
> ... and, garden spades, lawn edgers, secateurs ...
> scissors, seems anything with a cutting edge ...
You sent me to the dictionary for *pruning shears*?
Fooking Brit!
OJ III
Ogden Johnson III
>I found a couple of sources of USN Officer's Sabers. One had Saber
>around $389 (I didn't write it down), belt $65, and sword knot $29.95.
>It stated the sabre was stainless steel, so that business of a piece
>of chrome plated welded crap wouldn't apply. However, I never saw a
>ceremonial sword drawn during my time on active duty, it was worn,
>hooked up to the belt. Period. I had to wear one (borrowed) once,
>when acting as OOD during a Change of Command ceremony; as a Reserve
>LTJG, I wasn't required to have my own.
You swabbies don't do many parades, do you? We saw swords drawn every
time we had a squadron Change of Command ceremony. Platoon commanders
and the squadron [parade] staff [officers and SNCOs] all unsheathed
and resheathed their sword several times during the CoC ceremony/
parade.
OJ III
[Every 18-24 months, like clockwork, the SgtMaj and I [NCOIC Ops/Trng]
were out there marking up the flight line^W^Wparade ground so the
pilots and maintenance SNCOs assigned as platoon commanders and
squadron staff wouldn't get lost during the parade.]
Ed Reppert
<af...@griff.de> wrote:
> My god, that's expensive. A good friend of mime has to household guards
> swords. They are the worst pieces of cr*p that I ever had the misfortune to
> handle. They are pieces of steel that actuall have a weld somewhere down the
> length to get the length of blade and the shinyness is not polish but
> chromium that is slowly flaking off. On any kind of usage the would break
> immediately. *shudder*. I'd not pay more than 50 EUR for something like
> that, if wanted a collector's piece. I can get a good Del Tin practice
> rapier or bated rapier for about 250 USD from Darkwood
> (www.darkoodarmory.com)
In spite of US Navy regs, I never actually bought a sword. I always
insisted I'd buy one when I could get a *real* sword, and not the piece
of crap they wanted me to buy. I still don't know where one could buy,
today, a real, usable-in-combat, Naval Officer's Sword. No matter;
they're probably illegal anyway. :-(
--
Regards,
Ed
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"gino" <gi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:G3Gj9.403821$f05.19...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> "Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
>> > Presumably with "Combat proven: Crimea '56" plastered over their stall
>> > if they're anything like other arms companies :)
>> >
>> I should think that "Omdurman '98" would be even better for an ad.
>
>I think Mauser already use that one :-)
Huh? Most of the Mausers at Omdurman were surely being waved by the
runners-up. The execution was courtesy of Enfield (Long Lee-Enfields
for the British troops, Martini-Henrys for the Egyptians) and Maxim
('nuff said) - the latter deployed to some effect from the gunboats
(ob. SMN).
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Keith Willshaw
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ampdn0$153m$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <amo2fp$459$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"gino" <gi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:G3Gj9.403821$f05.19...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> "Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Presumably with "Combat proven: Crimea '56" plastered over their
stall
> >> > if they're anything like other arms companies :)
> >> >
> >> I should think that "Omdurman '98" would be even better for an ad.
> >
> >I think Mauser already use that one :-)
>
> Huh? Most of the Mausers at Omdurman were surely being waved by the
> runners-up. The execution was courtesy of Enfield (Long Lee-Enfields
> for the British troops, Martini-Henrys for the Egyptians) and Maxim
> ('nuff said) - the latter deployed to some effect from the gunboats
> (ob. SMN).
>
Winston Spenser Churchill was famously wielding a Mauser
pistol during the cavalry charge at Omdurman and spoke
in glowing terms of its reliability and accuracy in his book
about the campaign 'The River War'
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:ampdn0$153m$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
>> In article <amo2fp$459$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
>> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I think Mauser already use that one :-)
>>
>> Huh? Most of the Mausers at Omdurman were surely being waved by the
>> runners-up. The execution was courtesy of Enfield (Long Lee-Enfields
>> for the British troops, Martini-Henrys for the Egyptians) and Maxim
>> ('nuff said) - the latter deployed to some effect from the gunboats
>Winston Spenser Churchill was famously wielding a Mauser
>pistol during the cavalry charge at Omdurman and spoke
>in glowing terms of its reliability and accuracy in his book
>about the campaign 'The River War'
Aha! I suppose that Winnie would have claimed to have won the battle
single-handed ;)
gino
> In article <ampeai$3c4$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> >"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ampdn0$153m$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
> >> In article <amo2fp$459$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
> >> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I think Mauser already use that one :-)
> >>
> >> Huh? Most of the Mausers at Omdurman were surely being waved by the
> >> runners-up. The execution was courtesy of Enfield (Long Lee-Enfields
> >> for the British troops, Martini-Henrys for the Egyptians) and Maxim
> >> ('nuff said) - the latter deployed to some effect from the gunboats
>
> >Winston Spenser Churchill was famously wielding a Mauser
> >pistol during the cavalry charge at Omdurman and spoke
> >in glowing terms of its reliability and accuracy in his book
> >about the campaign 'The River War'
>
> Aha! I suppose that Winnie would have claimed to have won the battle
> single-handed ;)
>
"there is nothing so exhilarating as being shot at without result"?
gino
news:240920020010185018%erep...@rochester.rr.invalid...
of the Solingen cutlers meet the same standards as those produced for actual
use in battle and, although not sharpened, could take an edge nicely.
gino
news:240920020010185018%erep...@rochester.rr.invalid...
I've looked around on the net at sites that sell USN swords and the blades
all seem to be stainless steel. Is this the official USN specification? My
understanding is that stainless steel blades are normally soft and tough so
they won't break easily, but the high chromium content inhibits their
ability to hold an edge and they are not really suitable for actual use the
way that forged carbon steel is. The bottom line reason that many display
swords are stainless steel today appears to be the lower cost of manufacture
and the low maintainence requirements.
Peter H. Granzeau
>I've looked around on the net at sites that sell USN swords and the blades
>all seem to be stainless steel. Is this the official USN specification? My
>understanding is that stainless steel blades are normally soft and tough so
>they won't break easily, but the high chromium content inhibits their
>ability to hold an edge and they are not really suitable for actual use the
>way that forged carbon steel is. The bottom line reason that many display
>swords are stainless steel today appears to be the lower cost of manufacture
>and the low maintainence requirements.
There are lots of formulas for stainless steel. Surgical implements
are stainless steel, for instance, for the reasons you cite, but they
take and hold a good edge. I have a couple of stainsess pocket knives
(a Case and a Buck), and they both take an excellent edge and hold
them for nearly ever.
A ceremonial sword doesn't need an edge, it needs only to look
presentable, with the minimum of maintenance, of course. I would
think that an edge might be counter productive, if given to relatively
untrained users.
gino
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MS1k9.23162$IL6.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
Yes, although my understanding is that this is fine for small items such as
knives and scalpels, but functional swords of the same stainless steel would
break far too easily. Ceremonial swords made of forged carbon steel are not
given an edge, but it could be done to turn them into fighting weapons. The
previous poster was stating his disdain for stainless steel swords for the
very reason that stainless steel swords cannot double as real effective
weapons and I believe that this is still true.
William Black
> The bottom line reason that many display
> swords are stainless steel today appears to be the lower cost of
manufacture
> and the low maintainence requirements.
If you actually want to fight with the things (and I do, but with blunt
ones) you do need steel blades.
Stainless looks nice but doesn't bend right and has a nasty habit of
shattering when whacked hard.
France Lames do a nice range of blades. They also make all the French
military stuff.
I recommend that if you want to learn to fight, rather than fence, you
should get proper tuition. Swords really are dangerous.
William Black
> In article <ampeai$3c4$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> >"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ampdn0$153m$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
> >> In article <amo2fp$459$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
> >> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I think Mauser already use that one :-)
> >>
> >> Huh? Most of the Mausers at Omdurman were surely being waved by the
> >> runners-up. The execution was courtesy of Enfield (Long Lee-Enfields
> >> for the British troops, Martini-Henrys for the Egyptians) and Maxim
> >> ('nuff said) - the latter deployed to some effect from the gunboats
>
> >Winston Spenser Churchill was famously wielding a Mauser
> >pistol during the cavalry charge at Omdurman and spoke
> >in glowing terms of its reliability and accuracy in his book
> >about the campaign 'The River War'
>
> Aha! I suppose that Winnie would have claimed to have won the battle
> single-handed ;)
Surprisingly he didn't.
But it was almost certainly the first use of an auto loading pistol in
action with the military.
Paul J. Adam
<gi...@shaw.ca> writes
>My
>understanding is that stainless steel blades are normally soft and tough so
>they won't break easily, but the high chromium content inhibits their
>ability to hold an edge and they are not really suitable for actual use the
>way that forged carbon steel is. The bottom line reason that many display
>swords are stainless steel today appears to be the lower cost of manufacture
>and the low maintainence requirements.
I carry a Spyderco Native that uses 440A stainless for its blade. Holds
an edge very well and it's certainly a working knife.
Swords may be different because of length, but sharp edges are sharp
edges.
--
Paul J. Adam
Andrew Chaplin
"Only dropped once."? ;^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Bernhard Rohrer
> an edge very well and it's certainly a working knife.
>
> Swords may be different because of length, but sharp edges are sharp
> edges.
yes. for one they are a lot softer (45 - 50 Rockwell at a guess, as opposed
to 62 or so in a knife). I am not sure how your basic 440A would stand up to
swordfighting.
Bernhard
Vince Brannigan
Bernhard Rohrer wrote:
From all I have ever heard, all stainless makes a lousy sword. Our
metallurgical people describe it in terms of shock resistance. ((related to
toughness but not exactly the same. I have had stainless knife blades show
brittle fracture on several occasions. Dive knives are made of a high quality
stainless but do not have first class edge holding (sort of like swiss army
knives) knives can have better edges than swords because the short length give
you more opportunity to bulk up the knife in relation to length.
Vince
Peter McLelland
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:amcf17$rij$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <lz7i9.361613$Ag2.16...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> gi...@shaw.ca (gino) wrote:
>
> > Well it sort of falls into the same area as mess dues, doesn't it?
>
> Actually that order probably only applies to the army. After the
> abolishment of purchase, regiments like the Guards had to find another
> way of keeping social undesirables out or their officers. High status
> regiments had mess prices and uniform requirements that could not be
> met by the pay of a junior officer.
>
Not quite, the regiments were still able to select their officers from the
pool of those available, and often money was not the only determinator of
'suitability' after all many of the 'nouveau riche' were just as undesirable
as the poor. The general selection process kept out the most undesirable,
even during WW1, it was only really during WW2 when a more egalitarian
officers mess came into being. Even so I would suspect that it was only when
the 'Military Salary' was introduced in the late 60s that the costs in some
of the more expensive messes became bearable for those without some private
means.
Always remember that the British separated money and status a long time ago.
Sir Thomas Lipton was unable to become a member of the Royal Yacht Squadron
at Cowes for many years because he was 'in trade' and even after he was
allowed to join he was known behind his back as the 'Kings Grocer'. Even so
he sailed regularly with the King, and they were good friends.
Peter