Great video as always (lets take that back , as most of the time lol)... I will post similar content in the future Subscriber to my Channel Gate of Babylon the gate to everything. ua-cam.com/channels/EfLnHQMC7pusRgqDTlUJrQ.html
Hey Matt, i love your channel and i have to thank you, i started seeing your videos because of medieval stuff, but you more than any other youtuber that i watch show a lot of these 16th to 19th century swords and things, and i now love them! Made me curious about a period that i was not very interested before, thankyou!
Seeing them up close actually makes me like these officer swords, in the past I've never been a fan of any kind of basket hilt or or even this style of guard but now I quite like them especially seeing they have a straight blade instead of curved. Thanks for the video Matt.
There's a few videos on the channel about restoration, cleaning, and sharpening that might help if you're looking for practical. But if you mean a look at how the average soldier did it historically I agree that would be cool to learn.
quick question. When you say a curtain year pattern sword, is that an official thing or is it historians classifying after the fact. I mean official as the military actually used that classification.
It was the year the pattern was sealed. Manufacture sometimes started a year or two later. They were not usually referred to by these year patterns at the time, until the 1880s.
so at least 1 person, so far, has bought a "genuine, authentic 1887 pattern British Heavy Cavalry Officers Sword" and this is not what they wanted to hear.
But if they're hearing it here, they're starting in a good place to find out just what exactly they did buy. I'm pretty sure Matt has detailed videos on... everything real that he mentioned in passing in this video.
Great video as always, Matt! One quibble - I'm not sure that the fully checkered backstrap is conclusive of post-1895 production. I have a P1821 heavy cavalry with a straight grip, fully checkered backstrap, and squared checkered thumb rest - all the hallmarks of the 1896 swords. However, it's a Wilkinson with a serial number and sales record establishing that the sword was sold in 1891. It makes me question whether there was a 1896 pattern (in the strictest sense of the term), as opposed to the 1821 pattern being made universal at that time, and P1821s made in the 1890s tending to have these features.
The new backstrap was described in newspapers of 1895 - it is covered in an article on the Easton Antique Arms website. If your backstrap is exactly like the 1895 pattern backstrap, then the sword was most probably re-hilted, which was not uncommon. The date of a blade doesn't always correspond to the date of the hilt - a lot of 1845 pattern infantry officers' swords were re-hilted in 1895 and 1896 to have the new style hilts.
Was there a change in how they were used when they changed the shape of the hilt from swept down to straight? I imagine it is much better for pointing with the more 'anatomical' hilt shape.
Amazing information. Thank you very much. I have just found an old sword in my mother in-laws garage and managed to educate myself enough to identify it. With your video it has been confirmed. I have an 1893 Wilson # 32431. First Royal Division Heavy officers.
I like to imagine him headed for the studio with an armful of swords from roughly the right time period which he may or may not need and then dumping the pile on the table so he can pick the ones that fit his points as he talks.
As if you couldn't tell by the way a single portion of one of his walls behind him is set up, I imagine Matt could properly equip a small battalion of rather tall, bald English fathers.
Ohhh you're totally right, I bet that's a pain when he's trying to take orders and other boring admin stuff. It's like the customer service monkey and the CEO and the PR manager at Easton Antique Arms are all the same guy. What a fluidly organised company!
Great video, as usual. I suspect the checkered pommel may be so that it grips better when you strike something with it (like a enemy's metal helmet) instead of glancing off -- much like the teeth of a war hammer. :)
I very much doubt it. What metal helmets are you going to encounter in that era? _Maybe_ heavy cavalry and that's it. Are you really going to be in pommeling distance in a cavalry vs. cavalry action?
Hi Matt, I'm a blade Smith and would like your help in some British 1845 Wilkinson saber dimension. I love these sabers but can't find any detailed sword dimensions. Please help provide me either sources that I can look at or if you can help measure some sabers that you have any let me know the dimensions. Thank you
@@loveforever5687 I'd think you'd want to hold and use one before you tried to make one. Otherwise how would you know whether you'd got it right? But I bet you'd never get it quite right. A few hundred smackers ($ £ € ¥). It might save you five or ten times that in wasted time and materials. And the sword(s) you end up making will probably be worth more too. You can't afford NOT to buy one. Sell it when you're done, you'll probably get 80% of it back. You might even make a little profit. Better than a rental.
@@loveforever5687 Try emailing Matt through Easton Antique Arms. It's not bad advice to handle at least one real one yourself before making a replica, but Matt will be the first to tell you that there's lots of nuanced variety even in a "standard pattern". If you watch and read everything he's ever posted about the sword in question you might be able to piece together what you're looking for. He might be nice enough to get you some weights and measures from any he may have on hand if you say please enough times, since he's always harping about bad reproductions that don't respect the originals.
Any idea how this got started? Some collector got hold of an 1896 pattern sword with faulty provenance that claimed it was used in 1887, and thereafter his "expertise" drowned out all objections through Argument By Authority... until as you said access to records became available? There must be a reason the specific year 1887 was picked. Similar things have happened in other collectibles.
That's what I'm curious about. Matt was pretty clear about what the 1887 is not, and what patterns exist for real, but not entirely clear on why people thought there was a pattern for that year or what signifies a supposed 1887.
I've read that it was a misconception arising from the original version of Brian Robson's Swords of the British Army wherein a sword was referred to as being an 1887 pattern but was actually just an 1821 pattern which was dated 1887. I don't have a copy of the original book so I can't confirm.
Thanks James. That sounds plausible. I'm not actually sure where the whole '1887 pattern' error started. I assumed it was in one of John Wilkinson Latham's books, which unfortunately contain a lot of errors.
Thank you very much for your explanation,it was good for me to date the sword that I posses , it’s the Wilkinson the same as the final one you showed,but the hand guard on mine is different so might be more modern.
And now let's talk about the French "1855" Army of Africa "pattern". Oh boy. What a dense one Matt, so many pieces of information. Received a Victorian 1831 three days ago BTW, glad I dodged all the copies around, thank you for your video on this specific pattern. Cheers!
I have a 1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer's Sword by Hawkes London. It's got VII DG The Princess Royals etching. Any way of finding out who it could have belonged to?
Hey Matt - long time watcher first time commenter. I have an 1827 royal navy officers pipe back. The handle / grip is loose. Any recommendations on how to correct this? Would love to see one of your restorations showing this on any pattern of sword!
Hi matt. Love the video. One slight error though. You said all yeomanry are light cav. That's actually incorrect. There are 4 cavalry / yeomanry regiments, 3 are light cav and 1 is heavy. Royal yeomanry, Queens own yeomanry and Scottish and NI yeomanry are light, wessex yeomanry are heavy
I've got what I think is a light cavalry trooper's saber (purchased from Easton Antique Arms) that has a grip that is only checkered on the thumb are (which is rounded). It is engraved Diamond Fields Horse on the blade, so it must have been used in one of the Boer Wars. The hilt construction is brass....rods? The scabbard is brown leather covered and has a frog made for a Same Browne belt. Would this be a light cavalry trooper's saber and what pattern would it be? I'm not sure of the blade pattern but it looks like the same blade shape and construction as an 1853 pattern light cavalry troopers saber I have (I may be wrong about that too after watching this video). I know this video was about heavy cavalry officer's sabers but I am curious about this sword I have. thanks.
Why were the heavy and light cavalry swords so radically different in form? Clearly heavy and light cavalry are used for different roles, but were the swords used differently? Were the heavy cavalry trained to use the point more, hence the straight blade?
Hey, all this seems to be information that was just on the fringes of other videos. In fact, I think Matt said he would talk about all of this in a later video. GUYS I FOUND THE VIDEO WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THINGS LATER
Would enjoy hearing you discuss/review the last fight between Mel Gibson and the British colonel from the patriot. Probably not an interesting scene from a HEMA perspective but would still enjoy it. Maybe discussing the gear.
Matt, I Am absolutely astounded by your knowledge of Historical British Officer's swords. I Love the blade on the first sword, I believe it was 1897? Why did the British have so many different types of hilts/grips/blades? It is almost analogous to a LEGO set, lol. I know there have Alway's been civilian customer's, I just didn't realize the British Military had So Many variations, it is truly hard to keep up with. I do however like the one saber with the step down pommel. It is also astounding the different size of grips, and rayskin or leather, different types of twisted wire. It's mind boggling. You Truly Are an expert in your field of study Matt....Kudos!!!
The simple answer is that officers had to purchase their own swords, as opposed to the enlisted troopers who had them issued to them. As a result, an officer could order their sword with any number of minor differences so long as it appeared to be, overall, regulation, esp,. in the hilt. Also, as regulations changed, sometimes officers would have their swords modified to meet the new regulation pattern in one way or another instead of buying a brand new sword of the new pattern. For example, if there's a hilt change an officer could keep the blade from their old sword but have a new hilt fitted so that, when sheathed, it appeared to be regulation even if the blade wasn't.
@@scholagladiatoria ahh that is a pity,i only heard good things about it, i was expecting to hear your insightful analysis,expecially since this type of flexible weapons are often forgotten. It reminds me of the book Sap Blackjacks and Slungshot ,since it talks expecially about this.
Two questions. Was the British Military really picky about the detail of the swords carried by officers as long as they "looked" to pattern from a distance? It was against U.S. Army regulations to sharpen issue swords. (Don't know about officers) Was this true of the British Army?
No, plating was just an optional extra. Plating meant it wouldn't rust and was easier to look after. Nickel plating only became available from the 1860s and only really common in the 1880s/90s. But if you wanted to save some money then you could get one without plating. Or if you wanted to spend more you could get silver plating!
Can I ask why cannot be the 96 pattern to have the 87 backstrap style? Sorry to bother but I missed how we know the square backstrap came only in the 90’
That's when it was invented by the manufacturer... in 95. Wilkinson is still around, they make shavers now. Probably still have pretty complete company records when somebody asks.
@@EclipsisTenebris There's probably also government records detailing what the details are on a given pattern of sword. Plus, researching surviving examples would tell you roughly when certain features first started to show up in a given pattern of swords. To this day, Wilkin swords that still have inscriptions on them can be looked up to see when it was made and/or sold and to whom. So by cross referencing the surviving examples with Wilkinson (and other) records will give you a pretty accurate estimate of when certain features first and last appeared.
Hi Matt from Greece.Of course I would not say there is 1887 pattern because there is not as you better know.I have seen in Greek source that the Greek cavalry had 1887 sword in the balkan wars.Also in Asia minor campaign as we call it in 1919.I would like to know more since my grandfather was a cavalry trooper during these wars.
So what you're saying is....they really liked that design of guard! Or really couldn't be arsed to come up with a different design. 'All our funding has gone on the backstrap, they'll have to wait for a guard until the next pattern'(repeat)....
I would love to have a reproduction of a honeysuckle ladder guard like that example. Reproduction guards are really difficult to find in general though.
It's probably just perspective from the camera, you have to remember that cameras don't see things exactly the same as the human eye.Filmmakers and photographers have known this for ages and have used these differences to their advantage. A good example of this was the Lord of the Rings movies where they made the actress that played Hobbits appear smaller to another actor in the same scene by placing them further away from the camera than the "human" actor. In this case, it's probably a bit of lens distortion going on making the background appear titled because the camera is at an angle to the back wall.
I'm only here for context, and perhaps some innuendo if we're lucky.
Spadroons are awesome 😁
Great for buttering toast!!!
@@mallardtheduck406 are they even any good for that? haha
Great video as always (lets take that back , as most of the time lol)...
I will post similar content in the future
Subscriber to my Channel Gate of Babylon the gate to everything.
ua-cam.com/channels/EfLnHQMC7pusRgqDTlUJrQ.html
Hey Matt, i love your channel and i have to thank you, i started seeing your videos because of medieval stuff, but you more than any other youtuber that i watch show a lot of these 16th to 19th century swords and things, and i now love them! Made me curious about a period that i was not very interested before, thankyou!
Next you'll be telling us that the 1824 Pattern Medium Mounted Infantry NCO Pioneer Spadroon isn't real
So the question remains, where did the number 1887 come from? Did another type of sword get a new pattern that year? Did someone just make it up?
That's what I'm still unclear about. I was waiting for a little hilt nuance or something that changed in 1887 and created a confusion.
Seeing them up close actually makes me like these officer swords, in the past I've never been a fan of any kind of basket hilt or or even this style of guard but now I quite like them especially seeing they have a straight blade instead of curved. Thanks for the video Matt.
Could you possibly discuss about how swords are maintained and repaired?
There's a few videos on the channel about restoration, cleaning, and sharpening that might help if you're looking for practical. But if you mean a look at how the average soldier did it historically I agree that would be cool to learn.
quick question. When you say a curtain year pattern sword, is that an official thing or is it historians classifying after the fact. I mean official as the military actually used that classification.
It was the year the pattern was sealed. Manufacture sometimes started a year or two later. They were not usually referred to by these year patterns at the time, until the 1880s.
So many details, so much knowledge. Thank you Matt.
so at least 1 person, so far, has bought a "genuine, authentic 1887 pattern British Heavy Cavalry Officers Sword" and this is not what they wanted to hear.
But if they're hearing it here, they're starting in a good place to find out just what exactly they did buy. I'm pretty sure Matt has detailed videos on... everything real that he mentioned in passing in this video.
Great video as always, Matt! One quibble - I'm not sure that the fully checkered backstrap is conclusive of post-1895 production. I have a P1821 heavy cavalry with a straight grip, fully checkered backstrap, and squared checkered thumb rest - all the hallmarks of the 1896 swords. However, it's a Wilkinson with a serial number and sales record establishing that the sword was sold in 1891. It makes me question whether there was a 1896 pattern (in the strictest sense of the term), as opposed to the 1821 pattern being made universal at that time, and P1821s made in the 1890s tending to have these features.
The new backstrap was described in newspapers of 1895 - it is covered in an article on the Easton Antique Arms website. If your backstrap is exactly like the 1895 pattern backstrap, then the sword was most probably re-hilted, which was not uncommon. The date of a blade doesn't always correspond to the date of the hilt - a lot of 1845 pattern infantry officers' swords were re-hilted in 1895 and 1896 to have the new style hilts.
@@scholagladiatoria great info, thanks!
Was there a change in how they were used when they changed the shape of the hilt from swept down to straight? I imagine it is much better for pointing with the more 'anatomical' hilt shape.
Amazing information. Thank you very much. I have just found an old sword in my mother in-laws garage and managed to educate myself enough to identify it.
With your video it has been confirmed. I have an 1893 Wilson # 32431.
First Royal Division Heavy officers.
Casually grabs specific swords from offscreen to demonstrate minute changes in form ... nice.
I like to imagine him headed for the studio with an armful of swords from roughly the right time period which he may or may not need and then dumping the pile on the table so he can pick the ones that fit his points as he talks.
Gotta get that context!
As if you couldn't tell by the way a single portion of one of his walls behind him is set up, I imagine Matt could properly equip a small battalion of rather tall, bald English fathers.
Why do I suspect that some collector calls Matt weekly seeking an 1887 pattern to complete his collection?
Ohhh you're totally right, I bet that's a pain when he's trying to take orders and other boring admin stuff. It's like the customer service monkey and the CEO and the PR manager at Easton Antique Arms are all the same guy. What a fluidly organised company!
Imagine how deep and especific his knowledge is to point out that in that especific year there were not a pattern of a especific type of sword
Great video, as usual. I suspect the checkered pommel may be so that it grips better when you strike something with it (like a enemy's metal helmet) instead of glancing off -- much like the teeth of a war hammer. :)
Mace-like pommels are the best!
I very much doubt it. What metal helmets are you going to encounter in that era? _Maybe_ heavy cavalry and that's it. Are you really going to be in pommeling distance in a cavalry vs. cavalry action?
Great review of the various patterns :)
Hi Matt,
I'm a blade Smith and would like your help in some British 1845 Wilkinson saber dimension. I love these sabers but can't find any detailed sword dimensions. Please help provide me either sources that I can look at or if you can help measure some sabers that you have any let me know the dimensions.
Thank you
Maybe you should buy / rent / borrow a genuine antique.
@@bozo5632 I cant afford a antique sword, i dont know anyone with one and i dont know if you can rent one.
@@loveforever5687 I'd think you'd want to hold and use one before you tried to make one. Otherwise how would you know whether you'd got it right? But I bet you'd never get it quite right.
A few hundred smackers ($ £ € ¥). It might save you five or ten times that in wasted time and materials. And the sword(s) you end up making will probably be worth more too. You can't afford NOT to buy one.
Sell it when you're done, you'll probably get 80% of it back. You might even make a little profit. Better than a rental.
@@loveforever5687 Try emailing Matt through Easton Antique Arms. It's not bad advice to handle at least one real one yourself before making a replica, but Matt will be the first to tell you that there's lots of nuanced variety even in a "standard pattern". If you watch and read everything he's ever posted about the sword in question you might be able to piece together what you're looking for. He might be nice enough to get you some weights and measures from any he may have on hand if you say please enough times, since he's always harping about bad reproductions that don't respect the originals.
Any idea how this got started? Some collector got hold of an 1896 pattern sword with faulty provenance that claimed it was used in 1887, and thereafter his "expertise" drowned out all objections through Argument By Authority... until as you said access to records became available? There must be a reason the specific year 1887 was picked.
Similar things have happened in other collectibles.
That's what I'm curious about. Matt was pretty clear about what the 1887 is not, and what patterns exist for real, but not entirely clear on why people thought there was a pattern for that year or what signifies a supposed 1887.
I've read that it was a misconception arising from the original version of Brian Robson's Swords of the British Army wherein a sword was referred to as being an 1887 pattern but was actually just an 1821 pattern which was dated 1887. I don't have a copy of the original book so I can't confirm.
Thanks James. That sounds plausible. I'm not actually sure where the whole '1887 pattern' error started. I assumed it was in one of John Wilkinson Latham's books, which unfortunately contain a lot of errors.
The 1796 heavy cavalry officer's sword is what Bernard Cornwall had Richard Sharpe carrying during the Pennisular campaign, n'est pas?
Not quite, that was the troopers' version.
Thank you very much for your explanation,it was good for me to date the sword that I posses , it’s the Wilkinson the same as the final one you showed,but the hand guard on mine is different so might be more modern.
Very informative, there was no mention of the 1890 sword that was carried by the 21st Lancers at Obdorman.
Was this not standard issue?
Thankyou.
This video was just to the officers' swords. The 1890 was a troopers' pattern. 🙂
And now let's talk about the French "1855" Army of Africa "pattern". Oh boy.
What a dense one Matt, so many pieces of information.
Received a Victorian 1831 three days ago BTW, glad I dodged all the copies around, thank you for your video on this specific pattern.
Cheers!
I have a 1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer's Sword by Hawkes London. It's got VII DG The Princess Royals etching. Any way of finding out who it could have belonged to?
Hey Matt - long time watcher first time commenter. I have an 1827 royal navy officers pipe back. The handle / grip is loose. Any recommendations on how to correct this? Would love to see one of your restorations showing this on any pattern of sword!
Hi matt. Love the video. One slight error though. You said all yeomanry are light cav. That's actually incorrect. There are 4 cavalry / yeomanry regiments, 3 are light cav and 1 is heavy. Royal yeomanry, Queens own yeomanry and Scottish and NI yeomanry are light, wessex yeomanry are heavy
I've got what I think is a light cavalry trooper's saber (purchased from Easton Antique Arms) that has a grip that is only checkered on the thumb are (which is rounded). It is engraved Diamond Fields Horse on the blade, so it must have been used in one of the Boer Wars. The hilt construction is brass....rods? The scabbard is brown leather covered and has a frog made for a Same Browne belt. Would this be a light cavalry trooper's saber and what pattern would it be? I'm not sure of the blade pattern but it looks like the same blade shape and construction as an 1853 pattern light cavalry troopers saber I have (I may be wrong about that too after watching this video). I know this video was about heavy cavalry officer's sabers but I am curious about this sword I have. thanks.
Why were the heavy and light cavalry swords so radically different in form? Clearly heavy and light cavalry are used for different roles, but were the swords used differently? Were the heavy cavalry trained to use the point more, hence the straight blade?
you're BRILLIANT!
Would please elaborate more about who carried that sword in the Indian Mutiny?
Heavy cavalry officer's only.
I believe he's asking of the specific Officers name, if it has the provenance
@@CadmusCurtis Yeah I meant the officer !
You're sure the 1896 pattern didn't use the hilt from the 1887 pattern?
(I'm joking, people)
It seems like these swords have a chequered past.
No the past swords were less chequered
Hey, all this seems to be information that was just on the fringes of other videos. In fact, I think Matt said he would talk about all of this in a later video.
GUYS I FOUND THE VIDEO WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THINGS LATER
Any plans to review the Red Dragon Combat range from The Knight Shop?
Would enjoy hearing you discuss/review the last fight between Mel Gibson and the British colonel from the patriot. Probably not an interesting scene from a HEMA perspective but would still enjoy it. Maybe discussing the gear.
Good news man, he did already. Good suggestion though thanks for the comment.
Matt, I Am absolutely astounded by your knowledge of Historical British Officer's swords. I Love the blade on the first sword, I believe it was 1897? Why did the British have so many different types of hilts/grips/blades? It is almost analogous to a LEGO set, lol. I know there have Alway's been civilian customer's, I just didn't realize the British Military had So Many variations, it is truly hard to keep up with. I do however like the one saber with the step down pommel. It is also astounding the different size of grips, and rayskin or leather, different types of twisted wire. It's mind boggling. You Truly Are an expert in your field of study Matt....Kudos!!!
The simple answer is that officers had to purchase their own swords, as opposed to the enlisted troopers who had them issued to them. As a result, an officer could order their sword with any number of minor differences so long as it appeared to be, overall, regulation, esp,. in the hilt. Also, as regulations changed, sometimes officers would have their swords modified to meet the new regulation pattern in one way or another instead of buying a brand new sword of the new pattern. For example, if there's a hilt change an officer could keep the blade from their old sword but have a new hilt fitted so that, when sheathed, it appeared to be regulation even if the blade wasn't.
Hey Matt,have you tested the sjambok that Eric Dean sent you ? I would be interested in hearing your expert opinion on it.
I don't have one, sorry.
@@scholagladiatoria ahh that is a pity,i only heard good things about it, i was expecting to hear your insightful analysis,expecially since this type of flexible weapons are often forgotten. It reminds me of the book Sap Blackjacks and Slungshot ,since it talks expecially about this.
Two questions. Was the British Military really picky about the detail of the swords carried by officers as long as they "looked" to pattern from a distance? It was against U.S. Army regulations to sharpen issue swords. (Don't know about officers) Was this true of the British Army?
Is the plating indicative of a dress sword or just rate to have one that still has its plating? Seems a bit mad to have 2 swords for battle and parade
No, plating was just an optional extra. Plating meant it wouldn't rust and was easier to look after. Nickel plating only became available from the 1860s and only really common in the 1880s/90s. But if you wanted to save some money then you could get one without plating. Or if you wanted to spend more you could get silver plating!
How about pattern 1890 and 1899 cavalry swords?
They are troopers' swords, nothing to do with officers.
Can I ask why cannot be the 96 pattern to have the 87 backstrap style? Sorry to bother but I missed how we know the square backstrap came only in the 90’
That's when it was invented by the manufacturer... in 95. Wilkinson is still around, they make shavers now. Probably still have pretty complete company records when somebody asks.
@@EclipsisTenebris There's probably also government records detailing what the details are on a given pattern of sword. Plus, researching surviving examples would tell you roughly when certain features first started to show up in a given pattern of swords. To this day, Wilkin swords that still have inscriptions on them can be looked up to see when it was made and/or sold and to whom. So by cross referencing the surviving examples with Wilkinson (and other) records will give you a pretty accurate estimate of when certain features first and last appeared.
Could you clear up one detail? You showed a lot of examples, but never an 1887 pattern one. Why not? ;)
New glasses? Looking good.
Hi Matt from Greece.Of course I would not say there is 1887 pattern because there is not as you better know.I have seen in Greek source that the Greek cavalry had 1887 sword in the balkan wars.Also in Asia minor campaign as we call it in 1919.I would like to know more since my grandfather was a cavalry trooper during these wars.
That's a gorgeous sword, the 1821 Heavy Calvary...
It is, though I find pipe-backs ugly.
@@Robert399 Yes, the versions with fullered blades are prettier.
Wasn't the 1887 pattern carried by Dr. Who? He'd have it for sure
Whoa, have never been this early
So what you're saying is....they really liked that design of guard! Or really couldn't be arsed to come up with a different design. 'All our funding has gone on the backstrap, they'll have to wait for a guard until the next pattern'(repeat)....
I would love to have a reproduction of a honeysuckle ladder guard like that example. Reproduction guards are really difficult to find in general though.
I prefer trooper swords, but hardly ever do folks talk about those. :)
Matt, please do a video on modern(WW 1 and on) combat knives. Also, please do a video on hunting swords/hangers. Thank you!
I'd swear he's done a video on at least one hunting sword, and I know he's covered a couple different hangers.
Crusader approved
Troopers were the horses. not the men!
I'm here, probably the only guy who thinks the 1796 Heavy Cavalry sword looks better without the spear point conversion...
In 1887 they where in lockdown.
either the camera is wonky, or the sword racks are wonky...or matt is leaning...
I like the leaning theory.
my theory is that cat Easton as a cameraman was a bad idea :)
It's probably just perspective from the camera, you have to remember that cameras don't see things exactly the same as the human eye.Filmmakers and photographers have known this for ages and have used these differences to their advantage. A good example of this was the Lord of the Rings movies where they made the actress that played Hobbits appear smaller to another actor in the same scene by placing them further away from the camera than the "human" actor. In this case, it's probably a bit of lens distortion going on making the background appear titled because the camera is at an angle to the back wall.
O.K., but about the 1887 pattern . . .
Sorry, it's likely a stale joke by now.
Is this some type of "Mandela" effect?