"Prussian Sword Knots 1810-1815" Topic

I'm probably missing something obvious, so forgive me.

I the Brigade uniform plates for the 1st & 2nd E. Prussian Line Infantry as well as Osprey Warrior 62.

The problem is that the information they give, pertaining to sword knots, for the companies of the first battalion don't match. Through a couple discussions elsewhere it appears the other Osprey matches the Brigade plates, but the Perry insert matches the Warrior 62 information.

What am I missing? Which ones are correct?

Thanks!

Just checked a few sources.
The sword knots consisted of Strap, Schiebe, Stengel, Kranz and Tassel. I've always assumed these are listed top to bottom and as such the coloured bits are as in the Osprey Men at Arms # 152 list.
ie. the first Bn. had white Schiebe, Stengel and a coloured Kranz in white, yellow, lt. blue and red for the 1st to 4th Cos.
The second Bn. had coloured Schiebe and Kranz for the 5th to 8th Cos. in green, yellow, lt. blue and red. The Stengel being white in all these Cos.
Nash's book & the mont-saint-jean site also lists them this way.

Summerfield's 'Prussian Infantry' lists the above in a table on p.74., but on the previous page has a diagram showing a different arrangement – the 1st Bn. Stengel or middle bit in the above colours. ??
So I don't know which is correct !

The description of the sword knots given by Peter Hofschröer on p. 30 of his MAA 152, cited by Camcleod above is correct.

The illustrations of sword knots or company tassels for the first battalion which are found in my Osprey Warrior, are wrong (except, of course, the all-white first company). My mistake, I am sorry.

So the second to fourth company had a coloured Kranz, not a coloured Stengel as depicted.

On the other hand, concerning the sword knots of the two grenadier companies, they were as they are given in my Osprey Warrior: white with black Kranz for the first company, white with black Kranz and black Schieber for the 2nd company. Peter is wrong here, because the – usually reliable – secondary source on which he based his table is wrong. My info was taken form the original regulation.

Thanks for the help, gentlemen, much appreciated.