The m1804 British naval cutlass

[M ELEY]

It has come to my attention that we've never discussed this pattern in much detail in the past and while no expert, I'd love to open the table for discussion on these interesting pieces.

First off, a little background for those seeking future information on these. The model 1804 British cutlass developed from the single disc knuckle guard pattern that predated it by fifty years or so (I'll display one shortly). Around the same time as the single disc came another pattern, so called the figure-of-eight pattern because it resembled the number 8 with it's double disc guard. Yet another pattern came from these early types, popping up around the time of the American Revolution and resembling the predecessor with the only exception being the grip. This pattern had a smooth iron core (see pic). Finally, after the beginning of the 19th century, we finally see our m1804!

[M ELEY]

Pics of the mid-18th century single disc guard cutlass. Note the rolled metal quillon, an extention of the sheet-metal cut guard, which transitioned over to the later models. Also of note was that these single discs were used by both the Brits and Americans. This point is important when we look at the m1804 and how the American patterns swords of the time (the so-called Baltimore pattern, see Gilkerson's Boarders Away) copied the same patterns-

[M ELEY]

The m1804 cutlass retained the figure of eight double disc to the knuckle bow and guard, but unlike its predessors, it developed a ridged/grooved iron grip. This cutlass developed during the time of the Napoleonic Wars and was also used during the War of 1812 against the Americans. It was a simple, yet sturdy edged weapon perfect for combat at sea. The blade was heavy and straight, blunt except for towards the tip. The weight of a good swing could break bone with the dull edge or cleave a skull with the sharpened tip (this weapon inspired enough fear that the American forces invented their own 'boarding cap/helmet' of thick leather to prevent such attacks). The plain iron weapons were painted black on the hilts to prevent rust and were rolled out in barrels to dispense to the boarding parties/defenders during combat.

[M ELEY]

Note the peened tang at the pommel and the simple cut sheet guard that was simply folded over the grip. The small open slot near the pommel was for a leather lanyard that a sailor could wrap around his wrist to keep him from losing his grip during battle on a moving ship in hand-to-hand combat and often with bloody hands! The guard of the cutlass could likewise be used as a weapon to punch adversaries in the face!

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

[M ELEY]

The contractors for the 1804 Pattern cutlass as of May, 1804 are:

Henry Osborn, T Hadley, Woolley & Co, Craven and Co, and Dawes.
Whether these are just merchants selling to the naval department or actual producers of the weapons, I do not know. The significance is these firms frequently had their own varying GR government ordenance stamp.

The contractors for September 30th 1808 were:

Woolley, Gill, Dawes, Osborn, Hadley, Reddell, Cooper, and Bates.

It is also noted that Tatham and Egg also furnished this pattern. There were NO MORE cutlasses ordered by the Board of Ordnance for the 1814-41 period, after which a new naval pattern British cutlass emerged.

[M ELEY]

Not all m1804 pattern cutlass are stamped. This presents a puzzle, as the British marked everything government issue with either the GR or the broad arrow mark (for a great nautical book, see Heart of Oak:A Sailor's Life in Nelson's Navy by James McGuane. This book shows to what lengths the ordnance department stamped the broad arrow on everything from nails to glass panes to hard biscuit!). It can only be assumed that the unmarked 1804's were overstock and perhaps used for private purchase merchantmen and privateers of the British commerce fleet. As no new patterns were issued after 1814, perhaps these were 'late-comers' to the war effort and were sold to other nations? I don't believe they would have been issued to any of the other semi-naval departments (Revenue Cutters, Dock workers) for the exact reasons explained above.

To show how popular the m1804 pattern was, here id a British private purchase sword which, although it has a sheet pattern guard, still retains the ribbed iron grip and straight bladed spear point of the discussed pattern. Note the weak punch mark. Is it a GR? WR? VR? Hard to tell-

[M ELEY]

Here are some great references for those interested in the subject matter-

Gilkerson's Boarders Away:With Steel
Heart of Oak, James McQuane
Naval Swords, P.G.W. Annis
Navies of the American Revolution, Prentice-Hall
British 18th & 19th Century Naval Cutlasses, Harvey Withers
Small Arms of the Sea Service, Rankin
British Naval Edged Weapons-An Overview (online article by Peter Tuite)

[Jim McDougall]

What an outstanding subject for a thread Capn!!! and these are fascinating weapons that hold amazing pasts in maritime lore!
While these are referred to as M1804, I wonder if, as with many 'regulation patterns' these were in use in some degree prior to bring recognized officially in 1804.

Are there prototypes of other hilt forms which might have led to the distinct double disc (thus figure 8) guards of the hilt?
The single disc American hilt you show is interesting, but perhaps the second disc was of course for better hand protection recalling the 'basket hilt'?

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Were these used on private ships such as merchant vessels? also any evidence these might have been used by East India Co.?

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim, you old sea dog! Great to hear from you! Yes, these are definitely the questions I too want answers to. It is very possible that this pattern was floating around for a while before it became locked in stone as the model 1804. As noted, the earlier Brit cutlass had the figure 8 and a smooth iron core (different from even earlier figure-8's such as Thomas Hollier's swords of the early 18th with their antler or wood grips). I imagine with the smooth-gripped Rev War period Brit cutlass would be very slippery without the grooves so, thus, the 'new' model. Leave it to naval swords/cutlasses (which had no defined patterns until the last quarter of the 18th century, unlike every other branch of the military. Add to that the so-called private purchase one off swords, which again we typically don't see with any other military branch.)

I had totally forgotten about the whole East India connection! Still, I would think they would fall under control of the British monarchy and be so marked. To add even more confusion to the mess, we have the whole Schnitzler and Kirschbaum situation as detailed by Gilkerson. This firm had this model in their catalog circa 1850's AND it had a spurious block letter GR under crown on it/ Why would this be? Are we to assume the GR mark would be viewed as a sign of quality, much like the spurious Andrea Ferrera or Sahagan marking?

As far as the S&K swords, I'm wondering if the marking isn't spurious at all, but perhaps the cutlasses were simple overstock? Or perhaps the blades date to the wars and were refurbished in S&K made hilts? Better question yet, who was buying them then? Perhaps other country's merchant ships, but then why the GR to confuse things? I even started spinning off my gears thinking 'Were all of the m1804 blades German imports in the first place, with the said English suppliers just offering their wares as middlemen, as was pretty common back in the day! That might explain why the S&K had the GR, because they made and supplied the blades earlier. One thing is for sure to me. I don't believe S&K made these swords as a sort of historismus to the earlier wars. Had they been made a hundred+ years later, perhaps, but this was within a quarter century of the m1804's use. So hopefully someone out there has my answer!!:eek:

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance. The only German imports were through J.J.Runkel as far as I know.
I havent seen any Runkel cutlasses I can recall.

It does seem curious that the GR was on blades so late, and it may be that these were simply 'surplus' as sold off to private merchantmen, as such markings were not really relevant and these were serviceable weapons.

The East India Co. thing is a kind of mystery as well. They must have had cutlasses on their ships, but I am not familiar with what they used. As this was not a British government situation, they would not have the usual markings.
However, as David Harding claimed, no swords were ever marked with the EIC balemark, only gun locks and firearms, however bayonets which fell into the firearms category were so marked.

Those references you note are excellent, but I dont have them at the moment. Do you have the Sim Comfort reference?

[M ELEY]

I missed out on the opportunity to buy Mr. Comfort's volume when I had the chance (at $100 on it's release, I thought it too high! Oh boy, do I regret that decision!) I hope to find a used copy someday, as I know the books sell for an arm and a leg (pirate joke!) these days!

[kronckew]

I've read somewhere that the Board of Ordinance, being Army, insisted that all swords produced for them at the time would have a slot for a sword knot near the pommel.

The Navy order their 1804s without a sword knot slot because the seaman didn't rate one.

So the Army bean counters gave them one anyway. Which then, of course, some bright sparks in the navy actually used with a braided leather sword knot justincase someone dropped theirs accidentally.

My 1804 cutlass (https://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25476&highlight=1804+cutlass), blade, serrated grip, cleaned of red primer smears and retaining its dark patina, and spectacle guard painted flat black with MOD spec paint. NO markings other than a double 'sold out of service' broad arrow of the BOE. It has a very faint maker's stamp on the spine ??????LEY. I accidentally found a period braided, ball end, cutlass knot, a bit stiff, which I used to hang it on for the picture.

[M ELEY]

Excellent example, Wayne! It seems that either the GR or the broad arrow were the preferred BOE marks. Thank you also for that information on the sword knot slot. I always felt it was rather redundant as well. These cutlass are so heavy, I think if one slipped from your fingers during a swing and you were tethered to the beast, you'd either break your wrist or be flung in the current dirrection it was headed! Could the partial name be Hadley? He was one of the suppliers, from what I understand.

[CutlassCollector]

Great post Mark, good to see cutlasses.
These are my three. The top one is a Harvey marked on the spine and the second Thomas Craven marked on the blade. The third is the Norwegian/Swedish almost exact copy - a little later 1810.

What always surprised me about the 1804 is that although it was heavier and longer than many other cutlasses it still feels good in the hand. Well balanced and 'light'.

[M ELEY]

Hello CC and great to hear from you! Thanks for posting these and it is great to see the subtle differenes to the pieces based on each maker. They are not all 'cookie cutter', as some would surmize. I had quite forgotten about the the Swedish varient of the m1804! Do we know how these were contracted out? As they still fell into the time period of Fighting Sail, did England purposely stock them to help protect Swedish shipping from Napoleonic privateers? I've seen the Swedish crown marking and, I believe, some with the king's initials? CR or ??? My memory is a little lax right now-:o

[kronckew]

... Could the partial name be Hadley? ...


Could be. I had a brain fart that maybe it was M Eley :D. Could be Woolley too.


p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

[M ELEY]

p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

Gotcha 100%!! :D:D:D

[Jim McDougall]

The lanyard, sword knot thing with these is most interesting. Wayne makes a good point about not having these tethered to ones arm when possible fall into water loomed. The thing with cavalry sabers is more pragmatic as being on a fast moving horse and losing your weapon would be disastrous in a melee.

The idea of the blood, sweat, moisture issues compromising hold is surely viable given the potential of those factors being present, whether the frequency was regularly seen or not.

What I have found interesting in reading more on these is that it seems there were numerous cases of these being captured, or otherwise acquired by American naval vessels. It was interesting to note a hole drilled in the forward section of the main guard disc, said to be done by sailors for the very reason of holding the cutlass securely as discussed.
Yet, these already have the aperture at the top of the knuckleguard section near the pommel, so it would seem redundant.

Thank you CC for adding these examples, and I have wondered just how many makers were supplying these in these early years, now I can see Harvey added to the list along with Craven et al. It is puzzling to me that some have the marking J.Gill. As far as have known J. Gill was marked using the letter seen now as 'I' in place of J in alphabets of the period. I have a M1796 heavy cavalry by Gill marked I Gill (=John) from 1814.

[toaster5sqn]

Jim, I've tried to make sense out of the I Gill, J Gill, T Gill situation with regard to dating an 1851 pattern hanger and I came away more confused than when I started, The original Gill was a file cutler and I can't even find agreement on when the family added swords to their product list.
If anyone knows a good source I'm all ears.

Robert

[Radboud]

Jim, I've tried to make sense out of the I Gill, J Gill, T Gill situation with regard to dating an 1851 pattern hanger and I came away more confused than when I started, The original Gill was a file cutler and I can't even find agreement on when the family added swords to their product list.
If anyone knows a good source I'm all ears.

Robert

Morning Robert, Steve Langham has done a lot of research on British cutlers and maintains an excellent online database:

'Gill Cutlers' (https://naturalacuity.com/SwordSearch/Makers.php?key=0ff3bffe-6cd6-4f8f-9a3d-02f606c626ed)

If you click on the I in the corner Steve lists his sources (https://naturalacuity.com/SwordSearch/Makers.php?key=0ff3bffe-6cd6-4f8f-9a3d-02f606c626ed)

So from Steve's research, the earliest evidence we have is that Thomas Gill Snr advertised himself as a maker of swords (plus more) in 1788

[Radboud]

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance.

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

[Radboud]

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.


Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

[toaster5sqn]

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

[Radboud]

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

[toaster5sqn]

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

The more you learn the less clear cut it becomes!

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.



Richard Dellar's book is outstanding!! as is the supplement added later.
This image is from a M1796 heavy cavalry disc hilt made in 1814, According to my understanding of Dellar's chapter, John was indeed the one making blades .
He passed in 1817, and his widow Elizabeth took over the business. It is unclear who made the blades at this point.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

"Swords of the British Army" Brian Robson, 1975, p.15:
"...at its second meeting on 7 June, 1788 the Board went into the thorny question of German versus British manufacture. It took evidence on the British side from three manufacturers- Thomas Gill, Samuel Harvey and James Wooley- from Birmingham and on the German side, J.J.Runkel".

Possibly the term 'sword scandals' might have caused you to misunderstand what I was talking about, but as I expressed 1790s, it does indicate I meant a period long before Queen Victoria's time (Victorian period 1837-1901). To be sure, there was considerable consternation about British sword blades through the Victorian period as well and quality issues, but these had nothing to do with Gill, Wooley, Runkel or the testing in 1788.
The tests and aftermath led Gill to begin using the term 'warranted' on his blades, and a number of other British makers followed suit, with this convention waning in the early years of the 19th c.

Thomas Gill had passed in 1801- and John in 1817.

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

[Jim McDougall]

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.


Thomas Gill II was indeed making swords as early as 1780, in fact was already involved in petitions etc regarding issues with importing German blades to be hilted by English cutlers. By 1787 there was a trial against J J Runkel for damages favor of the five known makers in England at the time.

Gill definitely had some questionable actions involving these matters, and there were claims that Gill even may have had connections to Matthew Boulton (London inventor and swordsmith) who is believed to have invented the machine used.
Thomas Gill II is the Gill we are discussing, it gets confusing as his son Thomas III was involved for a very short time in the business.

[Jim McDougall]

The J Gill thing was my own faux pas guys! I was thinking out loud of John, and should have used 'I 'as marked. Oops :)

[Radboud]

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

I get the impression that you are mixing your history together. The so-called 'Sword Scandals' are a specific event that occurred in the 1880s which Matt Easton describes in the following video:

When 'Made in Germany' Meant Bad! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVTKWeixSBY&t=386s)

Essentially cheap mass-produced German swords and bayonets were found to be of unreliable quality resulting in a number of noticeable failures in the field. Hence the 'Scandal'.

The tests you are referring to were initiated by Gill after much lobbying to the Ordnance board (who refused to conduct them as it was a matter for the supply officers) and were finally done for an order placed by the East India Company, were a response to complaints by British Cutlers.

The cutlers were complaining that existing taxes on German blades should be lifted because they were protecting inferior British-produced blades. Gill, seeing that his business was threatened, lobbied that his British-made blades were superior to the German imports, and challenged the Ordnance board to test his claims.

When Gills swords were tested, they were shown to be markedly better than the ones supplied by J J Runkel and Wooley (I have posted the numbers previously). However, the Runkel blades performed much better than the Wooley ones, confirming that, except for Gills blades, the German-made blades were better than those manufactured locally. This is the opposite of what happened with the actual 'Sword Scandals' in the 1880s.

[Radboud]

Gill definitely had some questionable actions involving these matters, and there were claims that Gill even may have had connections to Matthew Boulton (London inventor and swordsmith) who is believed to have invented the machine used.
Thomas Gill II is the Gill we are discussing, it gets confusing as his son Thomas III was involved for a very short time in the business.

You need to get Richard Dellars book on the British Cavalry Swords, he has two excellent chapters on Gill and J J Runkel which covers this period in a lot of detail.

Thomas Gill II did a lot of machining work for Matthew Boulton and was openly praised by the latter for the precision and quality of his work. They almost certainly worked together on the testing machine that was used.

[M ELEY]

I found this interesting thread from a while back concerning the Swedish edition of the m1804. Can anyone confirm if there truly was a version in Sweden called the m1849?? I'll have to do some searching when I get a moment. Celtan mentions the German version, no doubt the S&K we mentioned. The Americans were copying the m1804, but instead of the ribbed iron grip, we usually see either a smooth-core wooden grip or a ribbed curly maple grip. From these U.S. private purchase-types of the period, we begin to see the so-called Baltimore pattern cutlass appear (ribbed maple grips, figure-of-eight hilt of black iron with rolled quillon with either straight, spear-point blades or curved clip-point blades). This article mentions a Portuguese and Spanish version or after-market use of this model? Fernando, are you aware of any such influx? This old thread hints that the crown by itself models weren't Swede? Could they be for the Portugal market?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7240

[M ELEY]

The answer to the conundrum! Very interesting history that covers the Spanish, Portuguese and Swedish connection. These swords certainly made their way around!

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.12781.html

[Jim McDougall]

I get the impression that you are mixing your history together. The so-called 'Sword Scandals' are a specific event that occurred in the 1880s which Matt Easton describes in the following video:

When 'Made in Germany' Meant Bad! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVTKWeixSBY&t=386s)

Essentially cheap mass-produced German swords and bayonets were found to be of unreliable quality resulting in a number of noticeable failures in the field. Hence the 'Scandal'.

The tests you are referring to were initiated by Gill after much lobbying to the Ordnance board (who refused to conduct them as it was a matter for the supply officers) and were finally done for an order placed by the East India Company, were a response to complaints by British Cutlers.

The cutlers were complaining that existing taxes on German blades should be lifted because they were protecting inferior British-produced blades. Gill, seeing that his business was threatened, lobbied that his British-made blades were superior to the German imports, and challenged the Ordnance board to test his claims.

When Gills swords were tested, they were shown to be markedly better than the ones supplied by J J Runkel and Wooley (I have posted the numbers previously). However, the Runkel blades performed much better than the Wooley ones, confirming that, except for Gills blades, the German-made blades were better than those manufactured locally. This is the opposite of what happened with the actual 'Sword Scandals' in the 1880s.

I suspected that by using the word SCANDALS, even though I specified 1790s and Thomas Gill, you might have misunderstood what I meant. Indeed the issues with the quality of blades persisted THROUGH the 19th century, and involved pretty much every pattern of sword in one way or another. While these issues (or scandals) prevailed, in the 19th century matters it was not so much on German imports as designs, quality etc.
Matt Easton is an excellent researcher so his coverage on this is great.

The issues brought forth by Thomas Gill were indeed as you describe, but the matters at hand involved in many clandestine dealings and issues which were deemed unsavory, thus considered scandalous. While not specifically labeled by that term in references, the conditions using the term were my own description (though I have seen it used in reference in other sources in the same manner).
So actually I am not confusing history, but used a common term which described the events I referred to, and specified in my comments exactly the period to which it applied. I am sorry you misunderstood, so thank you for clarifying.

Yes, I have had Richard's book since it came out, and his chapters on the Gill's and especially Runkel are brilliant!!! I cannot say enough on the excellence of his research and the thorough coverage. For years, since I first began using Robson (1975) that was my primary resource as in those days I was collecting every British cavalry pattern (took a while but I did it :).
Richard's book does not supercede Robson directly, but perfectly augments it, which is why "new perspectives" is included in the title.

Having discussed Gill as one of the apparently numerous makers of the British 1804 pattern cutlasses, in interesting detail, I hope we can see more examples, marked, by other makers of the period. On that note, if these were as suspected, around in some from before the 1804 regulation I wonder if Thomas Gill II might have been involved. It seems in the 1788 period of the 'scandals' his swords were primarily for officers, while those by Wooley were with simple name stamp on back of blade.
It would be most interesting if Thomas Gill II might have made a cutlass prior to his death in 1801.

The others marked Gill (by John) would seem post 1806 or thereabout?

[Jim McDougall]

I just got the Sim Comfort volumes!!! and they are unbelievable!

To answer some of my own questions in first browsing,
it seems the double disc cutlass as a form may well have been created by Thomas Hollier, between 1716-1727 and was around variously through the century. I did find an example by Thomas Gill from 1780-85,
the blade was stamped on face, upper quadrant at forte, Tho. GILL

Thomas Gill was registered c. 1774 as a steel worker toys, files, razord.
About 1783 listed as sword maker, but it is suggested may have done so earlier due to the Revolutionary War.

[M ELEY]

Jim, I hear that Sim Comfort's books are monumental and the photographs like art pieces! I, unfortunately, don't have his two volumes, but hope to get them someday.

So, we've got the classic m1804s from the period 1804/5-1815, with the GR marking either scripted (early issuance?) or block letter, indicating officially government-used, we have many with the makers of the period without the GR stamp (of the period, but made for the private market, but only for British privates/frigates? Or for Britain's allies of Sweden, Portugal, etc?). We have the models with just the crown, which were made for the Swedes (the question here was when? Some say as the wars were going on. Others say they weren't issued until nearly the 1830's?). Finally, we have the completely unmarked examples that might or might not be in the 1805-15 timeline. Still so many questions...

To add to the puzzle, many of the original ordnance of the early period would have been re-issued out at later periods. Maritime weapons were, above all other military force weapons, reused well past the days of Figting Sail. Gilkerson notes well that boarding pikes from 1812 had new hafts made with reused pike heads and these stayed on some ships up until WWI!! Cutlasses likewise remained on the private fleets into the era of the China Clippers. The reason for their continued use was they were second to none in the prevention in boarding. Many of the mid to late 19th century watercraft that were sailing through the South China Sea, off the Philippines, near Borneo or the Aceh peninsula had much to worry about with pirates. Likewise, some of the ethnographic tribes in the Solomons and places like the Kingsmill Islands (for example) were not always friendly to European visitors. Thus, we have another colorful and exciting period for these antiquated weapons.

[CutlassCollector]

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

I thought I would post pictures of this British Coastguard cutlass because it has a good example of the block GR and is also marked Enfield and a rather worn crown. The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

It is also interesting because the shape of the blade looks like it took its inspiration from the very rare 1814 cutlass. Sim Comfort suggests that the 1814 exists with two different grips (page 235) - the same as the 1804 grip and a later version.
The coastguard cutlass grip is like the later version. It is more shaped at the palm and the end with 20 spiral rings and does not have the vertical slots of the 1804 grip.

[adrian]

The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

Unfortunately the 'end date' of 1830 cannot be ascribed and should be extended to c1840 given the evidence of other blades of later date with the same stamps. Take for example the early Brunswick Rifle swords that are also stamped ENFIELD and have that same crown/GR stamp - those date to the early reign of Queen Victoria.... an example from my collection below. I have yet to come across a convincing reason for this other than that they had yet to replace the GR stamp that was used for such blades; Blackmore cites evidence that the 1800 dated storekeeper's stamp, applied to the stock (butt) of small arms, was still being used in 1824, so it would not be an isolated case of an 'old' stamp continuing in use.

[adrian]

Also a photo of an unusual Sappers & Miners style sword socket bayonet with the same stamp. Two examples of the longarm with this bayonet are known and have been varying identified as P/1836 Sea Service Muskets or as early prototype Sappers and Miner Pattern 1841 Carbine - new research however shows such ascriptions as incorrect, they are 'Presentation' carbine & its bayonet, made at Enfield in about 1838-40.

[CutlassCollector]

Thanks Adrian. Just when you think there is something definite!

Interesting that the GR was still being used right through William's reign and into Victoria's.
I know carving out the mirror image cypher onto a steel punch to form the stamp must have required a large amount of skill. There is a Victoria cypher which has been made by removing part of the W from a William cypher. I'll look out the pictures.
Tends to support the theory that it took awhile for new stamps to get made.

[adrian]

Thanks Adrian. Just when you think there is something definite!

I study the longarms more so than the blades and I do agree that, frustratingly, there almost always seems to be an exception to any 'rule'.

Interesting that the GR was still being used right through William's reign and into Victoria's.

William did have his own cypher placed on locks set-up to arms within his reign. However most barrels used in his reign were 'old' from Store & therefore have their original GR proof stamps. The only proof stamp that can confidently be ascribed to William is the 'crown/TP/arrow' stamp (sometimes in different config) and that can be found on the few 'new made' barrels from his reign, such as on the Manton P/1833 Cavalry Carbine. His reign was a 'quiet' time for arms manufacture as the old war store was still being 'run down' and experimentation was being conducted on the percussion system.

I know carving out the mirror image cypher onto a steel punch to form the stamp must have required a large amount of skill.
The stamps appear to have generally been ordered from makers, there are records of purchase but it does seems to have been rather frugal in the way we see old stamps being used much later.

There is a Victoria cypher which has been made by removing part of the W from a William cypher. I'll look out the pictures. Tends to support the theory that it took a while for new stamps to get made.

I would be most interested to see that - a separate thread perhaps. I doubt it would be a lock plate cypher, due to the engraving method of application at that time. I suspect therefore that you mean the Crown/MR proof stamp which is most often misinterpreted as Crown IVR and ascribed to William IV (Blackmore has that misinterpretation) or as VR and ascribed to Victoria, as it is often mis-struck but is different to her much later VR proof stamp. The Crown/MR stamp actually dates to no later than 1816. (ref Bailey, The Armoury Mills Kent, JAAS Vol 21 No.6)

[M ELEY]

Thank you, CC and Adrian, for your input. I, too, am flummoxed by the quite late usage of the block GR stamping! Is there any significance, though, to the fact that the early block letters found on blades were in-line to the hilt whereas these are perpendicular?

CC, That is an amazing and beautiful example of a Coastguard cutlass! You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR. I had assumed it was a later stamping, as it is weak and the style of sword from earlier. But with all of this new information on WR markings made into VR stamps and GR stamps still around in the mid-19th, the puzzle continues!

And do I dare say I've seen British 1845 cutlass marked simply with RN (Royal Navy? Yet, no crown or Victoria, or??? My head is about to explode!:eek:)

[adrian]

You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR.

As you suspect it is a VR stamp, if WR it would be too 'off center'.

[M ELEY]

Makes sense. Have you seen the RN stamps on any of the later Brit pattern cutlasses? A while back, there was an online auction with several naval pieces marked as such, but again, no gov't issuance mark?

[adrian]

Have you seen the RN stamps on any of the later Brit pattern cutlasses?

Not that I recollect, however my interest in cutlasses does not run to any great depth.


A while back, there was an online auction with several naval pieces marked as such, but again, no gov't issuance mark?

Whilst I am familiar with various items & ordnance intended for sea service often bearing the letter 'N' to distinguish that it is for Naval issue those items were Ordnance supplied and as such they bear Ordnance inspection stamps etc. An item dating from the Georgian to the mid/late Victorian period marked RN would therefore get my attention as being outside of this, and if it bore no Ordnance markings then I would consider it to be highly suspect as far as it being a British sea service item. For anything later, I do not know enough to do other than speculate.

[M ELEY]

Thanks, Adrian. Just wanted to get your opinion. Perhaps these cutlasses were more of the private purchase type for merchantmen or direct export and the RN might have simply been a maker's stamp?

[kronckew]

The British 'Coastguard' cutlass has a ribbed steel grip and a brass guard, the blade suggests it was influenced by the 1796 LC sabre, but shorter. The scabbard was steel, with the centre section japanned black.


The sword was carried on horseback by the Coastal riders of the ;ate 18c & early 19c. They were essentially customs agents looking for smugglers. Much like the USCG, which started as the 'Revenue Cutter Service'. The Present UK Coastguard is not an armed service, unlike the USCG, which is.


the British Coast riders were recommended for disbandment in in 1783, but became the UK Coastguard, formed in 1822 from a merger of the Revenue Cruisers, the Riding Officers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_officer) and the Preventative Water Guard. There were at their peak only 291 riding officers to guard the whole UK.

When they were later disbanded & disarmed, many of the swords were reissued later to the hospital corps in the later years of the 19c.

Mine:

[CutlassCollector]

My main reason to post the Coastguard cutlass was to support Mark's view on the block GR by British manufacturers. I have to admit though that my knowledge of cyphers and crowns is limited. It would be a good thread on its own as Adrian suggests.

In the meantime this neatly brings us back to Mark's 1804 thread. There are at least two 1804's with a VR cypher. I owned one of them in the past and can vouch that it is a genuine 1804 cutlass and not a replica. It has been discussed before and opinions vary as to why an 1804 would have a VR stamp when no new cutlasses had been made for many years. Some think that the cypher is fake, but it looks OK to me - any thoughts?

My own theory for the contradiction follows. A large number of existing 1804 cutlasses had been sent to the tower for modification, which included a new hilt, when a serious fire at the Tower in 1841 destroyed large numbers of these. In order to make up the the serious shortage these were re-issued with a VR stamp in the 1840s. There is no proof of course and unless there was a stock of unmarked spares it does not explain why there are no signs of a GR or other markings.

The cypher seems to have been made by altering the W to a V. Perhaps because a new cypher was not yet made for the new monarch.

[CutlassCollector]

You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR.


Hi Mark, I'm thinking VR as well although hard to tell. It looks more like the end of a V and note the 'modified' W above has a horizontal serif at the top.

[CutlassCollector]

Reference the VR cutlass. It was the faded cypher I owned and it was very well used and worn. I spotted the other one go through an auction and stole the pictures.
I'm told the crown is correct for the period a James Crown - again my knowledge is limited in that area. It does look similar to the crown on Adrian's two examples and the coastguard with the two crosses at the front of the same period.
But it is very different from the GR crown on Mark's 1804 in post 3.

[adrian]

It has been discussed before and opinions vary as to why an 1804 would have a VR stamp when no new cutlasses had been made for many years. Some think that the cypher is fake, but it looks OK to me - any thoughts?

Thank you for posting the photos of this intriguing WR modified to VR royal cypher. I can only draw a parallel with muskets of the same period. The war store of these (complete muskets) was so vast, by 1816, that it was not worryingly low until 1838, and measures were then undertaken to address that, while awaiting the new percussion arm to be finalised. The Store of parts was also vast, and it was that 'store' which provided barrels & locks for the new arms. The barrels had their GR era proof & view stamps, they were not erased & re-stamped, merely viewed & approved as regards their 'percussioning'. The locks did not anyway have any engraving & bore only an acceptance stamp - so they acquired the current royal cypher as part of the work of setting-up an arm. The number of muskets made using up the 'old' stock of barrels & locks comprised about eight patterns and numbered well over a quarter of a million muskets, the vast majority being Extra Service Muskets.

Quite why these blades have been stamped with a royal cypher is unknown to me, however it is clear that the cypher has been altered from WR to VR and that it looks to be authentic.



My own theory for the contradiction follows. A large number of existing 1804 cutlasses had been sent to the tower for modification, which included a new hilt, when a serious fire at the Tower in 1841 destroyed large numbers of these. In order to make up the the serious shortage these were re-issued with a VR stamp in the 1840s.

The fire at the Tower was, if one reads modern references, a major watershed in the direction of British Ordnance small arms due to it, supposedly, wiping out all percussion muskets made to date, wiping out a vast number of a new design of flintlock muskets that were going to be converted to percussion and wiping out a vast store of parts that were going to be used. This belief is largely false. I won't go into detail but would instead point any interested student of arms to a new book that will be published by the Royal Armouries next year in which chapter 7 covers that fire and the number of arms lost in detail, the book 'British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s'.
I have to say that it is unlikely that your quite sound theory will hold up to scrutiny as the official return for swords lost in that conflagration is 1,376 swords & 2,271 sword blades - it provides no distinction between sea service or land service, nor does it distinguish between those services for pistols, muskets, etc. How many of those 'swords' were cutlasses is therefore uncertain, but the overall number is anyway too small to have any import.

However, the Tower was only one of many Stores - which is why there was so little impact as can be seen by the aforementioned vast number of muskets made with barrels & locks from store, altered to percussion. So perhaps some cutlasses were made/altered at a different location, indeed I would have thought that Enfield, and not the Tower, would have been tasked with the changes you describe in your theory especially given the period under discussion.
Indeed there was 'Sea Service swords, alterations proposed on, by Storekeeper, Enfield. Approved by Admiralty.' and although that was in 1852 it is logical to speculate that this was not the first such instance of such work to sea service swords.

[M ELEY]

Thank you for posting that incredible modified WR marking! That really is an interesting adaptation from the original stamp! It is interesting that we obviously have the m1804s that are being used into William's and Victoria's era. No new pattern was created until the forth decade of the 19th, but still the odd fact that the GR was still being found on later pieces.

I had heard of the Tower fire, but always assumed it had mostly destroyed the stored guns. I wasn't thinking that there was a cache of the ole m1804's being kept there (duh!). That could explain the re-usage of the earlier blades when the stockpile was depleted and new ones weren't being issued. As Adrian points out, pure speculation, but at least a possible theory to this situation. I confess that it is mostly for selfish reasons why it bothers me! If the GR markings were used later (after Age of Fighting Sail), then they were used in an era where they were obsolescent. Likewise, how does one know if 'this cutlass over here' is of the period, but that one was post-1830 or whatever. I could see questioning the crown-marked Swedish imports or even the unmarked examples. But an 1804 with the GR has always been solidly assumed by most to be of the time period of the two Georges...until now, I guess!

[CutlassCollector]

This belief is largely false. I won't go into detail but would instead point any interested student of arms to a new book that will be published by the Royal Armouries next year in which chapter 7 covers that fire and the number of arms lost in detail, the book 'British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s'.

Any new research is, of course, always good and it will be interesting to see the results.

My theory, and it is just that, was based on the information in Swords for Sea Service (p80) whose authors had access to the relevant records.

'All available swords were to be sent to the Tower for modification. The modified cutlasses were coming into service by the end of March 1841, but before little more than 1000 had been modified and issued a fire at the Tower destroyed large numbers and left the Navy seriously short of weapons, and on 9th November, 1841 it was recommended that 10,000 new cutlasses be ordered.'

This was approved on 3rd December 1841.

Note that May and Annis are specifically talking about cutlasses there is no mention of firearms or other swords or how many were destroyed or unserviceable due to heat damage. According to the footnotes the information comes from War Office documents hence the exact dates. New information can always come to light with further research.

What is definite is the shortage of cutlasses at this time and the subsequent difficulty in obtaining new ones when none had been made for decades.

One of the stopgaps to cover the shortfall was making cutlasses by cutting down the blades of 1796 heavy cavalry swords (there were 12000 in storage) and fitting them with cutlass grips and guards. It is unclear how many of these were made but there are a few examples extant, but probably no where near the 8-10,000 ordered as the manufacturers were starting to get their act together and produce new cutlasses in quantity by 1845 or so.

'However, the Tower was only one of many Stores'
This is a good point - perhaps there were other 1804's in storage elsewhere that could have been brought into service, but again surely they would have been stamped with a cypher at manufacture not issue, like the large stocks of GR firearms you mention, that lasted into William's reign.

The VR 1804 remains a mystery, I guess.

CC

[adrian]

Thanks for posting that passage from 'Sea Service Swords', most interesting indeed.

All available swords were to be sent to the Tower for modification. The modified cutlasses were coming into service by the end of March 1841, but before little more than 1000 had been modified and issued a fire at the Tower destroyed large numbers and left the Navy seriously short of weapons, and on 9th November, 1841 it was recommended that 10,000 new cutlasses be ordered.

It indicates that these were being sent to the Tower in quite small batches, taking over ten months to achieve a number of 1,000 that had been modified & returned, that parallels similar practice with small arms modifications. So the aforementioned number of swords & sword blades combined, of 3,647 (contemporaneous quote from an official return of military and naval stores destroyed, an accurate figure and not a vague quantity), quite likely included several small 'batches', some hundreds. Not a large number by any means, unlikely to leave the Navy seriously short of weapons. It is difficult to determine the level of conjecture within that sentence without the inclusion of actual evidence that a large number of cutlasses/naval swords/swords, were destroyed in the Tower fire, which should ideally be quoted or referenced, especially if there is contrary evidence which can bring confusion. Does the book include a reference/citation for that sentence?


Drawing from research into the muskets of this period is a 'similar' passage in a very well know and excellent standard reference on British Military Firearms, by H.L. Blackmore, with, arguably, unparalleled access to Ordnance records, is written, ‘280,000 stand of arms, including most of the new percussion arms, were lost’. Simply put this has proved to be inaccurate but, and more importantly, it distorts the degree of significance of this 'event' as regards British Military arms manufacture. Had it been written that 'the Store was nearly depleted as regards serviceable flintlock muskets & only a small number of new percussion arms were lost' then the degree of significance in the mind of the reader is almost the opposite.

I mean no disrespect to the above authors, without such works our hobby would be a very hollow thing, and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share. Scrutiny of a small sentence here & there such as we are doing now would simply not be possible without such important contributions and is a commendation of such works.

[CutlassCollector]

It will be interesting to see the new book.

The fact that the navy ordered 10,000 replacements after the fire is well documented and eventually resulted in the new model 1845 cutlass. The existence of cutlasses made with 1796 heavy cavalry blades as a stopgap supports the claim there was a real shortage.
How much of that was a direct result of the fire is now not clear, but as the fleet had shrunk from 840 ships at the height of the Napoleonic wars to around 140 in 1845 the navy should have had large stocks of spare 1804s. So the numbers lost would have had to be high to cause a shortage, unless of course they had previously reduced the total by scrapping some.


Does the book include a reference/citation for that sentence?

There are three references for that sentence - I have never followed them up!

P.R.O. W.O.47/1849 19th April 1841
P.R.O. Adm.2/1648 p.156, 2 December 1841 and W.O. 47/1917 December 1841,p 15881

[Jim McDougall]

I mean no disrespect to the above authors, without such works our hobby would be a very hollow thing, and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share. Scrutiny of a small sentence here & there such as we are doing now would simply not be possible without such important contributions and is a commendation of such works.[/QUOTE]


While not toward the general discussion, I'd like to say this is beautifully written Adrian, and something that should always be remembered, that we owe all these authors a great debt of respect for what they got right. The things they had wrong, in whatever degree, were the benchmarks for what we pursued to make right.

[adrian]

Thank you for this detailed reply and it is good to read that there are references cited for anyone wanting to research the conclusion in more detail.


The fact that the navy ordered 10,000 replacements after the fire is well documented and eventually resulted in the new model 1845 cutlass. The existence of cutlasses made with 1796 heavy cavalry blades as a stopgap supports the claim there was a real shortage. How much of that was a direct result of the fire is now not clear, but as the fleet had shrunk from 840 ships at the height of the Napoleonic wars to around 140 in 1845 the navy should have had large stocks of spare 1804s. So the numbers lost would have had to be high to cause a shortage, unless of course they had previously reduced the total by scrapping some.

There was a shortage of muskets also at this time, the many hundreds of thousands of spare muskets in Store in 1816 was still quite high in 1829 at about 700,000, by 1838 it was so low that measures were taken to provide more flintlock arms until new muskets in percussion were available. From 1829 nearly 500,000 went to foreign allies. It would make sense that other arms were being included in such transfers, perhaps sea service swords also.

The Board ordered what amounted to over 100,000 P/1842 Muskets after the fire, however the pattern was sealed before the fire & parts arrived from contractors so quickly one gets the impression that their manufacture had been underway already. The fire had no bearing upon this yet is often assumed to be the reason for the new musket pattern.

[kronckew]

Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket (https://collegehillarsenal.com/british-p1842-rifled-sighted-musket) which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details.
It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses...

================================================== ===============

... the Tower of London fire, which left the British short of infantry arms, and the Crimean War, which erupted in October 1853 and found the British military woefully unprepared to field and equip a large expeditionary force. As a result, the line infantry regiments went off to war carrying a mixture of older Pattern 1839, more newly produced Pattern 1842 and the newest Pattern 1851 muskets. By the end of the war, in March 1856 most of the regiments were no longer armed with smooth bore muskets and were primarily carrying Pattern 1851 and new Pattern 1853 muskets, as well as some rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets.

The adoption of the Pattern 1851 Mini” Rifle meant the end of the smooth bore era in the British military. At the suggestion of Lieutenant Colonel Sandham of the Royal Engineers it was undertaken to upgrade some of the existing stocks of Pattern 1842 muskets by rifling and sighting them. A total of 26,400 of the muskets were modified between April 1852 and April 1855, allowing the newly improved guns to be issued simultaneously with the new production Pattern 1851 Mini” Rifles. The initial supply of rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets were issued to the Royal Marines, but it appears that as the war in the Crimea erupted that additional rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets were issued to line infantry regiments as well.

The improvements were simply to rifle the bore, which slightly increased the nominally .75 bore (actually .753”) to about .758” with four grooves, and to add a Pattern 1851 adjustable backsight. After the adoption of the Pattern 1853 Enfield with three groove rifling, this pattern of rifling was adopted. Thus, earlier upgraded P1842s have four groove bores and later ones have three groove bores.

Although the Rifled & Sighted Pattern 1842 was produced in very small numbers for a rather brief period of time, it was an important stop-gap weapon at a time when Great Britain was in desperate need for modern rifled infantry arms. Even though the small-bore P1853 made it nearly anachronistic by the end of the Crimean War, the gun filled an important role and saw service during one of the toughest campaigns that the British military would endure until the Great War a half-century later.

[adrian]

Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details.
It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses...

There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, they were, in effect, Infantry & were armed in similar fashion. The cutlasses were carried by seamen, along with other small arms. In this period the intent was to arm the Royal Marines with the exact same pattern arms as the infantry, however for a short time the arms shortage of the mid 1850s saw them armed with Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Muskets.

The Extract from College Hill Arsenal contains several minor inaccuracies that new research corrects. Tim's write ups are first class and this does not disparage his work in any way. Just a couple of quick points: The Army did not fight with a mix of muskets & rifles, only the 4th Division had smoothbores, the other Divisions were armed with P/1851 Rifles until quite late in the war when the P/1853 began to be issued there; this was only battalions at the conflict, 'Home' battalions did have a mix of muskets & rifles though very few were rifles as most of their quota of P/1851 rifles was recalled & went with the fighting troops, muskets of a 'Home' battalion included a mix and the most extreme saw 'Home' Foot Guards with P/1838, P/1842 & even a few P/1845 Extra Service Muskets, other regts had the P/1839, P/1842 & a few regts also had a few P/1845 ESMs.

The Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket was not issued to land-based infantry in the Crimea - just imagine the ammunition calamity - it was for that reason it was forbade. The only force of import that was issued with it, besides the Royal Marines, were the Channel Island Militia who received 6,000 of the 27,400 AP/1842 RMs made. (All this is covered in detail in the aforementioned book coming out)

Apologies for again straying from the topic of cutlasses.

[kronckew]

. ...
There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, ...


:rolleyes: I was not implying that UK Marines carried Cutlasses, they had bayonets. I just mentioned them as the main topic of this thread was cutlasses and there was no reference to cutlasses in that article being carried by anyone, let alone what model. The thread here was about cutlasses, not muskets. I was just emphasising that my excerpt had nothing to do with cutlasses, and was just adding to the item on muskets.

[CutlassCollector]

........ and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share.

I agree with this thought and have the utmost respect for those researchers who must have spent hours and days poring over documents, searching out examples and corresponding with museum curators. We have it a lot easier with the web, access to auction pictures and online museum collections worldwide.

The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding.

I was hoping that there would have been a few more 1804 cutlasses posted on Mark's excellent idea for a thread. But there are not so many 1804 survivors.

Often military firearms are talked about in the 100,000s while for cutlasses it is more like in the 1000s as they were assigned to ships not individuals. There is no standard because it would depend on the size of the crew but roughly 350 cutlasses for a British Ship of the Line and perhaps 280 to a frigate. A requisition order for the first three US Navy frigates states 550, which equates to around 180 per ship.

We know from Swords for Sea Service that a total of only 30,000 were ordered in 1804/1808 and Mark has listed the suppliers already in post 5. There are probably a few more than this number as it is also noted that Hadley was permitted to deliver more that his order of 2500 and there are also examples marked to Harvey, Eddels and Tatham and Egg.

The 1804 cutlass does not look pretty and the flat plain blade necessitates a fairly heavy blade for strength but it is still a very well balanced sword. Good enough to be in service for 30 years or so.

The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Sometimes, on worn blades, the scarf is visible with very faint lines and sometimes the texture of the surface is different because it has corroded in a slightly different way. The cypher is normally stamped into the softer steel.

The 1804 is still one of my favourites.

[M ELEY]

The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.


Wow, CC! I had no idea about the two-part construction of these cutlasses! Makes total sense in that a heavy blade imparting with something hard (someone's skull, for instance!:rolleyes:) would put a great deal of shock to the tang. As you point out, these are 'beefy' weapons, very heavy and built to do some serious damage! Thank you for this information and for your kind words.

[M ELEY]

The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding.

I agree as well. Sometimes, you just don't know where a thread will take you! In regards to the Tower fire, I certainly think it possible that such stores of cutlass that were there would have been lost. As these utilitarian weapons were considered more 'munitions grade' and not as important (not my opinion, but many) as firearms, it wouldn't be a surprise if said losses were under-reported. I do want to thank everyone for their contributions thus far, but as CC pointed out, it would have been great to see a few other examples posted.

[adrian]

The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Musket bayonets are also constructed with an iron socket, elbow & up to about a third of the blade of iron scarf welded to steel. Ramrods likewise were iron & steel - the stem being steel & the head iron.

However, having harped on about muskets so much I'd better post a few photos of a P/1804 cutlass that used to be in my collection (sold to help fund a musket purchase!)

[CutlassCollector]

Great example Adrian and with a rare scabbard too.
I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it?

It is interesting that there are so many variations of the cypher, from the block GR to the fanciest scrolled text. This one is different as well. All 1804s would have been made during the reign of George III (1760-1820). Does this mean that manufacturers made their own interpretation of the cypher rather than a standard one?

[CutlassCollector]

The navy had been asking for an improved cutlass for some time as the double disk gave insufficient protection to the hand. The reduction in fleet size since the end of the Napoleonic wars meant the navy probably had plenty of 1804s in stock. There was plainly some long standing disagreement between the Board of Ordnance, the Admiralty and serving personnel.

In 1840 it was decided to modify 10,000 existing 1804s with a new grip and a steel half basket guard amply large. Only about a 1000 cutlasses had been modified and re-issued when the fire in the Tower put a stop to the modifications.

Referencing the recent discussion around the amount of equipment lost in the fire it has occurred to me that maybe the navy took the opportunity to exaggerate their loss in order to facilitate a new and improved cutlass! They had been trying since 1827 when Harry Angelo first pointed out that the 1804 could be improved.

I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses.
It has a straight flat plain blade, slightly shorter than a standard 1804, the end has been reshaped into a more pronounced point and it has a large half basket guard and a finger sculpted grip.

The sculpted grip was definitely new and although it is often described as 'experimental' it does appear on private purchase cutlasses and also the 1850 Royal Artillery sword. It may be ok for hacking with a cutlass but not for any finer sword work and it was not adopted by the navy when the format of the 1845 was finally decided.

This cutlass is not so well balance as the original 1804 which may indicate it is modified but on the other hand it has no markings so could be private purchase. It is the only flat straight bladed cutlass with the later 1840s guard that I have ever seen.

[adrian]

I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it?

HADLEY (the H quite faint).

[adrian]

I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses.

Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.

[M ELEY]

Those are both incredible cutlasses! Adrian, I would have loved to have had that Hadley model!

CC, I would think a prototype is possible, but I also agree with Adrian that if it were used by any govertnment-associated parties, I'd expect to see the ordnance stamp. If purely a prototype that saw no service, then who knows? Still an amazing piece! Is it from your collection?

I think Gilkerson pointed out quite succinctly that the vast majority of ships that would have carried the m1804 were the merchantmen. Their ships vastly outnumbered the Britisuh Navy and were always under the direct threat of being attacked by the French (and their allies, Danish pirates, etc) and later American privateers during conflicts. Here's an old broadside from my collection stressing that point-

[M ELEY]

So, I hate to be redundant and beat a dead horse, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around a few final questions. CC, on your m1804 with the crown mark only. Do we know that this model was only exported to Sweden? In other words, this type probably didn't go to Portugal or another friendly nation? Were they used by their navy or strictly their merchant fleet? Were they only distributed during the time of the troubles or did they continue to produce this type (as indicated by another source I read claiming large purchases into the 1830's?). I would assume with rare exception that swords marked GR, WR and VR were used by the British naval ships only. Would you mind showing us a closeup of the Swedish crown marking for posterity? (sorry to trouble you. I myself am not so great at posting pics, let alone using software/electronics/social media, etc, etc. As I always say, "Luddite and proud!" :D

In looking at the 'oddball' S&K model from Boarders Away (pg 88 and the spurious GR marking on 86), Gilkerson implies that the reason the German manufacturer, who made these up until mid to late 19th, apparently, used the obsolete marking was to show "quality". Hmm, well it was an ordnance stamp showing government use and much as the broad arrow, was meant to detract from blokes stealing the swords after their tour of duty ended. I personally believe this GR stamp was used both out of reverence for the old popular British model and a reminder of Great Britain's kind friendship in helping her allies. One will note this spurious crown, as it is different from most others. It is three 'lobed', tilted slightly backward to show the inner rim of the interior and has a small cross at it's peak. Familiarizing oneself with this mark and also noting the subtle differences in this German model's design should help distinguish models made in England during the period and those that created at a later time.

[CutlassCollector]

Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.[/QUOTE]

No markings and this is obviously the stumbling block!
The puzzle is the disparity between the 1804 blade and 1840s guard. Private purchase generally differ little from the military version, although the use of brass (it being cheaper than steel at the time) is sometimes seen on hilts and guards on private cutlasses.

[CutlassCollector]

So, I hate to be redundant and beat a dead horse, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around a few final questions. CC, on your m1804 with the crown mark only. Do we know that this model was only exported to Sweden? In other words, this type probably didn't go to Portugal or another friendly nation? Were they used by their navy or strictly their merchant fleet? Were they only distributed during the time of the troubles or did they continue to produce this type (as indicated by another source I read claiming large purchases into the 1830's?). I would assume with rare exception that swords marked GR, WR and VR were used by the British naval ships only. Would you mind showing us a closeup of the Swedish crown marking for posterity? (sorry to trouble you.

I have never solved the Swedish? crown on the 1804.

I think that some 1804s may have been sold off from Britain but most were copied and manufactured by different countries.
SSS has a picture of one in the National Maritime museum which was dated as 1820 by the Norwegian donor. Norway started up a manufacturing factory at Kongsberg in 1814 and I think the Norway version was produced there but I can't find where I know that from at the moment!

SSS also says Spain and Sweden followed British patterns of cutlass in the 19th century but whether that means exact or not is unclear.

Sim also shows an 1804 with similar crown but only identifies it as Scandinavian(?) and he also thinks that there were signs of a previous cypher polished out of the blade.

So conflicting information all of which can probably be resolved by a Swedish or Norwegian expert!

Here are pictures of the crown from my example and Sim's book.

[M ELEY]

Thank you for posting these, CC! These crowns look nearly identical to the 'spurious' crown marking on the S&K in Gilkerson! Maybe we are onto something! Note the crown is tilted to expose the interior rim and both have the small cross at the top. As you pointed out, apparently other markets were making the m1804, so perhaps S&K used the crown mark on their exports and just added the GR for reminiscence sake!

[Jim McDougall]

I think indeed you guys might be onto something. It seems of course that it was long a Solingen convention to use spurious markings and other favored phrases etc. to appeal to certain clientele. For example, the fabled ANDREA FERARA for Scottish blades and SAHAGUN, the Spanish maker for North Europe.

In the 19th century Solingen produced many blades for Mexico, America and others using their symbols, devices and motif. Why not use a Swedish crown for cutlasses going there?

[CutlassCollector]

Hi Mark,

Look closely at the crown in Boarders Away it only has 3 lobes the Swedish one has 4.

I have done a bit more research. If you look up the online collection in Swedish Marine museums there are a number of 1804s with this crown. Interesting that their other cutlass models do not have it. It may indicate that these were manufactured in Britain and sold to Sweden to help arm them against Russia (history repeats, I guess).
https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024801576/huggare

I was correct about the Norwegian 1804 in SSS. These were produced at Kongsberg 1817/18 and were copied from captured British 1804s. The Greenwich museum has it online now - I believe the same sword as in SSS. It has markings on the hilt - no Swedish crown.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-78687

So much more to the history of the 1804!!

CC

[CutlassCollector]

Hi Jim, our posts crossed, but yes there is no indication that the Swedish model was made in Britain so could well have been supplied from Solingen with the crown added. Other Swedish cutlasses do not have the crown.
CC

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim, our posts crossed, but yes there is no indication that the Swedish model was made in Britain so could well have been supplied from Solingen with the crown added. Other Swedish cutlasses do not have the crown.
CC

Thank you CC, I totally missed your response.
Solingen did seem most obliging in producing blades with whatever identifying markings or phrases were favored or required by clientele.