Crown Over TG Thomas Gill?
 

Just adopted. This example has been making the rounds. The auction in May at Morphy lists it as Thomas Gill and I guess my question is if the mark is Gill, then which generation?

The Morphy copy

'For an example with a similar hilt, see plate 156.S on page 113 of "Swords and Blades of the American Revolution" by George C. Neumann. Straight tapered single-edged blade with narrow single fuller along top on both sides. Ricasso on left side marked with a crown over "TG" for sword maker Thomas Gill of London. Iron stirrup hilt with forward turned quillon. Egg-shaped iron pommel with integral turned capstan. Ebony grip with gadrooning, top ferrule on grip is faceted. CONDITION: Very good, blade retains a grey patina with very good markings and some scattered darker areas. Hilt retains a pleasing dark grey patina. Grip very good with a few scattered marks from use. Hilt is tight to blade. A very attractive maker-marked sword. DMG Blade Length: 28" Overall Length: 34" '

My scant knowledge is that a crown over a number designated the maker but in this case we see a crown over TG.

Thoughts?

There are more views from the Morphy auction this last month.

Cheers
GC

On late 18th Century, early 19th Century British swords the Crown over number was an inspectors mark and can’t be linked to a specific maker. That said, there is evidence that Henry Osborn used a similar Crown over HO stamp on his early swords.

I see this discussion
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26688

A snippet from Mike Loades 'Swords and Swordsmen' relates the crown over numbers
https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

As well, Mark Cloke had penned an article on Gill relating a timeline of generations. So I guess I'm still looking at a timeline for the sword and confirming it is a Gill blade.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...4161208X345684

Cheers
GC

The article is incorrect with regard to the numbers relating to a maker. Looking at the 1796 light cavalry sabres from the Dutch Army museum we can see a mix of inspection stamps and makers. I will make a list of the examples I kept records of and post them up tomorrow.

But suffice it to say that there is no relationship between the number under the crown and the sword maker.

Well, first, the sword posted (imo) well predates the 1796 period by as much as two decades or so. The linked thread here relates the HO example from Bryce. So the questions still remain as to the TG under a crown and dating, I don't think an egg pommel in some way relates to 1796 model swords in the Dutch Museum. That goes back to the possibilities of older crown over initials, or even numbers, as Loades writes.

There is the peen shot, which could possibly make it a composite but as the bumper washer is gone, it was likely just making things tight.

Cheers
GC

G'day GC,
Radboud is correct that after 1796, crown over number inspection stamps don't correspond to any particular maker. Prior to this they are relatively uncommon, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that they also don't apply to any particular maker. As to your sword I agree it certainly predates 1796. We know that Henry Osborn used a crown over HO to mark his early swords, so I think it likely that your crown over TG was used by Thomas Gill. As another example, swords from a similar period can be found with a crown over GR over JEFRIS for Jeffries. So no absolute proof, but very likely to be Thomas Gill.
Cheers,
Bryce

Wholeheartedly agree that your sword predates the 1796 patterns. My point by bringing in the examples from the Dutch Army Museum is to provide conclusive evidence that Loades is incorrect in his assumption that the Crown over a number stamp ordinance marks are for specific sword makers.

I believe that your sword would have been an officer's private purchase so is unlikely to have been inspected by the ordinance board in any case. Which means that the stamp was likely to be an internal practice by the sword maker. Like the Osborn and Jeffries examples Bryce gives.

In absence of other examples and the early date of your sword (quite possibly from the beginning years of T Gills' career), Thomas Gill is a good candidate.

G'day GC,
In terms of dating your sword, my best guess would be 1770's. By the 1780's Thomas Gill was marking his swords with his "Warranted Never To Fail" slogan. I have an early Gill sword. I will have to look under the langets to make sure it doesn't have a crown over TG mark. To be absolutely sure we need to find one marked with both Gill and the crown TG mark.
Cheers,
Bryce

Thanks guys. Apparently this sword has circulated enough that there had been discussion on the mark and Chris Allen has commented that the mark might also appear on blade tangs as well.

Continuing on the timeline sidebar, I guess we would assume the blade would have been produced by Thomas II but it seems weird to me that Mark Cloke's first page linked doesn't list him as a swordmaker in the early trade directories.

I suppose I need to get the rest of that article.

I don't have many resources on English makers, aside from the later trade with the US.

Cheers
GC

G'day GC,
There is a fair bit of information about Thomas Gill II in Richard Dellar's book "The British Cavalry Sword 1788-1912". He was born in 1744 and died in 1801. According to Richard Dellar, the first record of him in business is in a 1767 trade directory where he is listed as a file cutter and tool maker. He submitted swords to the Board of Ordnance in 1779, so was making swords at least as early as this. The first time he appears in a trade directory as a sword maker was 1783.

Here is a photo of the Crown TG mark on a tang. There are probably many more Crown TG marked swords out there, but the stamp is on the tang so we can't see it. I checked my sword and there is no mark visible on the ricasso.
Cheers,
Bryce

Thanks Bryce!