Brittish Royal Navy pattern 1827 maker?!
 

Hello,

Got this Brittish Royal Navy pattern 1827 officer's sword.

Can anybody help me identify the maker?!

The word in the escutcheon is "PROVED", as for proof tested; not the maker's name :o .

Some of the proof slugs do give a clue to the identity of the maker, but I don't think that one does.

Thank you guys! :)

The color difference between the brass guard and the brass backstrap, and the bell-shaped mouth of the scabbard, make me wonder if this is a reproduction. The etching of the Star of Damascus (around the proof slug) seems a bit more sloppy than typical, too. Can you see the remains of any gilding in the crevices in the guard or in the lion's head or mane? If not, then it's surely a repro.

I agree the proved disc cannot be used to identify maker. It is possible this is a copy, the etching at the ricasso is indicative of these.
I would like to see photos of the blade etching and where the back strap connects to the ferrel. A closeup of the grip covering may answer these concerns. Also a photo showing the detail of the guard design.
Original or copy the hilt is 20th century in its details.
Decades ago when I began collecting the first sword copy that fooled me, though only for a short time was a naval sword.

There are no signs of gilding on the hilt. Just cast bronze.
Here are additional photos.

more photos

Have a look at mine HERE

grip looks too clean, almost plasticy, like modern faux rayskin ones. It also looks a bit bulgy and uneven, ill fitting. Mine looks well used, have not tried to clean it. Your back-strap and lion also look almost like replacements as noted above. Scabbard fittings scroll work gets progressively fancier from junior to senior then flag ranks as the rank increases and is part of the madatory 1827 pattern, yours is slighly off pattern. Also see mine for info on the sword knot. The proof 'star' area around the brass slug looks rather crudely etched, mine is very precise and the surround is perfectly straight lines and square, and a bit more worn. The scroll on the brass guard next to the anchor on mine has a stepped up central rib, not flat all the way between the stippling. Mine has a few more lines by the folding guard and the knot holes are a bit narrower. I think yours fit the modern thicker knots better, mine was an SOB to get the new knot thru the holes. The bit of the guard that fits in the lions mouth and the lower part of the lion's mouth area appear off as well - where's his lower jaw?. Could just be a less fastidious UK maker then tho.

Before 1929 blades they were wider fighting blades that became smaller after, and are smaller still now. the 1846 ones were an eight inch narrower than the 1827 version (as is mine, the post 1929 one being quite a bit narrower still. about a half inch less if I recall.)The reference I have mentioned lists the width details, mine is packed away & can't get to it at the moment.

Thank you very much for the detailed comments!

The link to your sword is very useful as I was strugling to find info on how to fit the knot.
Regarding the rayskin, it is genuine but it has seen little wear. The blade is also quite narrow so I assume it is a 20th century "parade" version.

Yet, I believe it is not a reproduction because it clearly shows signs of age and the edge is reasonably sharp.

You are welcome. Sadly, military swords are almost entirely made for parade and display now, and quality suffers, as long as it looks OK from a number of yards away, it's ok.

The USA actually banned naval swords for officers and cutlass for the enlisted in WW2 'to save metal' - after overwhelming objection, officers an later enlisted were again allowed to wear swords/cutlass, and later enlisted were even doing cutlass drill on aircraft carriers in digicam on yootoob recently!

Yes, the sword knot is very confusing, not very strong at that inner loop join, I'd expect it to go flying if you actually tried using it as a wrist restraint. Disconnecting it before a battle andde using the other part insted thru the hole near the pommel would work tho. It's how they did it pre 1829.

The Infantry uses an even more useless knot wrap, and someone actually makes a permanently made & sewn/glued neatly up one to fasten like a mat on the front. They don't even use the proper slot The Cavalry and Artillery fasten it in a more useful fashion actually using the pommel slot to fasten it to the sword.

The sword appears authentic, the grip ray skin covering replaced at some point and the back strap/pommel a replacement, a poor casting most likely from a copy of this pattern of sword. The guard at the pommel does not fit properly because of the replacement back strap and it does not cover the upper edges of the skin. The ray skin looks authentic, plastic grips typically have a mould line running the length of the grip. Why the back strap is replaced is anyones guess, possibly damaged or lost while recovering the grip? The guard with crown and anchor is well done.

Hello,

I have some 1827 navy swords in my collection, high quality replicas are available and they even have maker marks, so even a maker mark in this swords doesn't mean it's genuine.

The Guard it's Original.

Everything else seems modern, the lion piece is obvious modern, the grip is modern and yes you can buy a replica with rayskin grip they are available everywhere, the blade was purposely scratched to give a more "used" look.

One of the worst parts of the modern replicas is the guard, their coat of arms are not 100% similar to the original ones (it's a small and detailed part), so i think somebody replace that part in this in mind.

But attention this is only my humble opinion.

Regards,

BV