British Tomahawk Boarding Axe
 

Gentlemen,

I would like to share my latest addition with you and for once I am not asking for help with the identification!
I assume the handle has been replaced at some time in its life, when the marks in the wood were made. No marks remain on the head which is heavily and evenly pitted although as you can see a massive amount of material still remains. The axe is exactly 4 foot in length (122 cm) from top to toe. For all its size and weight it is remarkably well balanced and feels good in the hands like a tool/weapon should. CC

"Now THATS a tomahawk!!!" (in parlance of 'Crocodile Dundee's Bowie) :)

Cant say much other than the rehafting pre Crimean War (1854-56) with the Board of Ordnance 'BO' and the arrow. After that it became the War Dept.
Hopefully Mark will be coming in on this soon. Pretty impressive axe.

Oh boy! These axes have been like land mines lately! As mentioned in other posts, the identification of an ax as a boarding tool versus one that is a fire implement becomes difficult unless we have an example that either (#1) has provenance, (#2) is government-marked or (#3) of the EXACT pattern of naval examples. With this ax head, we have both good and not-so-good indicators of possible naval use.
First off, it displays good age. The head appears blacksmith made, but could also be an early trip-hammer casting post 1830's. I like the small, round eye. The earlier, pre-1800 examples usually have slightly larger eyes, but the mid/late 19th c. Brit boarding ax patterns have an eye exactly like this one. The original haft on the older models would have been this length, but typically had a ball at the end of the haft. The spike wedge looks right, with its almost beak-like curvature and design. The pitting on the head seems plausibly caused from years at sea in an environment of 'salty air', thus the reason most iron items were primed/blackened. Yours has this blackening.

Now, I'll play devil's advocate. The blade edge on this piece doesn't quite fit either the early or late Brit pattern of boarding ax. The early, pre-1800 examples slightly flare both up and down (double-bearded), whereas the later Brit (mid/late 19th) elaborately flares outwards. Despite the fact that boarding axes were weapons, in all the examples I've seen on the Brit patterns, their langets were all relatively short in length. Yours are much longer. Langets on Brit boarding axes are rounded with the haft, yours more flattened to the piece. Brit examples langets usually have a rounded end where they point towards the butt. Yours is not as rounded. The ordinance mark on the haft appears genuine. The question is, is the haft replaced at a later time or when the ax was made?? It is just too hard to tell for me. If it is original to the piece, it is a non-typical haft for a boarding piece. The fine pitting does look like 'maritime' rust, but casting flaws and normal oxidation sometimes does as well.
Soooo...( :shrug: ), where does this leave us? It could be a private purchase item used on many of the merchant class to defend against hostile boarding in the era of Fighting Sail. It is not the classic government issue based on what I've listed above. Perhaps others might offer their opinions on the piece? Gene? Broadaxe? Kronkew? Where are you, buddies?! I'm going to stew it over some more...

Thanks Mark I was hoping for your comments. Interesting points - so maybe not so definite after all then! I hope the other axe experts will chip in as well.
And Jim thanks for the date ref the end of BO.
CC.

Well, even as I say this, I have a tendency to wax and wane! :o . In looking back on the profile, your ax does slightly raise up on the top/flat plain of the head, which it should if it is the earlier pattern. Really, my only concern/question is on the langets. As I said, they are longer than typically seen. The eye is right, the pick/spike is right, the aging looks good, etc. Has anyone else seen longer langets like this on a boarding piece? I did see one vaguely similar in Rankin's 'Small Arms for the Sea Services' that was an American copy of the British. Now that IS exciting! I know, the arrow and BO symbol make it Brit, but it points to my theory that this is a private purchase, circa 1800-20's refitted haft. OK, I start to repeat myself. It's an intriguing piece and you have a collection to be envious of (based on your other postings and my love of all things naval/pirate!)

I'm not going to comment, then see it on ebay am I? ;)

Aside from the things that have already been mentioned, is anyone else worried by the copper rivets?

Hi Atlantia - the rivets are a different colour but definitely steel, which is another reason I think the haft has been replaced - they are definitely not copper. It's just my poor photography. And no, this one is a keeper but well spotted anyway.
I was wondering whether the langets got longer in later production to increase protection as it became more weaponised. The 1855 model had longer langets in proportion to the shaft. Both the examples shown in Gilkerson have differing shapes and lengths of langet even though as Mark points out they are both quite short. CC