Quote:
|
Originally Posted by urbanspaceman
Thank-you again Ibrahiim. The article covering cutlasses was very interesting as it mentioned the relationship between the Viewer's Mark and the blade maker.
This is especially interesting, as I was given to understand (by an unremembered dealer - probably the one trying to sell me a Samuel Harvey as a Shotley Bridge sword) that the number beneath the crown was deliberately kept un-attributed in order to protect the Viewer from corruption.
So, it can be established from the Viewer's number where the blade (or sword???) was made and by whom. How does one do that? Do anyone know?
Incidentally: I was told about an aspect of my blade that I had noticed but not questioned, and that was its 'scarf weld' near the hilt. Does that have any maker significance that anyone is aware of?
|
Hi,
'Swords for Sea Service' states that in 1788 Joseph Witten made four each of the viewers marks - a crown over 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
The National Maritime museum have associated the viewers marks with particular makers as they have examples of blades marked also with the manufacturer. That does not preclude the mark being used by another company. They also have identified a crown over 2.
Redell and Bate 2
Woolley 3
Gill 4
Osborn 8
Tatham and Egg 8
So although not conclusive to identifying an otherwise unmarked blade they are another piece of information and also date the blade to between 1788 and 1815 when their use ended.
I have seen many cutlasses with scarf welds near the hilt sometimes clearly visible while others are almost imperceptible. I do not think this relates to any particular manufacturer.
There is a theory that the hilt end is iron to help absorb the shock of impact.
This is hard to prove as there is no good - non intrusive - way to distinguish between iron and steel.
Regards, CC