Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Shakethetrees · 11th July 2014, 05:00 PM

I checked my cutlass finally and I think your blade is NOT a briquette blade. The width to length proportions are correct for the 1833 French cutlass. A briquette blade is slimmer. The brass guard on yours has what appears to be an extra flange to accommodate the rivets, something the iron mounted example that I have does not posses. I have examined maybe a dozen over the years, all virtually identical in blade length/width, the manner of assembly, etc.

Yours could be an of the period officer's version, private purchase, etc. but without actually seeing it in person, it's hard to tell the age, so, with that in mind, I would be careful.

The US 1860 cutlass is also much slimmer and overall lighter build than its French counterpart. A friend turned up an 1860 at a show years back and everything was "right" as far as the manner of assembly, and measurements. But, the grip wire was still in place, something that is a little odd for the 1860. The Ames mark, very lightly stamped on the originals was too even and perfect even though the font type and size was. Spot on. Most that I have seen seem to have had the wire deliberately removed at some point. Possibly due to verdigris forming and the impossibility of cleaning it to Naval standards of the time.

But for some reason it just didn't pass the smell test, not just by my reasoning, but also to several other long time collectors present as well. When compared side by side with a couple of others that had been on collections for a very long time, the differences stood out like a sore thumb! The rivets securing the shell to the guard were different in number by maybe two. The originals had exactly the same number and layout, whereas the piece now seen to be a copy had a different number and layout. Shell thickness was another issue. The color of the brass was more of an orange, where the old ones were much more yellow.

The point of this diatribe is to note that there are some very good copies out there that might stand on their own merits at face value. But when compared side to side with a piece that is unquestionably right, the credibility falls apart.

So, in the probably unlikely possibility that you are ever able to compare it to another, keep an open mind, and hope for the best!

It's a great looking cutlass, and I hope the best for you!

11th July 2014, 05:00 PM	#14
Shakethetrees Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Louisiana Posts: 363	Cutlass I checked my cutlass finally and I think your blade is NOT a briquette blade. The width to length proportions are correct for the 1833 French cutlass. A briquette blade is slimmer. The brass guard on yours has what appears to be an extra flange to accommodate the rivets, something the iron mounted example that I have does not posses. I have examined maybe a dozen over the years, all virtually identical in blade length/width, the manner of assembly, etc. Yours could be an of the period officer's version, private purchase, etc. but without actually seeing it in person, it's hard to tell the age, so, with that in mind, I would be careful. The US 1860 cutlass is also much slimmer and overall lighter build than its French counterpart. A friend turned up an 1860 at a show years back and everything was "right" as far as the manner of assembly, and measurements. But, the grip wire was still in place, something that is a little odd for the 1860. The Ames mark, very lightly stamped on the originals was too even and perfect even though the font type and size was. Spot on. Most that I have seen seem to have had the wire deliberately removed at some point. Possibly due to verdigris forming and the impossibility of cleaning it to Naval standards of the time. But for some reason it just didn't pass the smell test, not just by my reasoning, but also to several other long time collectors present as well. When compared side by side with a couple of others that had been on collections for a very long time, the differences stood out like a sore thumb! The rivets securing the shell to the guard were different in number by maybe two. The originals had exactly the same number and layout, whereas the piece now seen to be a copy had a different number and layout. Shell thickness was another issue. The color of the brass was more of an orange, where the old ones were much more yellow. The point of this diatribe is to note that there are some very good copies out there that might stand on their own merits at face value. But when compared side to side with a piece that is unquestionably right, the credibility falls apart. So, in the probably unlikely possibility that you are ever able to compare it to another, keep an open mind, and hope for the best! It's a great looking cutlass, and I hope the best for you!