1796 LCS - Early Woolley Blade with Later WDD Scabbard?

Jim McDougall · 19th April 2025, 02:34 AM

It seems that the James Wooley & Thomas Deakin partnership long held to be in years 1800-1803 (Annis & May)actually predated that to 1790.

James Wooley supplied bayonets during c.1793.
Obviously we know he was making M1788 light cavalry sabers.
The first mention of WOOLEY & DEAKIN was in "Chapmans Birmingham Directory" in 1800.
The earliest Board of Ordnance reference to this name combination was 1803.
One reference noted Wooley's partnership with FRANCIS DEAKIN ended in 1812?
Possibly a family member ?

YET,
By 1808, there is a dated M1803 field, flank co. officers sword to
WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON.

By 1810 M1796 light and heavy cavalry swords to
WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON AND JOHNSON (who appears to have joined after 1808)

another anomaly is a 1796 lt. cav. saber
WOOLEY DEAKIN AND DOBBS on scabbard
However in notations a 'B' on blade spine is noted as =Birmingham
while other indications are that is indicating 'bend' mark.
It seems that convention was used later than this but cannot recall.

So it would seem that WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON would be pre 1808.

One Wooley M1796 had scabbard engraved C.M.MENZIES, CARR BRIDGE

A M1796 saber is to WOOLEY & SARGANT (1814-1816) with notation this firm was formerly WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON, has the crowned 4 attributed to Wooley & Sargant...
The scabbard is marked solely WOOLEY.

In conclusion, I would presume a scabbard marked WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON would date 1803-1808 as in 1808 Johnson joined firm.

Here I would note that the dynamics of these partnerships suggest that a pairing of an unmatched scabbard using other wording from essentially the same firm was likely use of an extant one still held in the stores of that firm and during the production of swords of the said pattern. Scabbards are external to the sword itself of course, so are hard to use in the date assessment of the sword. However the pairings are interesting in the history of the sword in speculating possible avenues of the pairing.

This material from" "New Light on the Partnership of James Wooley and Thomas Deakin", Philip Lankester, Arms & Armour, Vol.1, #2, 2004, pp.159-164.
Also various auction entries from Christies, Bonhams et al

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

19th April 2025, 02:34 AM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	It seems that the James Wooley & Thomas Deakin partnership long held to be in years 1800-1803 (Annis & May)actually predated that to 1790. James Wooley supplied bayonets during c.1793. Obviously we know he was making M1788 light cavalry sabers. The first mention of WOOLEY & DEAKIN was in "Chapmans Birmingham Directory" in 1800. The earliest Board of Ordnance reference to this name combination was 1803. One reference noted Wooley's partnership with FRANCIS DEAKIN ended in 1812? Possibly a family member ? YET, By 1808, there is a dated M1803 field, flank co. officers sword to WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON. By 1810 M1796 light and heavy cavalry swords to WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON AND JOHNSON (who appears to have joined after 1808) another anomaly is a 1796 lt. cav. saber WOOLEY DEAKIN AND DOBBS on scabbard However in notations a 'B' on blade spine is noted as =Birmingham while other indications are that is indicating 'bend' mark. It seems that convention was used later than this but cannot recall. So it would seem that WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON would be pre 1808. One Wooley M1796 had scabbard engraved C.M.MENZIES, CARR BRIDGE A M1796 saber is to WOOLEY & SARGANT (1814-1816) with notation this firm was formerly WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON, has the crowned 4 attributed to Wooley & Sargant... The scabbard is marked solely WOOLEY. In conclusion, I would presume a scabbard marked WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON would date 1803-1808 as in 1808 Johnson joined firm. Here I would note that the dynamics of these partnerships suggest that a pairing of an unmatched scabbard using other wording from essentially the same firm was likely use of an extant one still held in the stores of that firm and during the production of swords of the said pattern. Scabbards are external to the sword itself of course, so are hard to use in the date assessment of the sword. However the pairings are interesting in the history of the sword in speculating possible avenues of the pairing. This material from" "New Light on the Partnership of James Wooley and Thomas Deakin", Philip Lankester, Arms & Armour, Vol.1, #2, 2004, pp.159-164. Also various auction entries from Christies, Bonhams et al