1796 LCS - Early Woolley Blade with Later WDD Scabbard?

[Jim McDougall]

The occurrence of mismatched (by issuance numbers, units etc) swords and scabbards is of course well known but determining the circumstances of these cases surely has numbers of various possibilities.

It is unclear whether armies cleared the battlefields of weapons for further use in issue, though it would seem prudent to do so given the notable costs of these. Obviously the bodies of fallen troops were cleared into mass graves, but no note is made of the disposition of scattered weaponry. While the cannon were recovered, no mention is made of firearms or sidearms.

It does seem that many sidearms fallen into positions in mud or growth remained in situ for some time in many cases, however the recovery of visible weapons may have been taken as souvenirs. At Culloden in 1746, it was noted that 191 Scottish swords were retrieved from the field, which was remarkable since there were more than 4000 Scots there. This was the single instance I personally have found of weapons retrieval from battlefields, but clearly such practice was commonplace though more likely scavengers taking them.

There are instances of for example, a heavy cavalry sword (M1796) with rack (Bn number) marked in the hilt with unit number (previously noted) .......it was with a mismatched scabbard. Years later, a M1796 scabbard was found listed with the SAME Bn number in the holdings of a Scottish museum. Sadly, the item had been deaccessed so hope of reassociating was lost.

This suggests that the trooper was possibly wounded and sword dropped on the field. As the scabbard remained attached to him when he was off the field to medical care, it remained with him or the unit. His sword however was left to the elements on the field and likely found by scavengers (Waterloo) and sword and scabbard went separate ways over the next century and a half.

Among collectors, as unusual as it seems, there are those who actually collect scabbards alone. I have seen offers many times of these being sold in auctions along with 'parts' obviously for those persons restoring swords etc.
It would be impossible to tell the origin of sword and scabbard pairings with disparate issue numbers, but there are so many. Usually its a matter of dealers or sellers simply using a scabbard of the same type or pattern if possible to complete the example.

In my early days of collecting the sword examples WITHOUT scabbard were deemed incomplete of course, so luckily for me sold at much lower prices, often by huge difference depending on the scarcity of the type.

As previously noted, like the Bluchersabels, huge numbers of arms were sold off as surplus by the British at the end of the Napoleonic campaigns. Virtually the entire Mexican army was supplied with Brown Bess guns and sundry other such arms in the 1820s.However many swords ended up going to the various yeomanry units and other civil forces in degree. Many of the other ranks weapons, typically with brass hilts, were mostly fodder for the scrap metal forges.

The topic in the original post is an intriguing one, and in the case of this example with the Birmingham maker James Wooley with apparent variation between sword and scabbard markings to him by firm name designated, it is a fascinating conundrum which has remarkable potential for resolution.

[Jim McDougall]

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

[Hotspur]

Then there are Wooley Deakin&Co. blades on non Wooley hilts.

I've book notes on dates but off the top of my head, the 1810 seems about right.

The &Co supposedly puts this blade below marked no later than 1806.

Cheers
GC

[Jim McDougall]

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

I don't know who furbished that sabre. I can only place it in time by the style and Mowbray likes these backstrap examples as post 1818, but we have the 'absolute' of those wd&c marks as from 1803-1806. That's a pretty narrow window. That blade is cast steel but there is no mark indicating that.

I know nothing of trade blades being specifically marked as such. There is a Thillman note about a particular French Fourbisshier and ACW officers swords but there is nothing I've read on 18th or early century swords. I can though spot surplus Napoleonic era blades in use as late as the 1850s.

Cheers
GC

[Hotspur]

I was going back through some shared pictures from 2004. The pages were written by a Philip Lankester, Weapons Department, Royal Armouries 2004

In those brief pages, he describes the Woolley/Deakin association and the business agreement that Deakin's partnership was to continue with Wooley's estate. The first ordnance order was for hangers in 1797, albeit we know Wooley on his own predates that and Deakin starts with him in 1790.

I swore not to share the four pages and it does not define the timeline of the sword presented here.

From Langham's and Oldswords

Cheers
GC