Unknown brass hilt

[urbanspaceman]

I found an Oley (Shotley Bridge) blade with this hilt and wondered if anybody would tell me about the hilt. It has lost its grip binding in the past, replaced with copper wire - which works but is disappointing. The hilt is identical on both sides.

[urbanspaceman]

I've been searching in Bezdek but the nearest I can find is this:

Can no-one offer any more?

[werecow]

It reminds me of the British spadroons from the American war of Independence era.

[Jim McDougall]

Keith this seems like a book illustration, you note other side hilt is same. What is the reference? context?

From the illustration, the example you have found is indeed close most notably for the tall urn type pommel, which as in your illustration is faceted.
These type of urn type pommels were from the neoclassic fashions and styling of Robert (1718-1792) and James Adam (1732-1794) whose mostly architectural designs (known as Adamesque) became in vogue with popular cut steel small sword hilts of Boulton 1780-90s.

These hilts as in the example you show were spadroons, sort of between the small sword (thrust) and heavy broadsword. They were straight blade backswords (single edge) and became regulation infantry officers swords in 1786. ...as noted by werecow previous post (this with brass and 'montmorency' style blade usually used by James Wooley of Birmingham....these I think were naval).

I am attaching from "Swords and Blades of the American Revolution" George Neumann, 1973...one of these 'spadroon' typw swords. While of iron, and of course the vestigial langet not congruent, it basically recalls the guard configuration.

So the anomaly you have illustrated is a conundrum, as it basically recalls the cast brass hangers of 1742-51 for infantry which were typically made in Germany after their patterns. What is confusing is you note the grip wrap is gone and replaced with copper wire....these hangers were solid cast.
Also the pommels were globular, not of this later 'Adam' form which came about in 1780s.

We can only surmise this saber is pieced together perhaps with similar type hilt, the 'type' faceted Adamesque pommel, and of course the 'Shotley' blade. Could this be the BTF used by Harvey mid 18th? many of which did not bear his initials.
In Neumann (1973) p.67 (18.S), an English hanger with same type blade has the running fox with H in center, shown period 1740-55
p.70, op.cit. (26.S) another hanger 1740-60 with BTF no initial.

These hilts are irrelevent as blades are same basically as your illustration.

It seems we have agreed that Shotley blades were filtering into Birmingham where many munitions grade arms were being assembled. While the 'fox' seems to have been notably present on many, Samuel Harvey applied his SH initials to many, less with H only and numbers left blank. Oley was the 'ghost' supplier of blades into Birmingham it would seem, and had been for some time as he is not mentioned or noted among recognized English blade makers.That is, until the blade trials of Thomas Gill in 1790s where among blades submitted for tests was Mr. Oley of Newcastle.,
It seems odd to have such an unusual hilt style, cast and with wrapped grip and later pommel form......though the presence of one of the apparently not uncommon BTF blades which had been coming into Birmingham for some time being used for assembly of an order of such swords. Perhaps surplus blades were used by an unknown cutler who cast hilts for the order ? Colonels of regiments supplied their troops and arms orders were at their whim or design.....even more so with militia units.

[urbanspaceman]

Hi Jim and Werecow. Thanks for responding to this. Let me first explain: I bought this sword at an auction last week simply because it is an Oley blade.
Its BTF (bushy tailed fox), like below, is an early one: (1715 - ????)

and differs to the one above used when selling to the Birmingham smiths and the Tower cutlers; this made me curious. The blade is shorter than those mid. 1700s cavalry hangars which were c. 27"… this one is 24" and I wondered if it had been shortened at the ricasso but the fox punzone is exactly the same distance down as my 1740s example.
There is very little room under the collar of the grip binding, suggesting to me (also considering its absence) that it was leather, or a wire of narrow gauge like this copper version (which is patently from modern electrical engineering supplies) and not your typical twisted arrangements. I forced a very thin steel needle between the coils of the wire and it is definitely wood underneath. Of course it could be a wood grip stock replacing a bone or twisted horn style that was irreparably damaged.
Certainly it seems obvious that the sword has been re-assembled (without including the grip wire) and this hilt has been added much later than the date of the blade's manufacture.
I'm sure you are correct Jim and old, stock blades would frequently have been used to fulfill orders.
My real question is why Oley made this blade - early in the first quarter of the seventeen hundreds - was this style in use back then?

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Keith, it is so great you are physically collecting these Shotley examples! Its incredible that you are able to locate these as I had not imagined they would come up that much in auctions etc. but I dont watch auctions much.

Any chance of more detailed images of the sword ?

With these BTF examples, I had not realized how much definite variation exists in the shapes. I wonder if it would be feasible to somehow put together a panel of the variations and ultimately put together some sort of chronology with notes on the examples they have occurred on.

I think this was the goal of Eduard Wagner ("Cut and Thrust Weapons, 1967) with his plate of examples of the 'Passau wolf', where he catalogs examples and tried to put them in a progressive period chronology. While interesting, it was not in my opinion viable as these markings were placed in varied shops by multiple workers, not a progressive evolution in a single source.

By nature, the 'running wolf' has seemed to be rather 'chop' marked in its character with what appears a stylized figure roughly chiseled. However many of the forms seem consistent enough to have been stamped, and almost as if done by the same shop or hand.

I have always believed this 'running wolf' to have been a talismanic or magical imbuement rather than a symbol of quality, and certainly as with most of these kinds of marks or devices directly assigned to any single maker. Again, Wagner and other writers in compendiums of markings have tried to align certain of these familiarly used marks/devices to particular makers, but these were not exclusive to any singular one despite again certain affinity or consistency.

With the bushy tail fox, I think it was likely some sort of play on the running wolf as has long been suggested, but rather than the talismanic character of the German wolf it was indeed a quality representation. While we have agreed it was Oley who either initiated it, or whatever the case, ended up exclusively using it, it has become entirely (and thanks to your research) a symbol of the Shotley enterprise. Though the BTF has long been recognized as associated with Shotley weapons, it does not seem that the connection to Birmingham and of course Samuel Harvey has ever been explored prior to your endeavors.

As we have discussed, the mark of the BTF either with SH within, some cases with H only, and of course the cases where the BTF stands with no initials within. These again are variations to be catalogued and noted with the weapons situated,.

There are cases with the Birmingham blades where no BTF is present and Harvey simply applied his name, and such variation might be attended to blades produced by his son etc. perhaps rather than Oley as presumed, but again..the jury is still out.

In the Nuemann reference (and I will add photos of the two examples) the overall image of the sword is shown, but no detailed image of the blade markings (both apparently BTF as noted). The blades do appear similar to yours with stout hanger.saber character with back fuller, so it would seem of course these blades were of the earlier part of 18th c.

As agreed it does seem that while shops and makers had a large degree of consistency in their products, it was a business and the goal was of course to furnish weapons to make money. As blades were a commodity which was not necessarily exclusive to single shops or cutlers, it would be expected that some measure of stockpiling took place. By the same taken, often components, such as pommels, were supplied by vendors who produced them, and certain variations might occur here as well. The paucity of records of these kinds of details is the bane of those of us researching these matters in our modern time.