Identification assistance

[RealWing]

Thanks for all the information so far!!

To address some of the comments:
1. No, I am not sure it was used in the Battle of Waterloo - I'm only going on what my grandparents had told me.
2. I cant see any sign that the metal part of the grip has been modified. It all looks original to my untrained eye.

Any ideas on when it was made?

Thanks again
Jim

[broadaxe]

I think only the grip has been replaced, the metal parts seem untouched, it is an open guard, not a full D-guard.
1787 might well be the year of manufacture.

[M ELEY]

I agree with my colleagues. A nice Dutch East India Company sword with talismanic number, clamshell hilt, replaced wooden grip.

Dmitry, as always, I am finding myself envious of your collection! I am drooling over that cutlass of yours!!!

[Dmitry]

787 is exactly the year. It's not uncommon to see the first digit omitted on these blades.
Mark, there are no unique pieces in my collection. It is all accessible stuff, just takes time to acquire it.

[cornelistromp]

Hi,
it is indeed a voc sword "scheepshouwer"/cutlass from the Amsterdam chamber. 1787 is the date of manufacture. The grip and pommel plate are replacements.(the knuckleguard is original)
it has had a flattened globular pommel with a collar and a bulky wooden grip with a brass binding and Turkish knots. the smaller shell also supported a thumb ring. In 1793 it is replaced by a VOC model similar to Dimitry's picture.

kind regards from Holland

[Jim McDougall]

This is really an attractive cutlass, and of a style used for over a hundred years by this date, the variations of shells seems to have been loosely similar.
It is great to have the note identifying the type as scheepschouwer from the Dutch forms, as this obviously is with the VOC marked blade.

What intrigues me the most is the distinct VOC marking with the year date 1787, and the A, which as noted, does represent the kamer of Amsterdam, one of the chambers in the VOC heirarchy representing key ports. The others were Delft, Rotterdam, Enkhuizen, Middelburg and Hoorn.

It seems that the initial of the respective chamber was typically used to mark coins and cannon, but it seems unclear how widely these initials were used to mark materials, including other weapons.

The VOC marking does appear it seems on a number of sword blades which have been known, though in my experience these are virtually always 18th century, I have honestly never seen examples earlier. Also it has always seemed to me that the 'manufacture dates' are consistantly the same 'years', with only a few variations. 1767 is one and I think 1763, with this 1787 now added. I have never seen a VOC marking with an initial other than 'A' and those are relatively uncommon. The only other of the chambers I know to be distinctly associated with weaponry, particularly swords, was Hoorn.

In these later years of the 18th century, the VOC was in dramatic decline, and though originally a British ally, that quickly deteriorated with the profound support of the rebellion in America by the Dutch, ultimately resulting in the 4th Anglo-Dutch War (1780-1784).

The Dutch, via VOC, were keen suppliers of weapons and goods to the Americans during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) through the entrepot of St. Eustatius, a Dutch trade hub island in the Antilles in the Caribbean.

My questions are, since there are so few examples of VOC blades with these 'dates', why were there so few. Certainly regular manufacture of blades would have produced a more extensive array of date years. Why only these latter years in 18th century, none before?

We know that often 'date years' on blades have often been discovered to be combinations with symbolic or significant meaning rather than an actual year. In this sense, I think Marks reference to a 'talismanic' number may have interesting possibility, perhaps not in that parlance, but as an important number. The year 1787 was the year in which the Continental Congress in America completed the U.S.Constitution, and perhaps the association might have had some connection...worth considering ? Could these dates be significant for events in this deeply troubled company by this time. By 1798 it was bankrupt, and there must have been strong emotions within it during these later years.

All best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

As always I keep researching and have in some degree answered my own question on these VOC balemarks and associated dates and chamber marks.
In my notes I discovered a Javanese badhik with cut down blade that has the R (=Rotterdam) mark (the date obscured 1746?). Also a Scottish baskethilt with a blade that has the VOC and stylized A in an opposed configuration that has the two incorporated into a diamond effect. The date '1787'....another blade of flattened hexagonal form similar to 'dragoon' blades made in Solingen for Spain in the 18th century, has the same logo in diamond shape, the date 1787.

Other unusual blades of straight form I have found seem to have carried the 1775 date, while another is on an English hanger dated 1794.

It would seem that 1787 was some kind of a banner year for blade production!
yet these variations in the Amsterdam motif suggest different place or maker.
Again, most of these blades I have seen date 1767 + to 1794. Why these selective dates, and why on blades while weapons other than cannon, as far as I know were unmarked.?

Anybody out there with VOC bladed weapons or knowledge on the VOC that might be able to offer some examples or ideas?

All the best,
Jim