Crown Over TG Thomas Gill?

Radboud · 13th June 2022, 08:33 AM

On late 18th Century, early 19th Century British swords the Crown over number was an inspectors mark and can’t be linked to a specific maker. That said, there is evidence that Henry Osborn used a similar Crown over HO stamp on his early swords.

Hotspur · 13th June 2022, 12:19 PM

I see this discussion
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26688

A snippet from Mike Loades 'Swords and Swordsmen' relates the crown over numbers
https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

As well, Mark Cloke had penned an article on Gill relating a timeline of generations. So I guess I'm still looking at a timeline for the sword and confirming it is a Gill blade.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...4161208X345684

Cheers
GC

Radboud · 13th June 2022, 01:14 PM

The article is incorrect with regard to the numbers relating to a maker. Looking at the 1796 light cavalry sabres from the Dutch Army museum we can see a mix of inspection stamps and makers. I will make a list of the examples I kept records of and post them up tomorrow.

But suffice it to say that there is no relationship between the number under the crown and the sword maker.

Hotspur · 13th June 2022, 02:27 PM

Well, first, the sword posted (imo) well predates the 1796 period by as much as two decades or so. The linked thread here relates the HO example from Bryce. So the questions still remain as to the TG under a crown and dating, I don't think an egg pommel in some way relates to 1796 model swords in the Dutch Museum. That goes back to the possibilities of older crown over initials, or even numbers, as Loades writes.

There is the peen shot, which could possibly make it a composite but as the bumper washer is gone, it was likely just making things tight.

Cheers
GC

Bryce · 13th June 2022, 10:43 PM

G'day GC,
Radboud is correct that after 1796, crown over number inspection stamps don't correspond to any particular maker. Prior to this they are relatively uncommon, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that they also don't apply to any particular maker. As to your sword I agree it certainly predates 1796. We know that Henry Osborn used a crown over HO to mark his early swords, so I think it likely that your crown over TG was used by Thomas Gill. As another example, swords from a similar period can be found with a crown over GR over JEFRIS for Jeffries. So no absolute proof, but very likely to be Thomas Gill.
Cheers,
Bryce

Radboud · 13th June 2022, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotspur

That goes back to the possibilities of older crown over initials, or even numbers, as Loades writes.

Cheers
GC

Wholeheartedly agree that your sword predates the 1796 patterns. My point by bringing in the examples from the Dutch Army Museum is to provide conclusive evidence that Loades is incorrect in his assumption that the Crown over a number stamp ordinance marks are for specific sword makers.

I believe that your sword would have been an officer's private purchase so is unlikely to have been inspected by the ordinance board in any case. Which means that the stamp was likely to be an internal practice by the sword maker. Like the Osborn and Jeffries examples Bryce gives.

In absence of other examples and the early date of your sword (quite possibly from the beginning years of T Gills' career), Thomas Gill is a good candidate.

Bryce · 14th June 2022, 10:20 PM

G'day GC,
In terms of dating your sword, my best guess would be 1770's. By the 1780's Thomas Gill was marking his swords with his "Warranted Never To Fail" slogan. I have an early Gill sword. I will have to look under the langets to make sure it doesn't have a crown over TG mark. To be absolutely sure we need to find one marked with both Gill and the crown TG mark.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hotspur · 15th June 2022, 04:05 PM

Thanks guys. Apparently this sword has circulated enough that there had been discussion on the mark and Chris Allen has commented that the mark might also appear on blade tangs as well.

Continuing on the timeline sidebar, I guess we would assume the blade would have been produced by Thomas II but it seems weird to me that Mark Cloke's first page linked doesn't list him as a swordmaker in the early trade directories.

I suppose I need to get the rest of that article.

I don't have many resources on English makers, aside from the later trade with the US.

Cheers
GC

13th June 2022, 12:19 PM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	I see this discussion http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26688 A snippet from Mike Loades 'Swords and Swordsmen' relates the crown over numbers https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0 As well, Mark Cloke had penned an article on Gill relating a timeline of generations. So I guess I'm still looking at a timeline for the sword and confirming it is a Gill blade. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...4161208X345684 Cheers GC Attached Images Last edited by Hotspur; 13th June 2022 at 12:46 PM.

13th June 2022, 02:27 PM	#4
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	Well, first, the sword posted (imo) well predates the 1796 period by as much as two decades or so. The linked thread here relates the HO example from Bryce. So the questions still remain as to the TG under a crown and dating, I don't think an egg pommel in some way relates to 1796 model swords in the Dutch Museum. That goes back to the possibilities of older crown over initials, or even numbers, as Loades writes. There is the peen shot, which could possibly make it a composite but as the bumper washer is gone, it was likely just making things tight. Cheers GC Attached Images

13th June 2022, 10:43 PM	#5
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 188	G'day GC, Radboud is correct that after 1796, crown over number inspection stamps don't correspond to any particular maker. Prior to this they are relatively uncommon, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that they also don't apply to any particular maker. As to your sword I agree it certainly predates 1796. We know that Henry Osborn used a crown over HO to mark his early swords, so I think it likely that your crown over TG was used by Thomas Gill. As another example, swords from a similar period can be found with a crown over GR over JEFRIS for Jeffries. So no absolute proof, but very likely to be Thomas Gill. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

13th June 2022, 08:33 AM	#1
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 276	On late 18th Century, early 19th Century British swords the Crown over number was an inspectors mark and can’t be linked to a specific maker. That said, there is evidence that Henry Osborn used a similar Crown over HO stamp on his early swords.

13th June 2022, 01:14 PM	#3
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 276	The article is incorrect with regard to the numbers relating to a maker. Looking at the 1796 light cavalry sabres from the Dutch Army museum we can see a mix of inspection stamps and makers. I will make a list of the examples I kept records of and post them up tomorrow. But suffice it to say that there is no relationship between the number under the crown and the sword maker.

14th June 2022, 10:20 PM	#7
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 188	G'day GC, In terms of dating your sword, my best guess would be 1770's. By the 1780's Thomas Gill was marking his swords with his "Warranted Never To Fail" slogan. I have an early Gill sword. I will have to look under the langets to make sure it doesn't have a crown over TG mark. To be absolutely sure we need to find one marked with both Gill and the crown TG mark. Cheers, Bryce

15th June 2022, 04:05 PM	#8
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	Thanks guys. Apparently this sword has circulated enough that there had been discussion on the mark and Chris Allen has commented that the mark might also appear on blade tangs as well. Continuing on the timeline sidebar, I guess we would assume the blade would have been produced by Thomas II but it seems weird to me that Mark Cloke's first page linked doesn't list him as a swordmaker in the early trade directories. I suppose I need to get the rest of that article. I don't have many resources on English makers, aside from the later trade with the US. Cheers GC