The m1804 British naval cutlass

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim, you old sea dog! Great to hear from you! Yes, these are definitely the questions I too want answers to. It is very possible that this pattern was floating around for a while before it became locked in stone as the model 1804. As noted, the earlier Brit cutlass had the figure 8 and a smooth iron core (different from even earlier figure-8's such as Thomas Hollier's swords of the early 18th with their antler or wood grips). I imagine with the smooth-gripped Rev War period Brit cutlass would be very slippery without the grooves so, thus, the 'new' model. Leave it to naval swords/cutlasses (which had no defined patterns until the last quarter of the 18th century, unlike every other branch of the military. Add to that the so-called private purchase one off swords, which again we typically don't see with any other military branch.)

I had totally forgotten about the whole East India connection! Still, I would think they would fall under control of the British monarchy and be so marked. To add even more confusion to the mess, we have the whole Schnitzler and Kirschbaum situation as detailed by Gilkerson. This firm had this model in their catalog circa 1850's AND it had a spurious block letter GR under crown on it/ Why would this be? Are we to assume the GR mark would be viewed as a sign of quality, much like the spurious Andrea Ferrera or Sahagan marking?

As far as the S&K swords, I'm wondering if the marking isn't spurious at all, but perhaps the cutlasses were simple overstock? Or perhaps the blades date to the wars and were refurbished in S&K made hilts? Better question yet, who was buying them then? Perhaps other country's merchant ships, but then why the GR to confuse things? I even started spinning off my gears thinking 'Were all of the m1804 blades German imports in the first place, with the said English suppliers just offering their wares as middlemen, as was pretty common back in the day! That might explain why the S&K had the GR, because they made and supplied the blades earlier. One thing is for sure to me. I don't believe S&K made these swords as a sort of historismus to the earlier wars. Had they been made a hundred+ years later, perhaps, but this was within a quarter century of the m1804's use. So hopefully someone out there has my answer!!

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance. The only German imports were through J.J.Runkel as far as I know.
I havent seen any Runkel cutlasses I can recall.

It does seem curious that the GR was on blades so late, and it may be that these were simply 'surplus' as sold off to private merchantmen, as such markings were not really relevant and these were serviceable weapons.

The East India Co. thing is a kind of mystery as well. They must have had cutlasses on their ships, but I am not familiar with what they used. As this was not a British government situation, they would not have the usual markings.
However, as David Harding claimed, no swords were ever marked with the EIC balemark, only gun locks and firearms, however bayonets which fell into the firearms category were so marked.

Those references you note are excellent, but I dont have them at the moment. Do you have the Sim Comfort reference?

[M ELEY]

I missed out on the opportunity to buy Mr. Comfort's volume when I had the chance (at $100 on it's release, I thought it too high! Oh boy, do I regret that decision!) I hope to find a used copy someday, as I know the books sell for an arm and a leg (pirate joke!) these days!

[kronckew]

I've read somewhere that the Board of Ordinance, being Army, insisted that all swords produced for them at the time would have a slot for a sword knot near the pommel.

The Navy order their 1804s without a sword knot slot because the seaman didn't rate one.

So the Army bean counters gave them one anyway. Which then, of course, some bright sparks in the navy actually used with a braided leather sword knot justincase someone dropped theirs accidentally.

My 1804 cutlass, blade, serrated grip, cleaned of red primer smears and retaining its dark patina, and spectacle guard painted flat black with MOD spec paint. NO markings other than a double 'sold out of service' broad arrow of the BOE. It has a very faint maker's stamp on the spine ??????LEY. I accidentally found a period braided, ball end, cutlass knot, a bit stiff, which I used to hang it on for the picture.

[M ELEY]

Excellent example, Wayne! It seems that either the GR or the broad arrow were the preferred BOE marks. Thank you also for that information on the sword knot slot. I always felt it was rather redundant as well. These cutlass are so heavy, I think if one slipped from your fingers during a swing and you were tethered to the beast, you'd either break your wrist or be flung in the current dirrection it was headed! Could the partial name be Hadley? He was one of the suppliers, from what I understand.

[CutlassCollector]

Great post Mark, good to see cutlasses.
These are my three. The top one is a Harvey marked on the spine and the second Thomas Craven marked on the blade. The third is the Norwegian/Swedish almost exact copy - a little later 1810.

What always surprised me about the 1804 is that although it was heavier and longer than many other cutlasses it still feels good in the hand. Well balanced and 'light'.

[M ELEY]

Hello CC and great to hear from you! Thanks for posting these and it is great to see the subtle differenes to the pieces based on each maker. They are not all 'cookie cutter', as some would surmize. I had quite forgotten about the the Swedish varient of the m1804! Do we know how these were contracted out? As they still fell into the time period of Fighting Sail, did England purposely stock them to help protect Swedish shipping from Napoleonic privateers? I've seen the Swedish crown marking and, I believe, some with the king's initials? CR or ??? My memory is a little lax right now-

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... Could the partial name be Hadley? ...

Could be. I had a brain fart that maybe it was M Eley . Could be Woolley too.


p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

[M ELEY]

p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

Gotcha 100%!!

[Jim McDougall]

The lanyard, sword knot thing with these is most interesting. Wayne makes a good point about not having these tethered to ones arm when possible fall into water loomed. The thing with cavalry sabers is more pragmatic as being on a fast moving horse and losing your weapon would be disastrous in a melee.

The idea of the blood, sweat, moisture issues compromising hold is surely viable given the potential of those factors being present, whether the frequency was regularly seen or not.

What I have found interesting in reading more on these is that it seems there were numerous cases of these being captured, or otherwise acquired by American naval vessels. It was interesting to note a hole drilled in the forward section of the main guard disc, said to be done by sailors for the very reason of holding the cutlass securely as discussed.
Yet, these already have the aperture at the top of the knuckleguard section near the pommel, so it would seem redundant.

Thank you CC for adding these examples, and I have wondered just how many makers were supplying these in these early years, now I can see Harvey added to the list along with Craven et al. It is puzzling to me that some have the marking J.Gill. As far as have known J. Gill was marked using the letter seen now as 'I' in place of J in alphabets of the period. I have a M1796 heavy cavalry by Gill marked I Gill (=John) from 1814.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance.

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

"Swords of the British Army" Brian Robson, 1975, p.15:
"...at its second meeting on 7 June, 1788 the Board went into the thorny question of German versus British manufacture. It took evidence on the British side from three manufacturers- Thomas Gill, Samuel Harvey and James Wooley- from Birmingham and on the German side, J.J.Runkel".

Possibly the term 'sword scandals' might have caused you to misunderstand what I was talking about, but as I expressed 1790s, it does indicate I meant a period long before Queen Victoria's time (Victorian period 1837-1901). To be sure, there was considerable consternation about British sword blades through the Victorian period as well and quality issues, but these had nothing to do with Gill, Wooley, Runkel or the testing in 1788.
The tests and aftermath led Gill to begin using the term 'warranted' on his blades, and a number of other British makers followed suit, with this convention waning in the early years of the 19th c.

Thomas Gill had passed in 1801- and John in 1817.

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

I get the impression that you are mixing your history together. The so-called 'Sword Scandals' are a specific event that occurred in the 1880s which Matt Easton describes in the following video:

When 'Made in Germany' Meant Bad!

Essentially cheap mass-produced German swords and bayonets were found to be of unreliable quality resulting in a number of noticeable failures in the field. Hence the 'Scandal'.

The tests you are referring to were initiated by Gill after much lobbying to the Ordnance board (who refused to conduct them as it was a matter for the supply officers) and were finally done for an order placed by the East India Company, were a response to complaints by British Cutlers.

The cutlers were complaining that existing taxes on German blades should be lifted because they were protecting inferior British-produced blades. Gill, seeing that his business was threatened, lobbied that his British-made blades were superior to the German imports, and challenged the Ordnance board to test his claims.

When Gills swords were tested, they were shown to be markedly better than the ones supplied by J J Runkel and Wooley (I have posted the numbers previously). However, the Runkel blades performed much better than the Wooley ones, confirming that, except for Gills blades, the German-made blades were better than those manufactured locally. This is the opposite of what happened with the actual 'Sword Scandals' in the 1880s.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

I get the impression that you are mixing your history together. The so-called 'Sword Scandals' are a specific event that occurred in the 1880s which Matt Easton describes in the following video:

When 'Made in Germany' Meant Bad!

Essentially cheap mass-produced German swords and bayonets were found to be of unreliable quality resulting in a number of noticeable failures in the field. Hence the 'Scandal'.

The tests you are referring to were initiated by Gill after much lobbying to the Ordnance board (who refused to conduct them as it was a matter for the supply officers) and were finally done for an order placed by the East India Company, were a response to complaints by British Cutlers.

The cutlers were complaining that existing taxes on German blades should be lifted because they were protecting inferior British-produced blades. Gill, seeing that his business was threatened, lobbied that his British-made blades were superior to the German imports, and challenged the Ordnance board to test his claims.

When Gills swords were tested, they were shown to be markedly better than the ones supplied by J J Runkel and Wooley (I have posted the numbers previously). However, the Runkel blades performed much better than the Wooley ones, confirming that, except for Gills blades, the German-made blades were better than those manufactured locally. This is the opposite of what happened with the actual 'Sword Scandals' in the 1880s.

I suspected that by using the word SCANDALS, even though I specified 1790s and Thomas Gill, you might have misunderstood what I meant. Indeed the issues with the quality of blades persisted THROUGH the 19th century, and involved pretty much every pattern of sword in one way or another. While these issues (or scandals) prevailed, in the 19th century matters it was not so much on German imports as designs, quality etc.
Matt Easton is an excellent researcher so his coverage on this is great.

The issues brought forth by Thomas Gill were indeed as you describe, but the matters at hand involved in many clandestine dealings and issues which were deemed unsavory, thus considered scandalous. While not specifically labeled by that term in references, the conditions using the term were my own description (though I have seen it used in reference in other sources in the same manner).
So actually I am not confusing history, but used a common term which described the events I referred to, and specified in my comments exactly the period to which it applied. I am sorry you misunderstood, so thank you for clarifying.

Yes, I have had Richard's book since it came out, and his chapters on the Gill's and especially Runkel are brilliant!!! I cannot say enough on the excellence of his research and the thorough coverage. For years, since I first began using Robson (1975) that was my primary resource as in those days I was collecting every British cavalry pattern (took a while but I did it .
Richard's book does not supercede Robson directly, but perfectly augments it, which is why "new perspectives" is included in the title.

Having discussed Gill as one of the apparently numerous makers of the British 1804 pattern cutlasses, in interesting detail, I hope we can see more examples, marked, by other makers of the period. On that note, if these were as suspected, around in some from before the 1804 regulation I wonder if Thomas Gill II might have been involved. It seems in the 1788 period of the 'scandals' his swords were primarily for officers, while those by Wooley were with simple name stamp on back of blade.
It would be most interesting if Thomas Gill II might have made a cutlass prior to his death in 1801.

The others marked Gill (by John) would seem post 1806 or thereabout?

[Jim McDougall]

I just got the Sim Comfort volumes!!! and they are unbelievable!

To answer some of my own questions in first browsing,
it seems the double disc cutlass as a form may well have been created by Thomas Hollier, between 1716-1727 and was around variously through the century. I did find an example by Thomas Gill from 1780-85,
the blade was stamped on face, upper quadrant at forte, Tho. GILL

Thomas Gill was registered c. 1774 as a steel worker toys, files, razord.
About 1783 listed as sword maker, but it is suggested may have done so earlier due to the Revolutionary War.