1796 LCS - Early Woolley Blade with Later WDD Scabbard?

Jim McDougall · 17th April 2025, 12:16 AM

These old British cavalry swords are the most fascinating and historic weapons ever IMO, as my earliest collecting days began with them in the mid 60s.

I have a totally unmarked version of the M1796 light cavalry (iilustrated), so hard to tell of course if these are together as originally issued. It seems unusual to have the scabbard marked as to maker, as far as I have known only regimental marks and rack numbers were applied. I am curious if there are particulars in this use of scabbard markings.

I am also curious about these swords with unit marks on the hilt and contrary unit marks on the scabbard. I have thought that these situations evolved from field circumstances where a rider lost his sword, whether killed or wounded and his scabbard remained attached to him.

If in the aftermath swords were collected off the field, perhaps by forces retrieving them for further use? perhaps battlefield swords and scabbards taken from either killed or wounded were compiled into stores. Later it was a matter of simply matching suitable scabbards to like swords...markings irrelevant.

Theoretical.... as these types of circumstances as far as I have known are not part of studies of military units, battles, events. Another of those historic elements considered mundane and not pertinent to the larger scope of study.

I have a M1796 heavy cavalry sword with scabbard marked entirely different unit than on the hilt, and another's hilt was unmarked and only scabbard marked.

Regarding Wooley, his 1788 blades were marked on the spine simply Wooley, no scabbard on this.

The brass stirrup hilt (illustrated)was thought to be a cavalry saber when I got it back in the 70s, and is marked WOOLEY & DEAKIN. In those day(per Annis & May) the Wooley name in this pairing existed only 1800-1803.
Much research done since then has revealed far more detail which has the years of the partnership a bit more expanded.

The black fluted grip is interesting as this is a French convention, and Wooley, IMO, always seemed to follow that in the elements of his hilts, his use of the Montmorency blades. However I have seen another hilt like this but by EGG.
At present, I think this is a British officers cutlass, fighting version.

efrahjalt · 17th April 2025, 10:07 PM

Thanks for the additional examples gents. Jim, that fluted grip is a beauty!

Glad to hear you concur with my assumption that it is an early blade based on the marking being only Woolley. By your dating that puts it sometime between 1788-1800 if I’m following correctly. Very cool!

I find it unlikely that it ended up randomly with a scabbard from the same manufacturer. The fact that it’s the same manufacturer as the blade makes me think that it was an intentional paring. Perhaps added later if the original scabbard was lost or broken, or maybe left over production blade that never left Woolley until later and went out with a later production scabbard. There are no other regimental marks on it that I can tell. Not sure if that says anything about its history.

Jim McDougall · 17th April 2025, 10:56 PM

Thank you so much!! especially for responding

I have had this saber since the 70s, and as I mentioned, it was termed a cavalry officers sword (?) but obviously this was atypical for any such thing.
The brass hilt, fluted grip and shorter blade clearly (as years later found) indicated a naval officers cutlass.
In a book by Wilkinson I found a match to this made by Durs Egg, identical ebony fluted grip etc. (cannot place title at the moment). As Egg did supply a lot of naval weapons it seems likely to support my idea (the one in the book was a frontispiece and not fully captioned).

I am inclined to agree on your date assessment, and Deakin as a partner only lasted until 1803. An article on this lurks about somewhere (I'll find it eventually). Wooley as I noted was heavily into the use of Montmorency section blades from the M1788s, and seems to have favored French affectations in hilts (his 1788 light cavalry hilt vs, Gill's which followed German form).

Jim McDougall · 18th April 2025, 01:03 AM

The center example of the fluted ebony grip brass hilt cutlass is one Mark Eley had and we discussed here in 2008. Note that his example of the same type hilt differs in having the regular hollow ground blade rather than the Montmorency (Wooley) I noted.
This suggests these were limited run of a type with cutlers using different blades, As indicated, I have seen one other example of these in Wilkinson,

17th April 2025, 12:16 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	These old British cavalry swords are the most fascinating and historic weapons ever IMO, as my earliest collecting days began with them in the mid 60s. I have a totally unmarked version of the M1796 light cavalry (iilustrated), so hard to tell of course if these are together as originally issued. It seems unusual to have the scabbard marked as to maker, as far as I have known only regimental marks and rack numbers were applied. I am curious if there are particulars in this use of scabbard markings. I am also curious about these swords with unit marks on the hilt and contrary unit marks on the scabbard. I have thought that these situations evolved from field circumstances where a rider lost his sword, whether killed or wounded and his scabbard remained attached to him. If in the aftermath swords were collected off the field, perhaps by forces retrieving them for further use? perhaps battlefield swords and scabbards taken from either killed or wounded were compiled into stores. Later it was a matter of simply matching suitable scabbards to like swords...markings irrelevant. Theoretical.... as these types of circumstances as far as I have known are not part of studies of military units, battles, events. Another of those historic elements considered mundane and not pertinent to the larger scope of study. I have a M1796 heavy cavalry sword with scabbard marked entirely different unit than on the hilt, and another's hilt was unmarked and only scabbard marked. Regarding Wooley, his 1788 blades were marked on the spine simply Wooley, no scabbard on this. The brass stirrup hilt (illustrated)was thought to be a cavalry saber when I got it back in the 70s, and is marked WOOLEY & DEAKIN. In those day(per Annis & May) the Wooley name in this pairing existed only 1800-1803. Much research done since then has revealed far more detail which has the years of the partnership a bit more expanded. The black fluted grip is interesting as this is a French convention, and Wooley, IMO, always seemed to follow that in the elements of his hilts, his use of the Montmorency blades. However I have seen another hilt like this but by EGG. At present, I think this is a British officers cutlass, fighting version. Attached Images

18th April 2025, 01:03 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Brass hilt cutlass The center example of the fluted ebony grip brass hilt cutlass is one Mark Eley had and we discussed here in 2008. Note that his example of the same type hilt differs in having the regular hollow ground blade rather than the Montmorency (Wooley) I noted. This suggests these were limited run of a type with cutlers using different blades, As indicated, I have seen one other example of these in Wilkinson, Attached Images

17th April 2025, 10:07 PM	#2
efrahjalt Member Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 58	Thanks for the additional examples gents. Jim, that fluted grip is a beauty! Glad to hear you concur with my assumption that it is an early blade based on the marking being only Woolley. By your dating that puts it sometime between 1788-1800 if I’m following correctly. Very cool! I find it unlikely that it ended up randomly with a scabbard from the same manufacturer. The fact that it’s the same manufacturer as the blade makes me think that it was an intentional paring. Perhaps added later if the original scabbard was lost or broken, or maybe left over production blade that never left Woolley until later and went out with a later production scabbard. There are no other regimental marks on it that I can tell. Not sure if that says anything about its history.

17th April 2025, 10:56 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Thank you so much!! especially for responding I have had this saber since the 70s, and as I mentioned, it was termed a cavalry officers sword (?) but obviously this was atypical for any such thing. The brass hilt, fluted grip and shorter blade clearly (as years later found) indicated a naval officers cutlass. In a book by Wilkinson I found a match to this made by Durs Egg, identical ebony fluted grip etc. (cannot place title at the moment). As Egg did supply a lot of naval weapons it seems likely to support my idea (the one in the book was a frontispiece and not fully captioned). I am inclined to agree on your date assessment, and Deakin as a partner only lasted until 1803. An article on this lurks about somewhere (I'll find it eventually). Wooley as I noted was heavily into the use of Montmorency section blades from the M1788s, and seems to have favored French affectations in hilts (his 1788 light cavalry hilt vs, Gill's which followed German form).