1796 LCS - Early Woolley Blade with Later WDD Scabbard?

Jim McDougall · 19th April 2025, 02:34 AM

It seems that the James Wooley & Thomas Deakin partnership long held to be in years 1800-1803 (Annis & May)actually predated that to 1790.

James Wooley supplied bayonets during c.1793.
Obviously we know he was making M1788 light cavalry sabers.
The first mention of WOOLEY & DEAKIN was in "Chapmans Birmingham Directory" in 1800.
The earliest Board of Ordnance reference to this name combination was 1803.
One reference noted Wooley's partnership with FRANCIS DEAKIN ended in 1812?
Possibly a family member ?

YET,
By 1808, there is a dated M1803 field, flank co. officers sword to
WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON.

By 1810 M1796 light and heavy cavalry swords to
WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON AND JOHNSON (who appears to have joined after 1808)

another anomaly is a 1796 lt. cav. saber
WOOLEY DEAKIN AND DOBBS on scabbard
However in notations a 'B' on blade spine is noted as =Birmingham
while other indications are that is indicating 'bend' mark.
It seems that convention was used later than this but cannot recall.

So it would seem that WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON would be pre 1808.

One Wooley M1796 had scabbard engraved C.M.MENZIES, CARR BRIDGE

A M1796 saber is to WOOLEY & SARGANT (1814-1816) with notation this firm was formerly WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON, has the crowned 4 attributed to Wooley & Sargant...
The scabbard is marked solely WOOLEY.

In conclusion, I would presume a scabbard marked WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON would date 1803-1808 as in 1808 Johnson joined firm.

Here I would note that the dynamics of these partnerships suggest that a pairing of an unmatched scabbard using other wording from essentially the same firm was likely use of an extant one still held in the stores of that firm and during the production of swords of the said pattern. Scabbards are external to the sword itself of course, so are hard to use in the date assessment of the sword. However the pairings are interesting in the history of the sword in speculating possible avenues of the pairing.

This material from" "New Light on the Partnership of James Wooley and Thomas Deakin", Philip Lankester, Arms & Armour, Vol.1, #2, 2004, pp.159-164.
Also various auction entries from Christies, Bonhams et al

Hotspur · 23rd April 2025, 06:44 PM

Then there are Wooley Deakin&Co. blades on non Wooley hilts.

I've book notes on dates but off the top of my head, the 1810 seems about right.

The &Co supposedly puts this blade below marked no later than 1806.

Cheers
GC

Jim McDougall · 23rd April 2025, 09:12 PM

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

Hotspur · 25th April 2025, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

I don't know who furbished that sabre. I can only place it in time by the style and Mowbray likes these backstrap examples as post 1818, but we have the 'absolute' of those wd&c marks as from 1803-1806. That's a pretty narrow window. That blade is cast steel but there is no mark indicating that.

I know nothing of trade blades being specifically marked as such. There is a Thillman note about a particular French Fourbisshier and ACW officers swords but there is nothing I've read on 18th or early century swords. I can though spot surplus Napoleonic era blades in use as late as the 1850s.

Cheers
GC

Hotspur · 25th April 2025, 04:32 PM

I was going back through some shared pictures from 2004. The pages were written by a Philip Lankester, Weapons Department, Royal Armouries 2004

In those brief pages, he describes the Woolley/Deakin association and the business agreement that Deakin's partnership was to continue with Wooley's estate. The first ordnance order was for hangers in 1797, albeit we know Wooley on his own predates that and Deakin starts with him in 1790.

I swore not to share the four pages and it does not define the timeline of the sword presented here.

From Langham's and Oldswords

Cheers
GC

25th April 2025, 04:32 PM	#5
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	I was going back through some shared pictures from 2004. The pages were written by a Philip Lankester, Weapons Department, Royal Armouries 2004 In those brief pages, he describes the Woolley/Deakin association and the business agreement that Deakin's partnership was to continue with Wooley's estate. The first ordnance order was for hangers in 1797, albeit we know Wooley on his own predates that and Deakin starts with him in 1790. I swore not to share the four pages and it does not define the timeline of the sword presented here. From Langham's and Oldswords Cheers GC Attached Images

19th April 2025, 02:34 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	It seems that the James Wooley & Thomas Deakin partnership long held to be in years 1800-1803 (Annis & May)actually predated that to 1790. James Wooley supplied bayonets during c.1793. Obviously we know he was making M1788 light cavalry sabers. The first mention of WOOLEY & DEAKIN was in "Chapmans Birmingham Directory" in 1800. The earliest Board of Ordnance reference to this name combination was 1803. One reference noted Wooley's partnership with FRANCIS DEAKIN ended in 1812? Possibly a family member ? YET, By 1808, there is a dated M1803 field, flank co. officers sword to WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON. By 1810 M1796 light and heavy cavalry swords to WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON AND JOHNSON (who appears to have joined after 1808) another anomaly is a 1796 lt. cav. saber WOOLEY DEAKIN AND DOBBS on scabbard However in notations a 'B' on blade spine is noted as =Birmingham while other indications are that is indicating 'bend' mark. It seems that convention was used later than this but cannot recall. So it would seem that WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON would be pre 1808. One Wooley M1796 had scabbard engraved C.M.MENZIES, CARR BRIDGE A M1796 saber is to WOOLEY & SARGANT (1814-1816) with notation this firm was formerly WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON, has the crowned 4 attributed to Wooley & Sargant... The scabbard is marked solely WOOLEY. In conclusion, I would presume a scabbard marked WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON would date 1803-1808 as in 1808 Johnson joined firm. Here I would note that the dynamics of these partnerships suggest that a pairing of an unmatched scabbard using other wording from essentially the same firm was likely use of an extant one still held in the stores of that firm and during the production of swords of the said pattern. Scabbards are external to the sword itself of course, so are hard to use in the date assessment of the sword. However the pairings are interesting in the history of the sword in speculating possible avenues of the pairing. This material from" "New Light on the Partnership of James Wooley and Thomas Deakin", Philip Lankester, Arms & Armour, Vol.1, #2, 2004, pp.159-164. Also various auction entries from Christies, Bonhams et al

23rd April 2025, 06:44 PM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	Then there are Wooley Deakin&Co. blades on non Wooley hilts. I've book notes on dates but off the top of my head, the 1810 seems about right. The &Co supposedly puts this blade below marked no later than 1806. Cheers GC Attached Images

23rd April 2025, 09:12 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Good note Glen! As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).