The m1804 British naval cutlass

[M ELEY]

Note the peened tang at the pommel and the simple cut sheet guard that was simply folded over the grip. The small open slot near the pommel was for a leather lanyard that a sailor could wrap around his wrist to keep him from losing his grip during battle on a moving ship in hand-to-hand combat and often with bloody hands! The guard of the cutlass could likewise be used as a weapon to punch adversaries in the face!

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

[M ELEY]

The contractors for the 1804 Pattern cutlass as of May, 1804 are:

Henry Osborn, T Hadley, Woolley & Co, Craven and Co, and Dawes.
Whether these are just merchants selling to the naval department or actual producers of the weapons, I do not know. The significance is these firms frequently had their own varying GR government ordenance stamp.

The contractors for September 30th 1808 were:

Woolley, Gill, Dawes, Osborn, Hadley, Reddell, Cooper, and Bates.

It is also noted that Tatham and Egg also furnished this pattern. There were NO MORE cutlasses ordered by the Board of Ordnance for the 1814-41 period, after which a new naval pattern British cutlass emerged.

[M ELEY]

Not all m1804 pattern cutlass are stamped. This presents a puzzle, as the British marked everything government issue with either the GR or the broad arrow mark (for a great nautical book, see Heart of Oak:A Sailor's Life in Nelson's Navy by James McGuane. This book shows to what lengths the ordnance department stamped the broad arrow on everything from nails to glass panes to hard biscuit!). It can only be assumed that the unmarked 1804's were overstock and perhaps used for private purchase merchantmen and privateers of the British commerce fleet. As no new patterns were issued after 1814, perhaps these were 'late-comers' to the war effort and were sold to other nations? I don't believe they would have been issued to any of the other semi-naval departments (Revenue Cutters, Dock workers) for the exact reasons explained above.

To show how popular the m1804 pattern was, here id a British private purchase sword which, although it has a sheet pattern guard, still retains the ribbed iron grip and straight bladed spear point of the discussed pattern. Note the weak punch mark. Is it a GR? WR? VR? Hard to tell-

[M ELEY]

Here are some great references for those interested in the subject matter-

Gilkerson's Boarders Away:With Steel
Heart of Oak, James McQuane
Naval Swords, P.G.W. Annis
Navies of the American Revolution, Prentice-Hall
British 18th & 19th Century Naval Cutlasses, Harvey Withers
Small Arms of the Sea Service, Rankin
British Naval Edged Weapons-An Overview (online article by Peter Tuite)

[Jim McDougall]

What an outstanding subject for a thread Capn!!! and these are fascinating weapons that hold amazing pasts in maritime lore!
While these are referred to as M1804, I wonder if, as with many 'regulation patterns' these were in use in some degree prior to bring recognized officially in 1804.

Are there prototypes of other hilt forms which might have led to the distinct double disc (thus figure 8) guards of the hilt?
The single disc American hilt you show is interesting, but perhaps the second disc was of course for better hand protection recalling the 'basket hilt'?

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Were these used on private ships such as merchant vessels? also any evidence these might have been used by East India Co.?

[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.

[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.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

[toaster5sqn]

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

[toaster5sqn]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

The more you learn the less clear cut it becomes!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

Thomas Gill II was indeed making swords as early as 1780, in fact was already involved in petitions etc regarding issues with importing German blades to be hilted by English cutlers. By 1787 there was a trial against J J Runkel for damages favor of the five known makers in England at the time.

Gill definitely had some questionable actions involving these matters, and there were claims that Gill even may have had connections to Matthew Boulton (London inventor and swordsmith) who is believed to have invented the machine used.
Thomas Gill II is the Gill we are discussing, it gets confusing as his son Thomas III was involved for a very short time in the business.

[Jim McDougall]

The J Gill thing was my own faux pas guys! I was thinking out loud of John, and should have used 'I 'as marked. Oops

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Gill definitely had some questionable actions involving these matters, and there were claims that Gill even may have had connections to Matthew Boulton (London inventor and swordsmith) who is believed to have invented the machine used.
Thomas Gill II is the Gill we are discussing, it gets confusing as his son Thomas III was involved for a very short time in the business.

You need to get Richard Dellars book on the British Cavalry Swords, he has two excellent chapters on Gill and J J Runkel which covers this period in a lot of detail.

Thomas Gill II did a lot of machining work for Matthew Boulton and was openly praised by the latter for the precision and quality of his work. They almost certainly worked together on the testing machine that was used.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

Richard Dellar's book is outstanding!! as is the supplement added later.
This image is from a M1796 heavy cavalry disc hilt made in 1814, According to my understanding of Dellar's chapter, John was indeed the one making blades .
He passed in 1817, and his widow Elizabeth took over the business. It is unclear who made the blades at this point.

[CutlassCollector]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

I thought I would post pictures of this British Coastguard cutlass because it has a good example of the block GR and is also marked Enfield and a rather worn crown. The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

It is also interesting because the shape of the blade looks like it took its inspiration from the very rare 1814 cutlass. Sim Comfort suggests that the 1814 exists with two different grips (page 235) - the same as the 1804 grip and a later version.
The coastguard cutlass grip is like the later version. It is more shaped at the palm and the end with 20 spiral rings and does not have the vertical slots of the 1804 grip.

[adrian]

The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

Unfortunately the 'end date' of 1830 cannot be ascribed and should be extended to c1840 given the evidence of other blades of later date with the same stamps. Take for example the early Brunswick Rifle swords that are also stamped ENFIELD and have that same crown/GR stamp - those date to the early reign of Queen Victoria.... an example from my collection below. I have yet to come across a convincing reason for this other than that they had yet to replace the GR stamp that was used for such blades; Blackmore cites evidence that the 1800 dated storekeeper's stamp, applied to the stock (butt) of small arms, was still being used in 1824, so it would not be an isolated case of an 'old' stamp continuing in use.

[adrian]

Also a photo of an unusual Sappers & Miners style sword socket bayonet with the same stamp. Two examples of the longarm with this bayonet are known and have been varying identified as P/1836 Sea Service Muskets or as early prototype Sappers and Miner Pattern 1841 Carbine - new research however shows such ascriptions as incorrect, they are 'Presentation' carbine & its bayonet, made at Enfield in about 1838-40.

[CutlassCollector]

Thanks Adrian. Just when you think there is something definite!

Interesting that the GR was still being used right through William's reign and into Victoria's.
I know carving out the mirror image cypher onto a steel punch to form the stamp must have required a large amount of skill. There is a Victoria cypher which has been made by removing part of the W from a William cypher. I'll look out the pictures.
Tends to support the theory that it took awhile for new stamps to get made.

[adrian]

Thanks Adrian. Just when you think there is something definite!

I study the longarms more so than the blades and I do agree that, frustratingly, there almost always seems to be an exception to any 'rule'.

Interesting that the GR was still being used right through William's reign and into Victoria's.

William did have his own cypher placed on locks set-up to arms within his reign. However most barrels used in his reign were 'old' from Store & therefore have their original GR proof stamps. The only proof stamp that can confidently be ascribed to William is the 'crown/TP/arrow' stamp (sometimes in different config) and that can be found on the few 'new made' barrels from his reign, such as on the Manton P/1833 Cavalry Carbine. His reign was a 'quiet' time for arms manufacture as the old war store was still being 'run down' and experimentation was being conducted on the percussion system.

I know carving out the mirror image cypher onto a steel punch to form the stamp must have required a large amount of skill.
The stamps appear to have generally been ordered from makers, there are records of purchase but it does seems to have been rather frugal in the way we see old stamps being used much later.

There is a Victoria cypher which has been made by removing part of the W from a William cypher. I'll look out the pictures. Tends to support the theory that it took a while for new stamps to get made.

I would be most interested to see that - a separate thread perhaps. I doubt it would be a lock plate cypher, due to the engraving method of application at that time. I suspect therefore that you mean the Crown/MR proof stamp which is most often misinterpreted as Crown IVR and ascribed to William IV (Blackmore has that misinterpretation) or as VR and ascribed to Victoria, as it is often mis-struck but is different to her much later VR proof stamp. The Crown/MR stamp actually dates to no later than 1816. (ref Bailey, The Armoury Mills Kent, JAAS Vol 21 No.6)

[M ELEY]

Thank you, CC and Adrian, for your input. I, too, am flummoxed by the quite late usage of the block GR stamping! Is there any significance, though, to the fact that the early block letters found on blades were in-line to the hilt whereas these are perpendicular?

CC, That is an amazing and beautiful example of a Coastguard cutlass! You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR. I had assumed it was a later stamping, as it is weak and the style of sword from earlier. But with all of this new information on WR markings made into VR stamps and GR stamps still around in the mid-19th, the puzzle continues!

And do I dare say I've seen British 1845 cutlass marked simply with RN (Royal Navy? Yet, no crown or Victoria, or??? My head is about to explode!)

[adrian]

You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR.

As you suspect it is a VR stamp, if WR it would be too 'off center'.

[kronckew]

The British 'Coastguard' cutlass has a ribbed steel grip and a brass guard, the blade suggests it was influenced by the 1796 LC sabre, but shorter. The scabbard was steel, with the centre section japanned black.


The sword was carried on horseback by the Coastal riders of the ;ate 18c & early 19c. They were essentially customs agents looking for smugglers. Much like the USCG, which started as the 'Revenue Cutter Service'. The Present UK Coastguard is not an armed service, unlike the USCG, which is.


the British Coast riders were recommended for disbandment in in 1783, but became the UK Coastguard, formed in 1822 from a merger of the Revenue Cruisers, the Riding Officers and the Preventative Water Guard. There were at their peak only 291 riding officers to guard the whole UK.

When they were later disbanded & disarmed, many of the swords were reissued later to the hospital corps in the later years of the 19c.

Mine:

[CutlassCollector]

My main reason to post the Coastguard cutlass was to support Mark's view on the block GR by British manufacturers. I have to admit though that my knowledge of cyphers and crowns is limited. It would be a good thread on its own as Adrian suggests.

In the meantime this neatly brings us back to Mark's 1804 thread. There are at least two 1804's with a VR cypher. I owned one of them in the past and can vouch that it is a genuine 1804 cutlass and not a replica. It has been discussed before and opinions vary as to why an 1804 would have a VR stamp when no new cutlasses had been made for many years. Some think that the cypher is fake, but it looks OK to me - any thoughts?

My own theory for the contradiction follows. A large number of existing 1804 cutlasses had been sent to the tower for modification, which included a new hilt, when a serious fire at the Tower in 1841 destroyed large numbers of these. In order to make up the the serious shortage these were re-issued with a VR stamp in the 1840s. There is no proof of course and unless there was a stock of unmarked spares it does not explain why there are no signs of a GR or other markings.

The cypher seems to have been made by altering the W to a V. Perhaps because a new cypher was not yet made for the new monarch.