British Naval Officer's Blue & Gilt Dirk

[Richard G]

Jim,
Not only no naval insignia but also, as far as I can see, no monarch's cypher. Only the style of this dirk connects it to the Navy. As you point out, if the Cross Pattee has any significance maybe it connects it to a Masonic Knights Templar organisation, or even the legal profession via the Inns of Court.
Regards
Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Jim,
Not only no naval insignia but also, as far as I can see, no monarch's cypher. Only the style of this dirk connects it to the Navy. As you point out, if the Cross Pattee has any significance maybe it connects it to a Masonic Knights Templar organisation, or even the legal profession via the Inns of Court.
Regards
Richard

Well pointed out Richard. Military swords and edged weapons for officers indeed had the Royal cypher in the blued field of the blade. Not only is the naval fouled anchor notably absent, but the blade is covered in a mélange of Masonic allegoric symbols. Of these, the cross pattee is of course to the Knights Templar order in the heirachy of Masonic rites.

It seems by its style that this dirk would certainly be Georgian, and inherently aligned with a naval weapon, but as noted earlier, the dirk was also a weapon used in Masonic regalia. As such it would be presumed that the according symbolism would be impressively displayed as with this example.

I wonder if naval officers of this period were perhaps simply absorbed within the membership of the broader scope of Masonic lodges, rather than there being a specific 'naval lodge'. It does by no means dismiss the notable rarity and keen naval gestalt of this example, and that it is indeed of the Georgian period.

As I could find no examples of naval dirk with Masonic motif until the one I noted from 1880, and as the only specific naval lodge recognized was not founded until 1838, the question remains if there was actually a recognized naval lodge in the end of the 18th into early 19th c .
The 1739 lodge apparantly became disassociated with the Grand Lodge as noted, and its members presumably filtered into other lodges .

This dirk is an outstanding example, and its Masonic character presents opportunities to look deeper into its history.

[Jim McDougall]

OK, think I found something else important,
From "Naval Swords" , P.G. W. Annis, Stackpole Books, 1970, example 47

"...there is nothing about this weapon to indicate a connection to the sea, but the same is true of most 18th century dirks. As few army officers, British or American, seem to have worn dirks to any great extent as large numbers of naval officers did there is a strong presumption that these belonged to the latter".

I did find that while most of the examples shown in this reference did not have naval symbols nor royal cypher, but others did. The shallow lion head mask did appear on some as well, usually those with the cypher on blade, but anchor on scabbard.

One example had a situation with the letter G stamped on the blade near the forte, though the entire dirk was to the outfitter Salter as shown on scabbard locket. It is noted that the G represented the Gill family of blade makers in business 1774-1826.
While it might be tempting to align the G with that letter commonly used in Masonic symbolism, usually within the compass, it is noted here only as an interesting coincidence.

It would seem then, that naval insignia nor royal cypher were necessarily prerequisite on naval dirks, so the fact that these were inherently naval officers weapons stands as appropriate designator here. The Masonic symbolism in this early period on such a clearly naval weapon in such profusion only adds intrigue to its clear rarity.
While it would

[Richard G]

Jim, I agree that this dirk is late Georgian or William IV. There are also other types, the most common being with a turned grip and somewhat resembling a stilletto. I agree that as a type these dirks are associated with Naval officers; but in every case?
What I am speculating is that these dirks are first and foremost Georgian, and although we can say probably Naval, we should not make that assumption if the clues lead elsewhere.
To put it rather simply, would a Naval officer, a Mason, or even a man off the street, who approached a sword cutler for a dirk be shown essentially the same dirk and be told we can 'customise' this to your requirements. Probably the majority of customers would be Naval officers and this would mean the majority of these dirks are Naval, but not necessarily every one. Cathey's could be one of those exceptions
Annis explains his 'strong presumption', but it is only that, due to the absence of any other likely attribution. Unfortunately a quick Google of Georgian dirks will reveal virtually every one is described as 'Naval'. Many obviously are, but some are more akin to hunting knives. Unless dirks were the sole preserve of Naval officers only this seems a too easy and rather sloppy attribution.
Regards
Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Jim, I agree that this dirk is late Georgian or William IV. There are also other types, the most common being with a turned grip and somewhat resembling a stilletto. I agree that as a type these dirks are associated with Naval officers; but in every case?
What I am speculating is that these dirks are first and foremost Georgian, and although we can say probably Naval, we should not make that assumption if the clues lead elsewhere.
To put it rather simply, would a Naval officer, a Mason, or even a man off the street, who approached a sword cutler for a dirk be shown essentially the same dirk and be told we can 'customise' this to your requirements. Probably the majority of customers would be Naval officers and this would mean the majority of these dirks are Naval, but not necessarily every one. Cathey's could be one of those exceptions
Annis explains his 'strong presumption', but it is only that, due to the absence of any other likely attribution. Unfortunately a quick Google of Georgian dirks will reveal virtually every one is described as 'Naval'. Many obviously are, but some are more akin to hunting knives. Unless dirks were the sole preserve of Naval officers only this seems a too easy and rather sloppy attribution.
Regards
Richard

Richard,
Actually I think we agree as reading through your observations it sounds as if we are saying somewhat the same thing. I must admit that even authors and authorities occasionally drop their guard, and fail to over qualify every word and nuance in their text, subject to the criticism and rebuttal of later researchers. It is probably my own perspective, but I typically avoid regarding such matters as being sloppy, and rather subject to revision.

The implication that dirks were primarily a naval weapon I think pertains to the British context, as obviously the dirk was well known outside naval use as well, the Scottish dirk not withstanding.

I indicated that in Masonry, the use of the dirk was in fact worn as a status and ranking symbol, thus certainly something available from outfitters for such purpose. So clearly, not only naval officers would be ordering such weapons. In the case of dirks used by naval officers, as shown in Annis, many of these were clearly personal items, reflecting few or virtually no military or naval features. This has long seemed to be inherently the case with naval officers with their choice of swords as well.

Therefore, as I see in rereading my text which was mostly the progression of research I was doing, I would revise my last comments in accord with what you note.
A British Georgian period (possibly later) dirk with Masonic motif and possible naval association.
Thank you for the well placed observations.

Best regards
Jim