Shotley Bridge swordmakers

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

This may be a stupid question to the cognoscenti, but I confess to being a novice as you should know by now, so here goes:
Solingen apparently had the famous 'hollow' grinding machine causing much unrest in the 1680s; has anyone seen a hollow-blade/colichmarde marked from Solingen.
This was before Klingenthal and before Shotley Bridge; who else could be supplying the French? Were the blades from Solingen going to France signed in any way?

Salaams Kieth,
See http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16753

The whole thread is less than a page but is important reading. There is another example at #22 on that thread.. Clearly Solingen were exporting to France swords for refinishing but the essential German data was included on the blades.

Obviously the German sword makers of Solingen were confident that their Colichemarde blade machines could not be copied and in this regard they appear to have been right.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Regarding Samuel Harvey and at http://doczz.net/doc/617698/british-...%94an-overview It is noted that Samuel Harvey had a son Samuel Jr. who continued the business til 1795 viz;

Quote"Some research with cutlasses having viewer’s
marks and manufacturers names also enables one to generally identify the supplier according to the viewer mark.
Plate 29 on reference shows the hilts for three of these cutlasses.
The one on the left is early and without a viewers mark indicating it predates 1788. The blade has a spear point and is 28
1/2 inches long and 1 3/16 inch wide. It is marked with a
running fox and Harvey on the reverse and a different fox
like mark on the British. The iron hilt is solid (no seam), its
disks are essentially round, and the turned down quillon is
relatively wide. Samuel Harvey Sr. was a Birmingham sword
maker that provided cutlasses to the Royal Navy from 1748
to 1778 and his son, Samuel Jr. continued through 1795.
The absence of viewer marks would indicate that Harvey Sr,
made this cutlass.
The middle one is a later version of a similar cutlass.
The blade is similar but slightly shorter—27 1/2 inches long
and 1 1/4 inch wide. It is marked with a Crown/4 viewers
mark, and a running fox with initials (undecipherable) on
the guard. There are also undecipherable marks on the blade
tip. The disks are oblong, the iron hilt has a seam, and the
turned down quillon is relatively narrow. The viewer’s mark
indicates this cutlass was supplied by Gill, another
Birmingham supplier (1783–1803)"Unquote.

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Kieth,
Obviously the German sword makers of Solingen were confident that their Colichemarde blade machines could not be copied and in this regard they appear to have been right.

Thank-you Ibrahiim, that is exactly what I was looking for.
So, my questions now are these: if such swords exist i.e. the ones finished in France from Solingen blades, and are relatively easy to locate, where are the British equivalents?
While I am inclined to agree with the apparent singularity of the grinding mill, I cannot understand why applications for patents were attempted prior to 1685, if no-one here in Britain had 'the machine'. Unless they thought they could either make one... or procure one.
And why not set-up shop anyway? If no-one else had a machine, they didn't need a patent, other than to protect themselves from Solingen imports. There's something fishy about this whole business. It sounds to me like they were attempting to corner the market on Solingen hollow-blade imports, not make the blades themselves.
If anyone, prepared to pay or smuggle, could nip over to Rotterdam and pick up a chest of hollow blades, then only the smiths in Solingen and the finishers here were going to profit. The patent applications were from blade-smiths and grinders, hence my suspicions.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you again Ibrahiim. The article covering cutlasses was very interesting as it mentioned the relationship between the Viewer's Mark and the blade maker.

This is especially interesting, as I was given to understand (by an unremembered dealer - probably the one trying to sell me a Samuel Harvey as a Shotley Bridge sword) that the number beneath the crown was deliberately kept un-attributed in order to protect the Viewer from corruption.

So, it can be established from the Viewer's number where the blade (or sword???) was made and by whom. How does one do that? Do anyone know?

Incidentally: I was told about an aspect of my blade that I had noticed but not questioned, and that was its 'scarf weld' near the hilt. Does that have any maker significance that anyone is aware of?

[CutlassCollector]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you again Ibrahiim. The article covering cutlasses was very interesting as it mentioned the relationship between the Viewer's Mark and the blade maker.

This is especially interesting, as I was given to understand (by an unremembered dealer - probably the one trying to sell me a Samuel Harvey as a Shotley Bridge sword) that the number beneath the crown was deliberately kept un-attributed in order to protect the Viewer from corruption.

So, it can be established from the Viewer's number where the blade (or sword???) was made and by whom. How does one do that? Do anyone know?

Incidentally: I was told about an aspect of my blade that I had noticed but not questioned, and that was its 'scarf weld' near the hilt. Does that have any maker significance that anyone is aware of?

Hi,

'Swords for Sea Service' states that in 1788 Joseph Witten made four each of the viewers marks - a crown over 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
The National Maritime museum have associated the viewers marks with particular makers as they have examples of blades marked also with the manufacturer. That does not preclude the mark being used by another company. They also have identified a crown over 2.

Redell and Bate 2
Woolley 3
Gill 4
Osborn 8
Tatham and Egg 8

So although not conclusive to identifying an otherwise unmarked blade they are another piece of information and also date the blade to between 1788 and 1815 when their use ended.

I have seen many cutlasses with scarf welds near the hilt sometimes clearly visible while others are almost imperceptible. I do not think this relates to any particular manufacturer.
There is a theory that the hilt end is iron to help absorb the shock of impact.
This is hard to prove as there is no good - non intrusive - way to distinguish between iron and steel.

Regards, CC

[urbanspaceman]

Would smiths weld short hunting sword blades to new tangs to benefit from a high quality blade on a cutlass?
I've been told it was a question of making the high grade metal go further as it was not needed up at that end of the sword; any comments?

Surely all that is needed to establish the materials involved is a few file shavings from the edge of the blade; the back being the most acceptable. Any metallurgists out there want samples from my blade - just ask and I'll happily file off a few grains.

I understood that Samuel Harvey used an H as well as SH.
I think there was a WH too: as yet unattributed I believe.

I've tracked down and contacted the current owner of Danby Castle (it's the same family since Edward the Confessor) who has indicated the present whereabouts of the chest of SB swords discovered in a Priest Hole back in 1855 and said to have been destined for the Jacobite cause. I'm on my way to view them soon and salivating.

Thank-you CC, those marks and names are very useful; but - sorry: who is Joseph Witten?
My hanger is marked with a crown over a 9, but I suspect it was put on the blade when it was re-hilted, as the steel in the base of the stamp is brighter than the rest of the blade. Of course, it's stamped onto the hilt end of the scarf weld so... ???

Any military historians out there know where and when 2nd Battalions appeared in the ranks of British Militia? My hilt is marked S d B.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Kieth, Indeed there is a further puzzle inside this conundrum with the appearance of a W HARVEY ..Below. No Fox there however. Was this a miss strike? Was it done at the same time because Harvey also appeared on its own but with no initial see below...in several formats. ? I will try to address that in my next post...

The point about the H is that it is said to be a Hounslow mark. The confusion is underlined by it appearing inside an animal which looks more like a Labrador than a Fox... I have only seen one of these. Harvey senior had a son also named Samuel... and Samuel Jr had a son. Both were in Swords but I cannot find the grandsons name...was it also Samuel?

Below are various Harvey blade strikes...plus some randomly applied Passau Wolf and one from Solingen.There is an apparent Shotley sword with a Passau Wolf...There is an H inside a fox? There's an empty Fox. There is an altered SH made to look like SB...for whatever reason and the odd W HARVEY.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The only W Harvey I can find is as follows below
however some doubts were cast upon it because of its apparent date of manufacture about 1840...however the firm had been operational since 1820 ! I believe therefor putting this mark W HARVEY in range.

However... things never being so simple ...especially on this subject please see http://americansocietyofarmscollecto...2_Darling1.pdf

Where there is a sword with the stamp W HARVEY ...used 60 years before W Harvey came to be as a sword maker ...with his mark on the blade... very odd. However are we looking at a rehilted later blade ?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you Ibrahiim, that is exactly what I was looking for.
So, my questions now are these: if such swords exist i.e. the ones finished in France from Solingen blades, and are relatively easy to locate, where are the British equivalents?
While I am inclined to agree with the apparent singularity of the grinding mill, I cannot understand why applications for patents were attempted prior to 1685, if no-one here in Britain had 'the machine'. Unless they thought they could either make one... or procure one.
And why not set-up shop anyway? If no-one else had a machine, they didn't need a patent, other than to protect themselves from Solingen imports. There's something fishy about this whole business. It sounds to me like they were attempting to corner the market on Solingen hollow-blade imports, not make the blades themselves.
If anyone, prepared to pay or smuggle, could nip over to Rotterdam and pick up a chest of hollow blades, then only the smiths in Solingen and the finishers here were going to profit. The patent applications were from blade-smiths and grinders, hence my suspicions.

This is a good point. Where was the money in colichemarde swords? In the blade or in the adornment? So there was a sort of dual profit but more being made on the fancy hilt and scabbard than on the blade perhaps? The London sword makers/finishers were often ex Solingen people and must have had a hand in this subterfuge...No one was making colichimarde blades in England... but they were fitting them up with gold and silver hilts and fancy scabbards..Swords were being sold not only by sword smiths but by a host of Gentlemans outfitters in the city...I think that is the point about these weapons...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Here is a most puzzling blade mark... This not only does not look like the average Fox...more like a dog... and H ?? Is this Hounslow??

https://myarmoury.com/feature_engswords.html whilst a thorough description is noted of Hounslow Swords nothing is mentioned about the strike mark of an H inside a fox .