Silver hilted

Norman McCormick · 12th May 2025, 05:20 PM

Hi Jim,
Thanks as always for your detective work. The timescale, and the initials of course, tie in very well with the typology of the sword. I found another sword attributed to Thomas Cullum with the marks also stamped on the flat of the guard albeit the underside as opposed to mine which is on the topside. https://bid.candtauctions.co.uk/lot-...F10%3Fpage%3D2 Another one at the National Maritime Museum https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/ob...c-object-78453 A mystery solved I hope.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. The U.K. National Archives have a catalogue description of the will of a Thomas Cullum, Sword Cutler of St Martin in the Fields, Middlesex.

Jim McDougall · 12th May 2025, 07:06 PM

Glad I could find useful info Norman. While not wishing to derail Keiths thread, regarding Cullum, as he passed in 1790 it would seem that his widow was still moving his stock through, and she passed in 1795 with John Prosser taking over. All of these were well connected regally to George III and IV.

Back to Keiths sword.
Not fully understanding the protocols pertaining to silver hilts etc. I wonder why makers marks would be removed......when would assay marks NOT have to do with taxation?
In some countries certain makers for the king (i.e. Spain) were free of taxation, thus sometimes spurious marks used by kings cutlers.

In another aspect, I have a brass hilt briquet, totally munitions grade, but with the cutlers assay touch mark in the hilt, and totally an anomaly. This cutler was aligned also with George III, but seems to have been providing other ranks side arms during invasion threat by France in 1790s. But WHY in brass! ?
Seems to have been curious matters at hand involving these protocols.

urbanspaceman · 12th May 2025, 07:19 PM

During my inspection of those empty apertures on the quillon I began to realise that it had been soldered back together at exactly that spot. Look closely and you will see the solder and how it has spread into those holes. Maybe the maker's marks were sacrificed during the procedure.
When I did exactly that job on the smaller of the two Shotley Bridge smallswords in my collection; I had a sacrificial hilt that I chopped the quillon from. Obviously it was virtually identical.

urbanspaceman · 12th May 2025, 07:23 PM

During my inspection of those empty apertures on the quillon I began to realise that it had been soldered back together at exactly that spot. Look closely and you will see the solder and how it has spread into those holes. Maybe the maker's marks were sacrificed during the procedure.
I did exactly that same job on the smaller of the two Shotley Bridge smallswords in my collection; I had a sacrificial hilt that I chopped the quillon from. Obviously it was virtually identical.
The apertures here are on the re-attached quillon which may well be from another sword: is that nefarious enough a reason Richard?

urbanspaceman · 12th May 2025, 07:41 PM

Name: Solder joints.jpg
Views: 128
Size: 115.8 KB

urbanspaceman · 12th May 2025, 07:49 PM

I think we have exhausted the possibilities of this discussion.

12th May 2025, 07:19 PM	#3
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 620	possible solution During my inspection of those empty apertures on the quillon I began to realise that it had been soldered back together at exactly that spot. Look closely and you will see the solder and how it has spread into those holes. Maybe the maker's marks were sacrificed during the procedure. When I did exactly that job on the smaller of the two Shotley Bridge smallswords in my collection; I had a sacrificial hilt that I chopped the quillon from. Obviously it was virtually identical.

12th May 2025, 07:23 PM	#4
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 620	possible solution During my inspection of those empty apertures on the quillon I began to realise that it had been soldered back together at exactly that spot. Look closely and you will see the solder and how it has spread into those holes. Maybe the maker's marks were sacrificed during the procedure. I did exactly that same job on the smaller of the two Shotley Bridge smallswords in my collection; I had a sacrificial hilt that I chopped the quillon from. Obviously it was virtually identical. The apertures here are on the re-attached quillon which may well be from another sword: is that nefarious enough a reason Richard? Last edited by urbanspaceman; 12th May 2025 at 07:24 PM. Reason: typo

12th May 2025, 07:41 PM	#5
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 620	picture

12th May 2025, 07:49 PM	#6
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 620	The End I think we have exhausted the possibilities of this discussion.

12th May 2025, 05:20 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,618	Hi Jim, Thanks as always for your detective work. The timescale, and the initials of course, tie in very well with the typology of the sword. I found another sword attributed to Thomas Cullum with the marks also stamped on the flat of the guard albeit the underside as opposed to mine which is on the topside. https://bid.candtauctions.co.uk/lot-...F10%3Fpage%3D2 Another one at the National Maritime Museum https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/ob...c-object-78453 A mystery solved I hope. My Regards, Norman. P.S. The U.K. National Archives have a catalogue description of the will of a Thomas Cullum, Sword Cutler of St Martin in the Fields, Middlesex.

12th May 2025, 07:06 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Glad I could find useful info Norman. While not wishing to derail Keiths thread, regarding Cullum, as he passed in 1790 it would seem that his widow was still moving his stock through, and she passed in 1795 with John Prosser taking over. All of these were well connected regally to George III and IV. Back to Keiths sword. Not fully understanding the protocols pertaining to silver hilts etc. I wonder why makers marks would be removed......when would assay marks NOT have to do with taxation? In some countries certain makers for the king (i.e. Spain) were free of taxation, thus sometimes spurious marks used by kings cutlers. In another aspect, I have a brass hilt briquet, totally munitions grade, but with the cutlers assay touch mark in the hilt, and totally an anomaly. This cutler was aligned also with George III, but seems to have been providing other ranks side arms during invasion threat by France in 1790s. But WHY in brass! ? Seems to have been curious matters at hand involving these protocols.