Pattern British Sword?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mgolab

Thanks Jim.

Finally received it. Seller was only 1 hr. or so from my house but USPS took three days...I should have picked it up.

anyway, there is a crown over TG. I assume Thomas Gill?

Thats great! Then it IS a Thomas Gill! Very nice! That puts the blade roughly 1784 and straight as were popular for dragoon swords, however these cavalry swords were of course longer. If the blade was indeed shortened that would go to the 'possible' naval' connection, but might have had other options as well. The brass hilt would be unusual for cavalry in these years. though certain anomalies did exist, but with much fancier blades.

According to various reading if I recall, there were certain tendencies toward cavalry type swords in naval contexts, and many in the 1800 period had stirrup hilts, just as seen in your previous post of the 'montmorency' blade saber shown as naval fighting sword .

When I got the Wooley & Deakin example I posted in comparison back in the 70s, it was listed as a cavalry officers saber.

I have seen these exact sabers, brass stirrup hilt, fluted ebony grip and montmorency blades, it seems a number produced by Wooley and Deakin c1800, as well as another the same by Durs Egg.

As I mentioned earlier, James Wooley of Birmingham seems to have certain preferences for French sword elements, as seen in his versions of the M1788 light cavalry saber (Thomas Gill followed German). This nuance I have never seen addressed, but I noticed it years ago, but being another of my petty quirks, was never really pursued.

Along with these preferences, Wooley also favored montmorency blades, but will place this later in separate thread.

Back to your sword, and again the blade, it seems likely the blade probably is something used in a rehilt about 1800 in any number of scenarios...the blade itself with profound intrinsic historic value.

[urbanspaceman]

Good work as usual Jim... well done.

[mgolab]

Thanks again Jim for the detailed response.

One further question: would this be an enlisted man's or officer's sword?

[Jim McDougall]

Given the character etc. I'd say other ranks (enlisted) but remember that officers often had plain jane weapons for use in fighting situations. While not typically expected to engage in the fray, but to direct, battle situations are dynamic and no telling when spillover could reach them.....so a sound sword, no frills was of course preferred.

The composite character here suggests again, assembly of preferred blade to familiar hilt for such purposes.


This is a mid 18th c. munitions grade basket hilt for foot regiments, this style known used by Black Watch, and assembled by Nathaniel Jeffries in London.
These were in use until the Revolution ended 1783, and infantry ranks ceased carrying swords, turning to use of bayonet.

These swords were turned in, and held in stores, but it appears the hilt on this was mounted to a M1788 light cavalry blade, perhaps in 1790s? or later. I have seen two other examples of this combination since I acquired this in the 1970s, so these appear 'one off' combinations possibly for fighting swords for officers of Highland regiments? The point is, unusual combination of a hilt to a preferred blade type. The original blades on these were of course straight so officers later preferring sabre blade to their traditional hilts seems logical.

[Richard G]

I have had a reply rejected twice, and it disappears!
I wonder if this gers through.
Richard

[Richard G]

I give up!