Hi Fernando,
Yes our posts crossed.
All I can say is that in general the 1804 cutlasses did not have the broad arrow mark. They often have a royal cypher and crown on the blade and an inspectors mark but there are just as many with no marks at all on the blade. No cutlasses were ordered by the BO between 1816 and 1841. Most 1804s were made before 1810.

It's possible that your one was returned to service in 1840 and stamped then. The British navy had not ordered any cutlasses since the 1804 model and found themselves very short after a fire in the Tower destroyed a large number of cutlasses that had been sent for new hilts.

But that is the only 1804 that I have ever seen marked to Bate so maybe that batch was stamped with the arrow on the guard. As always we can never be absolutely sure.

Here are some cyphers.
Regards,
David.

As Adrian and I had suggested (posts 14,15) the use of the broad arrow as a government mark goes back to the 1300s, but do not seem to have extended from 'materials' to weapons until the time of Queen Anne (1702-14) in any notable degree.
From what I found and posted earlier is that artillery (including cannon balls as shown by Will) seems to have the arrow earlier in the 17th.

The markings seem to appear on gun locks in the early 18th, but as I had noted, swords being mostly privately secured (though proved by officials) did not have the arrow. Some swords (naval cutlasses as noted by CC) had the GR mark on the blade, but other rank and file just had makers names.

David, let there be no doubt that you are well within this subject ... while i am only shooting in the dark. It is only confusing (for me) that various sites (three ...) i see out there offer 1804 cutlasses, claiming that their example comes with the broad arrow mark. Eventually in all those three, the pictures don't let see such detail.
... And i will act the Apostle Thomas way; see to believe !

Dear Jim, you might have noticed that i was aware of that; even posted confirming pictures. It seems as i didn't make myself understood. My question was not based on the span between 'materials' and weapons but between 'military equipment' and actual weapons, as per my previous post, due to having read it here and there. I was trying to dissect whether the term 'Military equipment' comprehends general hardware, artillery as for only guns ... or as (also) for ammunition; that not for swords and firearms.
But this was only a 'preciuousness' i was trying to tease Wayne to solve.

:p

It of course hinges on defining exactly which stores they meant by "Any Stores of War or Naval Stores whatsoever, with the Marks usually used to and marked upon His Majesties said Warlike and Naval or Ordnance Stores; ... [including] any other Stores with the Broad Arrow by Stamp Brand or otherwise". Note use of the word 'ordinance'.

Must have been written by a drunken Lord Solicitor.

Naval stores - Definition: Supplies for warships. First use 1670.
The definition of ordnance is military weapons.

I did find a reference of:
"The cutlass remained an official weapon in United States Navy stores until 1949". (I've posted photos of a US Marine in ww2 carrying the milsco 1941 cutlass before)

(and beyond)


It then references a US Marine NCO killing a NK soldier with one in 195o's at Inchon, and the authorization in 2011 for petty officers to carry them ceremonially, and have seen photos of POs doing cutlass drill on the Hanger deck of a US Nuclear Carrier while in blue camouflage. The cutlass is alive and well.

As we have no examples of UK models that early with broad arrow stamps, it is unlikely that they so marked them that early.

I am sure if Fernando had been around there then he would have ensured they were stamped to verify authentic RN ownership. As usual it's the ARMY B.O. who is to blame.

Sure thing, Wayne :eek: .

I forgot this 'Naval Hanger' of mine, a Continental impressed into RN service: Appears to have a broad arrow stamped over another mark.

That doesn't look like a crow's foot, Wayne; more like a hen's foot :o .

Velociraptor...

:eek: -