English Naval Cutlass or English Lead Cutter
 

From all the information that I could find this sword appears to be an English Lead Cutter Sword, except it isn't labeled as such, it has a # "6 or 9," on the scabbard, depending on your view(From what I could find there were only 4 sizes of lead cutting swords), and it isn't extraordinarily heavy.
Can someone conclusively tell me what this is?
***Also note that the blade is 28"long.

The placement of a low 'rack' number on British sea service small arms of this period, by using an applied copper 'plaque', surfaces occasionally and I have seen it on Boarding Pikes as well as on at least one Sea Service Musket bayonet's scabbard. This is the first time I have seen it on a cutlass, thank you for posting that.

So, this isn't a Lead Cutter, but a naval Cutlass? Thank you for the information. Can you tell me why it is unusual to have a "low rack number:" I would have thought each vessel had to start at the number "1."

This is the standard 1889 pattern British cutlass but these are normally well marked with broad arrow, dates and inspector stamps.
Without those markings I would guess it was private purchase.

CC

This video may be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJDFHas5R0

Thanks to all for the informative comments and the educational video. The sword seems a departure from earlier, shorter cutlasses that I have encountered, with its 28" blade it reminds me more of a cavalry sword as opposed to a cutlass. It must have encompassed a new theory of shipboard fighting whereas, earlier with the exception of boarding pikes, I had always thought that short swords and axes were used in the close, crowded boarding actions.
Also, I am surprised that they developed a new cutlass in 1889, as I would have thought that they would be obsolete by then.

28" is hardly long, infantry swords were a standard 32" and cavalry swords generally longer than that with 34" to 36" being common and some were longer again.

As for being late, the last British cavalry pattern sword was the 1908, since the Russo Japenese war had appeared to show that cavalry charges remained effective. WWI came as a nasty shock to military planners.

Robert

The 1889 was modelled on the 1882 cavalry sword so there are similarities. The guard was innovative as it had a raised rib that acted as a point deflector but also strengthened the guard allowing lighter material. Brits liked long cutlasses - the 1804 was around the same length.

The last pattern was 1900 (even more obsolete) and was very similar to the 1889 but with a remodelled grip and the blade had a fuller.
CC

A frigate would carry at least 100 cutlasses - more on larger vessels - so the chances of one with a single digit number surviving are 10 to 1. Move that to bayonets where there are tens of thousands then a low serial number would be even rarer.

It was not standard practice to number cutlasses - depended on the ship. If they were, it was on the cutlass itself with often a brass diamond rivetted to the guard.
Cutlasses were racked and only a few scabbards were carried for guard duty and shore patrol.

In the 1890s, I would guess, that for a merchant vessel they would carry no more than a handful of cutlasses complete with scabbards. Mainly for guard duty in dodgy ports!

On your cutlass there is a button on the side of the handle - not seen on gov issue - and may indicate a safety catch to hold it in the scabbard. Is there a spring loaded catch underneath the guard and a slot in the scabbard?

Once again a wealth of information and thanks to all.
Yes, I realize that the mode of thinking in the late 19th Century regarding swords was that longer was better; this reflected a change in tactics from slashing to thrusting as evidenced by the development of our Patton Sword. Obviously, when sitting atop a horse, the extra length would be desirable.
Also in the period in which you referenced, horses and mules were an intricate part of an army, for transportation, logistical support, etc, this era mostly predated mechanized vehicles, etc., and even if they had them, the rough muddy terrain that they often found themselves in would have negated their usefulness and as such the Cavalry was a necessary component of warfare.
As there was a change in the mindset of the Cavalry, I was wondering if there was a progression in maritime fighting tactics. Examples of shorter cutlass such as the German M1911, the Austrian M1858, the Swedish M1851, the US 1917, and others led me to this question.
Cutlass Collector, you are 100% correct, the button is spring-loaded and there is a slot on the scabbard.

Move that to bayonets where there are tens of thousands then a low serial number would be even rarer.

Approaching this logically no ship would have carried many hundreds of sea service muskets and bayonets and the chances of finding a low rack number on a sea service small arm in fact would be rather high as there were so many ships and craft of smaller size, carrying small numbers of small arms; many engaged in anti smuggling duties, etc. Below is such a bayonet with a low number:

Yes, of course, but I meant serial numbers instead of rack numbers for bayonets.

A very nice item and some interesting and informative replies. My money was on a lead-cutter til I made my way down the thread... the spring clip clinched it and removed all doubt. Private purchase cutlass for certain. Congratulations.

Yes, of course, but I meant serial numbers instead of rack numbers for bayonets.

Well you have me perplexed then - what is a 'serial number' on a sea service socket bayonet of the period under discussion?

Lead Cutter??
 

I was a bit baffled by this terminology but I get it now... Wikipedia states Quote.
"The lead cutter sword was a weapon modelled on the cutlass, designed for use in shows and demonstrations of swordsmanship in the late Victorian era. Wilkinson Sword made these swords in four sizes, no. 1 to no. 4, of increasing weight to suit the strength of the user. The lead cutter was so named because in demonstrations it was used to cut a lead bar in half. Wilkinson included a mould for the lead bar with each purchase of their swords".Unquote.
Peter Hudson.

The web provides us with a considerable load of facts on Royal Navy weapons...I hesitate to use the term Cutlasses ...because that term never really caught on until very lately.
Anyway here is the website which I am pleased to see does mention The Cutlass... ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_cutlasses I was surprised to see that these weapons werent issued to Royal Marines who were issued with those incredibly long bayonets ...

I am by chance just refurbishing my Royal Marines artefacts and today I picked up a good Scabbard and sword knot...and I have located a Wilkinson Sword that will fit with the plan. Reading the exploits of Mad Jack Churchill I noted that not only did he use a longbow but during the Normandy landings was armed with a Royal Marines Officers Sword.
Peter Hudson.

I hesitate to use the term Cutlasses ...because that term never really caught on until very lately.
During this period the term 'cutlass' was absolutely the description used.

I was surprised to see that these weapons werent issued to Royal Marines who were issued with those incredibly long bayonets ...

That web based article is misleading and neglects to explain that the P/1859 Cutlass was fitted to the P/1858 Naval Short Rifle, it was not for the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, as that article claims, nor does it even fit to that arm. In the late 1850s the Royal Marines were armed with the Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket and transitioning to the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, both arms had 39-inch-long barrels which employed a regular socket bayonet with a 17-inch blade (ref: British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s) followed by the Snider with the same bayonet. I am confused by your description of 'incredibly long bayonets'..... the RMLI did not have a longer bayonet than that issued to regular infantry.

I would recommend applying caution when relying upon web-based articles as so often, but not always, there are, at best misleading and at worst erroneous, 'facts' contained within, making it difficult therefore to discern fact from fiction.

Thank you for pointing out the apparently small confusion set among a very large and muddled history of the so called Cutlass conundrum... Most bits of information are indeed shrouded in partial uncertainty but that is why Wiki puts in brackets at intervals the word (edit). The article in my view is excused for slight variations in details though for purposes of computer driven information gathering...which is also what we do on Forum...its not at all bad...and it is self righting to some extent because it is being updated all the time. It is not like a book for example which once something is placed in writing it cannot be corrected unless the entire book is rewritten, thus, which is the better of the data retrieval systems? Wiki or the book??....On bayonet length even the shorter Martini Henry Bayonet was more than 25 inches long...which to me suggests an enormous blade...Anyway I was surprised that Royal Marines on board were not given the Naval Swords...or Cutlasses but that is part of the confusion with that period in time.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.